ChrisG

oddly enough - bail for internet pirating is set at $16.01

@Ryujin
THanks for some others providing common sense for this guy Ryujin. Some people don't realize it would take about half a month of constantly streaming HD video to put a dent in that cap. The cap is in place for people who HOG bandwidth by constantly pirating content. There's a reason it's in place, and generally helps out others on your block, who are impacted by people who illegally pirate and nonstop download content. Wake up people.

@gallery69
You're doing something schway wrong. TONS of HBO, Cinemax, etc. - premium content available. Full ep's. Hardly any trailers. Figure yourself out.

You do realize that it would take days upon days of constantly streaming HD video to even put a dent in that cap, right?

Are you people serious complaining about that? It's to keep people in check who ruin your internet experience (speed) by going crazy with BitTorrent and pirated downloads.

The cap is a complete non-factor if you're a normal human being.

VOD is an asset (no pun intended), and it's actually Verizon who has the little tinker titles. They also rotate or carousel their content more often which allows them to make the more titles per "MONTH" claim. Comcast has way more watchable content.

For those who claim Boku, Hulu, blah-blah-blah has their VOD - two questions - a) does it display on your large Hi-def TV? (if not, sorry for you). b) can you get premium content/movies from those sites (I already know the answer, and am therefore sorry for you).

Don't discount VOD, folks. It will only become more important going forward, and Verizon is currently lagging behind Comcast.

As for linear vs. VOD talk -- personally, I don't watch 100 HD channels, let alone 100 channels in general. I think it's wise to stray away from the whole 100 HD's and go for more content available when you want to watch it. If you go to a Comcast market with 40 - 50 HD's, I think you'll find that you have all of your major channels / network providers covered, and it's quite sufficient.

Let the trolling rebuttals ensue...

It's quite an interesting move to go with Recon branded as part of Halo 3 and delivered via the separate disc -- why this decision if the game focuses around a different group of characters, and a different set of objectives from a gameplay standpoint? Why not brand this experience as Halo 4?

Sorry to say it, but that is an asinine statement. The global economy thrives off of competition. The market competition has never been so even (if you only consider the nex-gen consoles - Wii, 360, and PS3). Ultimately, it boils down to what consumers want, and they don't want one unified console. Consumers want choice. Developers have no choice but to accommodate and make do-- as they have for decades.

The Gravemind from Little Shop of Horrors.

Definitely one of those big Flood guys

The lead character is not Alex Traebek... or even Alex Traebek circa 1950's... who would play such a game? (suck it Traebek!)