Comcast’s (News - Alert) Fancast Internet video portal recently augmented its streaming video offering with video downloads as well. Comcast also recently announced download limits of 250 gigabytes a month for its cable modem users. The size of the cap is not the issue: perhaps one percent of Comcast users even get close to that amount of usage in a single month. Most observers say the typical user consumes two to three gigabytes a month.

 

And though matters will change over time, the cap is not going to be noticed by most users. The issue is the relationship between the two announcements: capping usage — albeit at a high level — and expanded video download services.

 

To be sure, Comcast is betting that the trend to more downloaded and streamed video, consumed on demand, is a trend it must be part of. Participating means more demand for bandwidth and quality-assured bandwidth. So, to some extent, the two actions run at cross purposes. One measure attempts to control usage, the other to spur it.

 

But there is a difference: capping bandwidth limits potential cost; enabling downloads increases revenue while adding potential cost.

 

In fact, the bandwidth cap, set at such a high level, might be part of a reframing exercise. Frames are cognitive shortcuts that people use to help make sense of complex information. In other words, frames create a context that people use to interpret new data and facts, in relation to the frame. Frames create perceptual context.

 

"Let's look at it a different way" is an example of a reframing exercise. Framing is what helps users determine whether a "glass is half full or half empty." Change the frame and the associated perceptions also are seen in a new way.

 

It's another way of saying the "different behavior must be preceded by different ways of thinking."

 

The historian of science Thomas Kuhn says scientific theory doesn't change because of newly introduced evidence, but rather because a small group of scientists "sees" the existing data in different ways, and construct new theories to explain things.

 

Comcast's caps can be seen as a first step in reframing the way users think about what they are buying when they buy broadband access. Aside from "how much does it cost?" the frame has been about "how fast does it run?" Comcast now is preparing people for a "how much do I use?" frame.

 

And there are some new packaging angles, once that starts to take effect. Maybe some consumed bits don't count against the "cap." Say, Fancast downloads, for example. That automatically creates a preference for Fancast, compared to any other provider able to supply the same content, even at the same price, terms and conditions. If one buys the Fancast version, the download doesn't count against the cap.

 

It is a creative way to create buyer preference without using formal price or quality differences. A user "benefits" by getting the download "free" when using Fancast, if Fancast downloads do not count against the cap. It's a bit like free calls to friends, family, or other users on the same mobile network. One gets the advantage of the communication, but doesn't consumer minutes of use from the bucket.

 

I'm not saying that "reframing" is necessarily what Comcast has in mind. But reframing a user expectation about what the "product" is is the first step to reframing thinking about "what the product should cost" and "what is the right price?"