Netflix Throttling Heavy Renters

dankinit writes "Netflix has begun using a 'fairness algorithm' that slows shipments of movies to heavy users to protect profits, according to an MSNBC article. Netflix revised its terms of use in January 2005 to read, 'In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service'. Since revising this policy last year, more and more users are realizing 'heavy renters are more likely to encounter shipping delays and less likely to immediately be sent their top choices' according to the article."

Comments

ironic

[User 956]

That's ironic.. because just today, they sent me this email:

Since you're former member of Netflix, we thought you'd like to know that Netflix now offers a greater selection of plans that start at just $9.99 a month. Come back and enjoy the improvements we've made, including our new Friends and Profiles features. With over 55,000 movies and delivery in about 1 business day, Netflix is better than ever.

I guess "screwing over people who watch a lot of movies" is one of their "improvements" that they've made.

Re:ironic

[Daniel Dvorkin]

All of what you say is true, but none of it has anything to do with the fact that by claiming their service is unlimited, Netflix is lying. Do you not understand that? If a company would go out of business by doing what it claims to do, then it shouldn't be making those claims; it's really that simple.

Your "welfare state" crack makes it pretty easy to guess your politics, so I'll add this: it's bizarre, but not at all surprising, that those who will defend just about any corporate atrocity in the name of "maximizing value for the shareholders" are the first to jump on customers and/or workers of those corporations when they try to maximize value for themselves. It's a two-way street, folks. If corporations are going to act like amoral predators, why shouldn't Average Joes act the same way in dealing with them?

Re:ironic

[pla]

The guy who's interviewed in the article says he used to recieve 22 movies a month and no longer does. Holy shit, don't these people have no life of any kind?

I watch VERY little TV, and can still EASILY watch up to twenty movies a month (even more in the winter) without lacking "a life"...

During spring through late fall, Saturday and Sundays I'll go out fairly early for a nice hike, usually come home 6-8 hours later. Make dinner, watch a movie or two. Two on Friday after work, two on Saturday, one on Sunday, that adds up to twenty without wasting my life away in front of the TV.



Thirdly, did they really expect 'unlimited' to mean unlimited?

If you buy a 32" TV only to take it home and find it has a 20" screen in an 8.5" bezel, would you feel just a little cheated there? (And although that may sounds extreme, TVs and monitors NEVER actually measure their advertised value for that exact reason, often falling up to a full inch smaller).

So yeah, it bothers me that Netflix translates "unlimited" as "as many as we want you to have". Their cheesy little mantra of "no reasonable person would really think they could get 8,000 movies a month" just doesn't cut it... NO ONE would have complained if they "only" received 45 movies per month, which would equal the 2-day turnaround imposed by the physical realities of sending it by mail. Even a mere 30 per month, at a 3-day turnaround, I doubt would have resulted in so much grumbling. But I haven't even hit 20 in over a year.



Fourth, do you think there's someone else offering a sweeter deal? Good luck trying to find it.

And that, my friend, describes the ONLY reason I still have a netflix subscription. Even throttled down to 12-15 per month, it still costs a quarter what renting from a physical Blockbuster does; and no one can beat Netflix for the size of their catalog.

That doesn't make me a happy customer, however, and eventually, some company WILL come along and offer the same thing without lying about what "unlimited" means. And when that happens, Netflix will learn how the local crack dealer feels when the Mexican mob moves in.

Re:subject

[Professor_UNIX]

Luckily, they're not the only game in town. Though I would probably feel dirty renting movies through them.

On the scale of evil companies, from 1 to 10, Netflix is a 2 and Blockbuster is an 11. Face it, they're just trying to slow down the DVD pirates and I don't see anything incredibly wrong with that. It does look damn suspicious for a guy to turn around 3-5 movies a day and honestly claim he's NOT pirating them and just shipping them back as soon as his DVD ripper is done grabbing the movie. I'm sure there's a small percentage of legitimate people out there that really do nothing else all day but watch movies from sun up to sun down and they don't have cable or satellite, but they're few and far between. If you look at more legitimate users they most likely see patterns like people holding onto DVDs for several weeks at a time until they find a chance to watch them whereas the DVD pirates are turning around 10-15 discs a week (or more).

So don't advertise "unlimited"

[Huntr]

FTFA:

Hastings said the company has no specified limit on rentals, but "`unlimited' doesn't mean you should expect to get 10,000 a month."

Well, der, no one wants 10k movies a month.

But, if Netflix had a point they didn't really want people going over, why not just advertise X movies per month, instead of unlimited? According to the articles, most people don't rent more than 11 per month. Set the limit higher than that, but at a point where they can make the profit they are aiming for with throttling.

They don't end up looking like buttholes if they are just honest about it up front.

horrible but expected

[globaljustin]

I really hate that this is happening, but it makes total sense. First, netfix has its customers by the balls. NF is guarateed that automatically billed monthly fee. They are counting on people being ignorant to new, abusive policies like this one that penalizes people for using the service they pay for.

Before I get any further, let me address your defense of NF:

It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you could *not* leave

first of all, shame on you for defending such abusive business practices. second, this is only ethical if NF sent out a notice saything something to the effect of:

we are changing our policy regarding rentals. we have designed a computer program to identify people who rent excessively (more than x number of rentals a month) and those excessive renters will have their movies shipped later, and be put lower in the que for new releases

Anything less than the above admission from NF in PLAIN LANGUAGE is abuse of their understanding with their clients, and no ammount of counterpoint/cabal.bs can change that fact.

another thing, from TFA:

After collecting consumer opinions about the Web's 40 largest retailers last year, Ann Arbor, Mich., research firm ForeSeeResults rated Netflix as "the cream of the crop in customer satisfaction."

so this is what passes as collecting customer feedback??? this 'foreseeresults' company is probably full of shit...just like most of the people in their profession...an evil, self-sustaining virus of a profession that only circulates bullshit and misperception.

Re:horrible but expected

[paeanblack]

I really hate that this is happening, but it makes total sense. First, netfix has its customers by the balls. NF is guarateed that automatically billed monthly fee. They are counting on people being ignorant to new, abusive policies like this one that penalizes people for using the service they pay for.

Give me a break...am I supposed to believe that the Netflix customer that gets 12 movies per week is some wide-eyed babe struggling to understand this brave new world of technology?

Bullshit.

The only reason the abusers have been copying movies faster than they can watch them is they knew the deal was too good to last. Otherwise, what would be the hurry?

The people getting throttled aren't "ignorant to new, abusive polices"; they have been scrutinizing the Netflix TOS and dreading this day's arrival. They know they got a good ride. Now the ride is over. Deal with it.

From TFA: just wanted 18 to 22 movies per month

[michaelmalak]

Since you obviously didn't read TFA, here is the relevant excerpt:

Netflix typically sends about 13 movies per month to Villanueva's home in Warren, Mich. -- down from the 18 to 22 DVDs he once received before the company's automated system identified him as a heavy renter and began delaying his shipments to protect its profits.

That comes to about 36 to 44 hours per month, which is just 26% to 32% of the 138 hours per month of television that the average adult in the U.S. watches.

Re:Bait

[loraksus]

A very good comparison.

My experience is with the Canadian internet access industry - and mirrors (and, I believe, will predict) the netflix situation quite well.

Shaw (who provides cable internet) once advertised "unlimited" service.
Once people started signing up, they realized that they weren't willing to actually offer unlimited service.
Then they put a statement about "excessive usage" in the AUP - it wasn't defined, of course, but people still got nasty letters and the mouthbreathers who man their "excessive use" line even threatened to charge people for "excessive usage". These "excessive usage" fines were, of course, pulled completely out of their ass. No documentation could be found regarding when the limit was reached, what the overage charges were, etc, etc, but people were still threatened with, and possibly even were charged those fines. An almost magical fee, but one that would appear on your bill and would have to be paid, or your service would be disconnected and your account sent to collections.
After several nasty letters from lawyers and possibly some lawsuits, Shaw finally decided to write down the bandwidth limit in their advertising, at almost the exact same time their competitors did the same. Sounds like a couple people had a meeting.

What you can clearly see is that not only was Shaw involved in false advertising, but it continued to engage in such criminal activity far after their illegal activities were exposed. Moreover, their actions clearly were to the detriment of the person buying the services. Furthermore, collusion - whether intentional or just the other company matching policies - between Shaw and its competitors has led to an continuously decreasing level of service for the end user and shaw has suffered virtually no consequences.

In the end, netflix will face virtually no consequences (and before anyone says anything about the settlement, please, don't waste your breath. Bumping your users to the next tier for a month - and not bumping them back down at the end - is undeniably a win win situation for netflix).
Furthermore, the shady - if not outright fraudulent - actions of netflix in stating the return date of dvds*, has gone, and will go unpunished. In the end, blockbuster (ok it has) and the completion will eventually adopt a similar tos - putting in writing what it is doing - and the situation will only get worse as time goes on. Furthermore, "advanced throttling" - such as sending the dvds on time, but from a service center across the country - will become commonplace, since once something is in writing, it will be used.

And finally - and perhaps most importantly - "unlimited" will still be used in their advertising until a regulatory agency or a number of lawsuits convince them to change it - both Blockbuster and Netflix currently do on their websites - even though their ToS states that they throttle. And have no doubt, once one company changes it, the other will change their advertising within a month.

*If you're being throttled, if you send back 3 dvds - even 3 dvds in the same envelope - netflix will receive 2 a couple minutes apart and then "receive" the last one several hours later. Try it out ;)

Re:Not an improvement but biz as usual.

[dnoyeb]

I think its rather stupid on Netflix part. Those passionate users are likely passionate advocates as well. This is what happens when bean-counters run the ship.

Re:I was a subscriber, happened to me...

[dema]

Holy shit mods!

THIS IS NOT INSIGHTFUL!

I'd get 3 DVD's in the mail, I'd rip them to my HD for encoding and backup (to watch later), and send them out the next day. The day after I sent them Netflix would confirm that they had them and send out the next ones

YOU are exacly why Netflix is inclined to put something like this in place. You are not "backing up" these as you don't own them. Seriously mods, what are you thinking moding this insighful? I would vote with my points, but they won't matter with the sea of idoits who seem to get them.

Re:It's my fault

[paeanblack]

Copying Netflix movies is like bringing a doggie bag to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Suing them for throttling is like complaining when the waitress won't clear your plates every two minutes.

In advertising, "unlimited" is still used within the context of reasonable behavior. If copying a Netflix movie were "reasonable", you would not need to ship the discs back, since they could make a new copy themselves for less than the cost of the return postage and let you keep the old one instead of bothering with DVDShrink.

Re:I was a subscriber, happened to me...

[Solder Fumes]

Agreed...can we hear from a subscriber that DOESN'T copy the DVDs and still got throttled? The firsthand accounts I've seen in this thread so far involve copying.

Re:Not an improvement but biz as usual.

[lubricated]

>> drained of any profits by freeloaders

yeah, those damn freeloader, actually expecting to get what they paid for. Who do they think they are.

Re:It's my fault

[iphayd]

"Suing them for throttling is like complaining when the waitress won't clear your plates every two minutes."

No, its more like complaining that you can't get a new plate until 5 minutes after you've finished with the food on the previous plate.

The advertisement states "Unlimited," which should translate into "Everything we can do to make sure that you have three movies checked out to you at any one time." Having secret or public delays is not right, because that is the antithesis of "Unlimited." In otherwords, NetFlix is lying when they say "Unlimited."

The whole idea behind "three movies" was that it takes roughly three days for the old movie to get to Netflix and the new movie to get to you. You should be able to get 28-31 movies/month if you watch a movie a day. However, if you are watching that many movies, I suggest you do something else.

As for those jackasses that are ripping the movies. Why? 1) what you are doing is illegal, not just on DMCA standpoint, but also because you don't even own the media. You are renting the movie. Renting voids any right for time-shifting, media shifting, backup, or any of the other excuses you think you have. 2) If you want the movie that bad, either buy it or put it back in the Queue for when you want to watch it again. There are very few movies I have an interest in buying anymore. I just add them to my queue. If they are good enough to watch again, I return them and add them back into the end of my Queue. When they come up again, I decide if that is what I want to watch. If not, I move it back again.

Re:It's my fault

[msobkow]

Not to defend outright piracy, but I know many people (sometimes myself as well) who rent and return movies within 24 hours. It only takes a couple hours to watch a movie, and it beats the heck out of TV tripe most of the time. Some of them will watch a couple movies a night.

So for them, this "heavy usage pattern" is perfectly normal and not a sign of piracy. Having their shipments "throttled" means they aren't getting the full use of the service they signed up for. It's up to the service provider to adjust capacity and/or pricing tiers to deal with the load, not choke off paid subscriptions that actually use the service as advertised.

Re:Not an improvement but biz as usual.

[porcupine8]

actually expecting to get what they paid for

Judging from several comments here, it sounds like some people are expecting to get a lot MORE than what they paid for - they're expecting to get permanent copies of as many DVDs as they want, by getting the DVD, copying it, and sending it back the next day. I would call that "freeloading," as well as "illegal" and "ruining it for the rest of us."

I realize that some people are legitimately renting lots and lots of movies, but I have a feeling that if you took away all the "copiers", the problem wouldn't be so big that Netflix would have to stoop to massive throttling. Yes, they handled it in a dishonest manner, but just the fact that they're doing it isn't at all surprising if so many people are abusing the service.

Re:It's my fault

[NeoSkandranon]

Some people have a fetish for cataloging data it seems. I know people who rip movies even though they have no intention of ever watching them again, it's just a point of penis envy competition to point out they have that many binders of ripped DVDs

Re:It's my fault

[vp_development]

There is a perception that there is no legitimate reason for violating the DMCA, and that people who are doing this are selfish. Think what you want, but I have an anonymous friend who spends uncompensated hours a week ACTIVELY opposing copyright law by breaking it. He's not doing it for shits and giggles. He's doing it because he thinks copyright is morally wrong. I'm gonna throw some Thoreau at you:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?...

As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

There are certainly people who are ripping music/movies/software for kicks, their own usage, or to share with friends/family -- but they are not part of my scene. I'm doing it because I do not support the idea of intellectual property. Period. Call me an extremist if you will, I think my ideas are less radical than most of the people demonstrating in the media for this that and the other.

I think that anything man can think of he should share with his fellow man. I should get paid for my service, and my labor, but I completely disapprove of people OWNING ideas. Millions die each year because of patents on medicine. Millions live in poverty because of their lack of access (no pun intended) to productivity enhancing machinery and software. I don't know that anyone dies because they can't hear the latest Kanye West song, but I object tot he fact that the industry deliberately surpresses musicians whose ideas are not "commercial" enough. I'm convinced that powerful media companies war against media they do not/cannot own, and this affects us because we are limited in our choices to whom the powerful media companies are willing to present to us.

And they do this because of the money involved. Only by making their products equally (in)valuable to the products that I want access too, can I be assured of access to everything. I think the system is broken, and the only way it can be repaired is to demonstrate to everyone how actually broken it is. I am doing what I can to bring down the system.

Call me a jackass all you want -- I think of myself as a citizen. This is my civil disobedience. There are others like me, and considering the damage one person can do to copyrights, with our infantile technology now -- imagine how much damage we can do to copyright in 20 years, with 100 recruits. P2P now is about gaining those recruits, but eventually, we WILL crush copyright.

We're here, we share. get used to it.