Mail Service Costs Netflix 20x More Than Streaming

Jake writes "Netflix currently pays up to $1 per DVD mailed round trip, and the company mails about 2 million DVDs per day. By comparison, the company pays 5 cents to stream the same movie. In other words, the company pays 20 times more in postage per movie than it does in bandwidth. Doing some simple math, Netflix is spending some $700 million per year in physical disk postage. Rising content prices are offset by declining postage fees for the company, as more and more users choose the streaming-only option. Furthermore, subscriber revenues will continue to increase as Netflix increases the size of its streaming library."

Comments

Thats why

[bchickens]

they raised my plan! Arg! Damn them and there streaming media that has nowhere near enough titles!

Re:Thats why

[kellyb9]

they raised my plan! Arg! Damn them and there streaming media that has nowhere near enough titles!

If all you use is the streaming service, they lowered your plan :-D.

Re:Thats why

[Zantetsuken]

What I'm hoping is that once they fully drop mail order DVD's (they've already said they will), Netflix will have the extra cash to purchase more titles for instant streaming and at a faster rate.

As a side note - it may be the PS3 not being powerful enough for the Netflix streaming app, the app itself sucks, or something else - but it gets worse about updating what you have in your queue (say if you finish a show and remove it) when you have over a 100 shows in the instant queue (I've got about 140 right now).

Re:Thats why

[whizbang77045]

Streaming isn't available to some of us. If Netflix drops the mail service, about all we can do is drop Netflix.

I really wonder if there is enough bandwidth to support all the streaming services proposed. I'm forced to think that the limitations on the amount of downloads to some subscribers may be a taste of the future. Streaming video such as that Netflix is trying to use may be dead on arrival. Repeat, may. I'm only speculating.

Re:Thats why

[Idbar]

there [sic] streaming media that has nowhere near enough titles!

The streaming doesn't have enough titles, and they expire with time. I have a couple movies on my instant queue claiming I won't be able to watch by the end of the month.

Re:Thats why

[eyrieowl]

Dunno, but I doubt it's the power of the PS3. We have a queue currently of 149 items, and we only watch on the Wii...not exactly ahigh powered computing device...and it's been very responsive. There were about 2 weeks after Christmas where it was EXTREMELY slow to pull down the queue and other categories, and the connection was dropping regularly, but it's picked back up and seems to be perfectly fine lately.

Re:Thats why

[AvitarX]

Well, hypothetically, if cable can convince FCC to allow switched service or whatever they call it (essentially one channel to your house, every chanel change alters what it displays), Netflix could become a cable subscription.

There are some issues (like cable killing personal DVRs in the process) that are preventing it, but it would actually free bandwidth for other uses, as each subscriber only require one HD channel of bandwidth per a TV for television, and when it's not on, it won't even be using that.

20mbps for each active user, netflix pipes through that too.

Of course I doubt they will all get along, just pointing out there is potential for this to work. Especially if Netflix becomes a selling point for cable (I certainly like it more than on demand, and wouldn't mind it not going over my network).

Re:Thats why

[DarKnyht]

Some of that is related to their agreement with Starz to get access to Starz On-Demand. These titles expire when Starz On-Demand removes them.

Re:Thats why

[cayenne8]

"The streaming doesn't have enough titles, and they expire with time. I have a couple movies on my instant queue claiming I won't be able to watch by the end of the month."

Not to mention, I can't make a "backup copy" for them to keep safely in the same quality as I can with a DVD.

Lord knows...if they ever have a fire at some of their nodes, they'll be thankful we all make backup copies for them!!

:)

Re:Thats why

[krull]

A certain subset of people, myself included, would drop Netflix if they eliminated dvds / blu-ray. They may not see a revenue increase in response to such a move (at least, not in the short term).

Re:Thats why

[camperslo]

If Comcast has it's way, NetFlix may be losing NBC/Universal titles. Many thought the NBC/Comcast deal was evil, looks like they may have been right.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/sen-al-franken-no-joke-comcast-trying-to-whack-netflix.ars

Re:Thats why

[rsun]

Switched video is already being used by the cable companies (well, Time Warner in any event). They've kind-of solved the killing non-cable company dvr's issue with a switched video adapter, which is basically nothing more than a stripped down cable box, and they'd like to kill that with 2 way cable cards. Switched video is really just an extension of the pay per view/on demand stuff, extending it to traditional channels.

Re:Thats why

[PopeRatzo]

What I'm hoping is that once they fully drop mail order DVD's

The big story is not that it costs Netflix 20x more to deliver a DVD than to stream movies, but rather that even with that enormous disparity, the difference in price between the "DVD delivery" accounts and the "stream-only" accounts is so tiny, in view of the huge cost disparity.

If it costs 20x more to deliver a DVD than streaming, then you'd think that stream-only accounts should be similarly less expensive.

Re:Thats why

[PopeRatzo]

I'm trying to wrap my head around a queue of 149 videos.

I can rarely think farther ahead than breakfast tomorrow.

Re:Thats why

[PopeRatzo]

If Comcast has it's way, NetFlix may be losing NBC/Universal titles.

If Comcast has its way, the Internet will be pay-television.

Re:Thats why

[eyrieowl]

:) It's actually mostly kids shows and nature documentaries--we use it as combo bookmarks for things we would be okay showing our daughter/things we want to see. There is the search interface now (didn't used to be, at least on Wii), but it's often still handy to just see something that might be good to watch sometime and pop it in the queue. Queue, in our case, is a bad name...the only ordering is roughly date added to queue.

Re:Thats why

[BLKMGK]

They drop physical media, I drop Netflix and rely more on RedBox. I LIKE 1080P video, full 7.1 surround sound, and all of the other goodness I get from the physical media. I'm sorry it costs them more but this is what their business was founded on and while they make MORE profit from streaming they still make profit on me too. I even try to help them out by sending back disks in pairs to cut down on costs. They need to remember their core business...

Re:Thats why

[PopeRatzo]

It's actually mostly kids shows

If you've got kids, you don't have to go any further.

I understand completely. There was no Netflix when my daughter was little, but if there had been, the video queue would have been my best friend.

Even at 20, she can still recite entire sections of dialogue from The Little Mermaid.

Re:Thats why

[Seumas]

Agreed. I don't use physical DVDs, because when I want to watch something, I want to watch it. I don't want to wait three days for the whole process. And pack it back up and stick it in the mail and so on. I want to see it, click on it, and watch it.

Unfortunately, the streaming selection is atrocious. They claim something like 17,000 films and as best I can tell, they must count every single episode of every television show they have as part of that 17,000, too. Anything relatively new or interesting is available by DVD only and their television selection is pretty sparse. Well, their selection of everything is sparse.

And, it's constantly shifting. I frequently find myself having to hurry up and watch things, because they suddenly say they're going to expire in a few days.

They need to spend the money to sign these contracts so they can boost their selection. Otherwise, they'll quickly run out of content worth watching and people like me will cancel. On the other hand, if they increase their selection to 100,000+ and constantly growing, I'd gladly pay double the current subscription fee. (It'd also be nice if they got the actual original films and got rid of all this poor quality, often edited, shitty Starz excuse for actual content).

It's the same problem I had with the Kindle. The first year it came out, I was seriously considering buying one. I started searching for things I'd want to read. A number of fantasy novels. Lots of sci-fi. They had a poor selection of Heinlein, Asimov, etc. Why would I want to read two books of a series on Kindle, but not the rest? Needless to say, it was enough to keep me from buying one and even today, I haven't bothered to do so.

Seriously, they need to stop with the "facebook apps" bullshit and all the goofy "ways to make watching and reviewing netflix content a social experience" and just BUILD UP YOUR CATALOG. No catalog, no subscription.

Re:Thats why

[Seumas]

Yeah, that's another big part of the problem with netflix streaming. A HUGE amount of their content is from Starz, which is often poor quality and sometimes edited. I'm really disappointed when I pick out a stack of movies and then I see "STARZ" when I start to play them.

Re:Thats why

[camperslo]

There are a couple of different types of digital tv delivery on cable. None of them actually get a whole tv channels' bandwidth the way analog tv did. Regular network and station shows don't require additional bandwidth as more people watch. They're not using separate stream or frequencies for each viewer. They do have control over the bandwidth (in the bitrate sense) that each program gets, with HD needing more. Less viewed channels may be delivered at a lower quality level (lower bitrate = higher compression) to make more available for other things. Because there are so many channels, the quality level is significantly worse than the quality transmitted over the air by digital stations. Even with more efficient MPEG4 or h.264 compression, quality is lower than over the air (MPEG2) due to the bitrates. Also, they often don't carry all of the programs that a station has on a broadcast transmitter (for example check and see what your local public or PBS stations broadcast by looking at the station websites, then compare guide listings for cable)
Those shopping channels aren't taking "free" space/channels, their eating precious bandwidth everything else.

Some bandwidth is used for on-demand and internet services. Those things DO take bandwidth for each user and as a result the traffic for those isn't system wide. The system is essentially divided up into fiber-fed subnets with the number of coax-connected people in each limited based on available bandwidth. If you experience localized slowdowns they've oversold the capacity of those local nodes.

So if you're thinking you save bandwidth when you're watching normal or subscription cable channels, you don't. It's only your net use (including streamed video from any net source, and those paid on-demand (starts when YOU want it, not pay per view fights etc) programs that take additional system bandwidth beyond their standard tv services.

Consumer protests sometime do result in changes in regulation. But there's a downside to that. Now cities can do little to force better service since it's federally regulated. Also, the "fairer" system for rates that the feds came up with is based on channel count. Those junk shopping channels count. The cable operators get kickbacks based on sales. Most operators all insert and sell advertising. That hurts revenue of local radio and tv stations, in some cases degrading the service those provide. They face much higher costs. Consumer should demand that the FCC not allow cable operators to charge for channels that they get ad or kickback revenue to carry.

Cable has harmed broadcast in other ways. In some smaller markets where more people use cable due to fewer local available signals (at least in the past), many stations skimped on the digital tv conversion. Some opted for lower power transmitters hurting coverage. Some also didn't put digital back on the original analog channel at the end of the transition (which required moving and perhaps new equipment TWICE). As a result a number of small market stations gave up VHF channels and ended up on UHF. In some of those cases, particularly where terrain is rough, many viewer lost reception entirely). Some could theoretically get it with high gain outdoor antennas and preamps but there are a number of regions where even that doesn't work. I've seen stations that only identify by their cab;e channel number, as if no one was watching the actual transmitter. It's a shame, because with digital tv service a small number of stations could actually carry a number of programs.

NetFlix is competing with cable for revenue. Except for some channels with a per-subscriber license fee, your not using or even not subscribing to any already on for others television services doesn't measurably reduce any bandwidth costs or ease bandwidth limitiations they face. Using their net services or using them more raises their costs (but not nearly as much as what you pay them).

Re:Thats why

[mattack2]

I'm trying to wrap my head around a queue of 149 videos.

Heh. I think the 500 item limit is WAY too constraining. I have two profiles on netflix, just for me. One is mostly movies, one is mostly TV shows (if I cleaned up the lists, I would make it much closer to exclusively that separation). Part of the problem is that each DVD in a multi-DVD set counts as one entry.

But I also put any movie that I thought might-at-some-point-be-interesting in my queue. (I realize I won't ever watch the majority of it.) So now I have to go nuke things to add new things to the list. Though there have been times when I went though the list and moved a movie I had added years earlier to the top of the list.

Re:Thats why

[AvitarX]

The thing is, if they used switched video, every TV that is on gets exactly 1 channel of the quality they allow.

In this paradigm the unwatched "broadcast" channel is what wastes bandwidth, as it is being used whether watched or not.

I'm not trying to sing the praises of cable, simply pointing out, if Comcast (or whoever) is already using a switched network for the TV, the Netflix could be free for them. It would be no different than other on demand content. I'm willing to bet both Comcast and Netflix could win in this proposal, as people could get Netflix without a set-top box, and Comcast could get subscribers to a premium channel. I'm pretty sure there are already some purely on demand packages they offer even.

Currently when i watch an on demand show, Comcast is using my fraction of the broadcast stations bandwidth, and the on demand show.

My understanding is that Comcast wants to be able to have all of my TV come that way, as essentially a single HD channel that serves my personal stream, and perhaps multicast TV to everyone on the same channel, but not need to have each channel using it's piece of the bandwidth when people are not watching it.

Unless your saying that at every given moment every station that is "broadcast" is being watched within my cable block, it is more efficient to not be sending them when they are unwatched.

A system scaled with this in mind (every TV gets it's own stream essentially) allows for unlimited HD channel offerings (which is why Comcast wanted to to be able to do this, they were having trouble keeping up with dish).

Re:Thats why

[iamhassi]

"subscriber revenues will continue to increase as Netflix increases the size of its streaming library."

Yep that's where I'm at. I don't have TV cable service, every thing is streamed, but I don't have Netflix because their streaming catalog is very poor, something like 10% of their DVD catalog.

So I don't use Netflix at all. One day they'll stream more movies (or all movies? Seriously why not stream all movies ever made?) but until then I'm not signing up.

Re:Thats why

[N1AK]

You're not the centre of the universe. Either that's news to you, or you know that Netflix doesn't have to please everyone to do perfectly well ;)

I doubt they'll drop the postal model anytime soon. You are correct when you say they still make money off you. If they need to increase the cost of the postal package in order to keep doing so, and perhaps encourage the change to streaming then I would expect that would make more sense than stopping entirely.

Re:Thats why

[AmiMoJo]

So what you need is a box that can download a movie overnight when there is more spare bandwidth. A low power bittorrent machine works really well, e.g. a router with built in BT client or an Atom based PC. They could even do something similar to Steam where they send the data out in encrypted form over a few weeks and then release the key on the launch date.

Re:Thats why

[camperslo]

The thing is, if they used switched video, every TV that is on gets exactly 1 channel of the quality they allow.

They're sending a radio frequency signal modulated with what amounts to an MPEG transport stream. It's not TCP/IP. There's no retransmission of corrupt packets etc. The only way they could free up bandwidth within that stream is by not carrying a channel at all TO ANYBODY. So not using on-demand frees capacity, not watching Biggest Loser etc. doesn't.

Trying to give every TV or subscriber it's own stream would require far MORE resources. That's basically why cellular networks have some much trouble with handling users using video. Even just doing video chat chat which is far from continuous uses enough capacity that it's still not on AT&T. And while some systems may give fast peak or burst speeds, the actual amount of data they generally let people transfer is less in a month than most low-end broadband plans give DSL/cable net users in a day.
(so multiply that data plan cost by 30 when comparing)

Just as with wireless, a cable system has to go to many more nodes (close to smaller number of users sites) to handle delivering substantial amounts of content to each. Much of what's gone on is a slight of hand, where the systems in place couldn't handle anywhere near the traffic that would be generated if everyone actually used what they're paying for at once.

Cable systems can scale better than wireless, since they could eventually go to the point of fiber to the home (or small cluster of homes). Fiber has far more capacity than the frequency range that can be handled by coaxial cable. Over the air wireless has far less capacity yet since much of the frequency spectrum is used for other services, the only way to reuse a given slice of spectrum among many simultaneous users is to break the coverage area of sites into smaller and smaller regions. With longer-distance coverage, users on the same frequency would tend to interfere with each other. The use of the spectrum can be in short bursts, but for things like live HD video and VoIP, very limited amounts of delay or throughput fluctuation are tolerated well.

Satellite television has high channel capacity because of the large bandwidth available at microwave frequencies (well about what's practical with coax cable), the use of high compression ratios, and some reuse of spectrum (directional antennas able to select specific satellites). There is still no way for satellites to radiate signals to only small clusters of users, so they have very limited capacity for unique content (like net access or on-demand video). Basically the signals for any unique content reach many people, they're just blocked from decoding them. Of course there are tricks that could be used to give the illusion of more capacity. If for instance the pool of available on-demand movies was small, they could actually be repeated and cached PVR-style at the user end, giving access only when requested/authorized. As with users of wireless systems, if requests could be made in advance, then transmitted overnight or during lulls in activity, more users could be handled. It's a bit like running the washing machine at off peak hours to avoid problems with reaching peak generating capacity.

If cable rates are based on so many channels, you should have access to all of those at once. If you're limited to one, or one per box you pay for, you should only pay for one. If we paying for a bunch of channels we should be able to capture whatever we wish for watching whenever we want on whatever we own. (That does not go as far as sharing with others outside the residence being served) Cable companies don't want customers to have the same freedom they had with analog service and VCRs, they want to charge you to see anything twice, or on several devices.

People should be encouraged to make maximum use of over the air digital tv (including the excellent cheap devices to make PCs PVRs like the Elgato systems ATSC / C

Re:Thats why

[Firehed]

What, if anything, do you use as an alternative? Hulu (Plus)? Torrents? Youtube? Slashdot? I don't use Netflix either, but it's more a matter of not having the time or attention span for movies than anything else.

Duh?

[fahrbot-bot]

Mail Service Costs Netflix 20x More Than Streaming

Umm... Is this news to anyone? Ok, perhaps the exact figure of 20x, but otherwise?

Re:Duh?

[MoonBuggy]

It's a surprising disparity, at least to me. If I'd made an offhand guess I would have probably estimated $0.15 in bandwidth or maybe $0.60 in postage - only a factor of four. Not something that'll keep me up at night, sure, but a moderately interesting little bit of information.

Seems like half decent "News for Nerds" in my opinion.

Re:Duh?

[h00manist]

Mail Service Costs Netflix 20x More Than Streaming

Umm... Is this news to anyone? Ok, perhaps the exact figure of 20x, but otherwise?

I'm sure there are many who still think DVD-over-net is expensive.

Re:Duh?

[Obfuscant]

I'm sure there are many who still think DVD-over-net is expensive.

Well, most of those people are probably including what they pay for THEIR connection in the total and not caring what Netflix pays for its connection.

If you pay $50/month for broadband and watch 50 movies/month, your effective cost per movie is $1 plus the cost of Netfix itself. When you are done watching the movie, you have nothing but happy memories.

If you use the by-mail version of Netflix, you pay nothing for postage and pay only the Netflix membership fee. Industrious users will wind up with not only a happy memory of the movie, but their own backup copy of it for later viewing.

I can tell you which way sounds like a better deal to me. I don't believe I could watch 50 movies per month, so my numbers would be more like ten, at most, or $5/movie. I would have to write off the cost of the Tb disk to keep all the video on, though. ...

Re:Duh?

[mitgib]

I would have to write off the cost of the Tb disk to keep all the video on, though. ...

~$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 680G 5.8G 640G 1% /
/dev/md0 44T 13T 32T 29% /mnt/sys

Or the very large arrays some make to backup their BluRay collection.

Re:Duh?

[SnarfQuest]

The post office is struggling financially, so what happens if most people start downloading movies instead of mailing them? The government will have to take it over, like they did with GM, and then do a similar deal as they did with the cars. Trade in your inefficient old mail for brand new mail, and the government will give you a rebate!

Re:Duh?

[azadrozny]

This is an interesting was of thinking about the real cost of Netflix, but this assumes that you purchased your broadband connection to do noting but watch movies. Personally I consider my broadband costs as separate, since I would pay for it anyway. Netflix probably reduces my overall household expenses since I no longer rent or buy many movies.

Re:Duh?

[lgw]

Why would anyone rip a copy of a DVD that's available for streaming? That's like backing up your porn colection - either way, you really don't need to: the internet already has that data.

Re:Duh?

[jtownatpunk.net]

It's not just postage. You have to figure in the cost of handling as well. Picking the product. Packing the product. Unpacking the product. Shelving the product. Goto 10.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That brings up another problem. I need my bandwidth for stuff other than movies and there is no way that I would waste it on downloading videos. Fortunately there are very few films that are actually worth watching, so I will never have use of a service like that, but for other people it could be annoying when they are trying to work and get lagged out by something so frivolous.

Re:Duh?

[MightyYar]

If I'd made an offhand guess I would have probably estimated $0.15 in bandwidth or maybe $0.60 in postage

Your number is probably better. The streamed content is nowhere near the size of the data on a DVD. If they were streaming the entire DVD it would cost much more. To say nothing of BluRay! :)

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

The post office is only struggling financially because of government mismanagement and involvement. The reality is that people don't mail stuff much any more, and as a result, having reliable mail service 6 out of 7 days of the week is economically not viable. However, even though the USPS is not taxpayer-funded (it's self-funded), and run as a separate business, they still have to get permission from Congress to make any big changes for some stupid reason.

The USPS has proposed cutting regular service to 5 or 4 days of the week. Most people wouldn't care: do you REALLY need to get that junk mail 6 days a week? (This wouldn't affect Express service, of course.) However, stupid Congress won't let them do it.

Cutting delivery service on Wednesdays alone would save them a ton of money and probably put them back into the black. People who really want service all 6 days can go buy a PO Box.

At any rate, I think Netflix's move to online distribution is going to dry up pretty soon, and they'll be forced to go back to mail service, because the US-based ISPs are all going to require Netflix to pay huge fees to stream movies, or else have their service blocked. The FCC is complicit in media consolidation and is opposed to network neutrality, so this is what we're going to see in the US very soon. The ISPs (esp. cable companies) have their own (shitty) movies-on-demand services, and they don't like the competition from Netflix.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

A backup copy? Of a movie you are renting? "industrious" I guess is another name for copyright infringement.

Re:Duh?

[zach_the_lizard]

They are, essentially, a government sponsored operation. There are laws governing its operation, the Postmaster General is appointed by the President, and it enjoys a governmental monopoly on letter mail, except under very special circumstances (and under those circumstances, their competitors are required to pay more than the USPS charges for those letters). IIRC it's a crime to put something in a mailbox if you're not the USPS; that's why you see newspapers putting up their own mailboxes, or mailboxes with a space for a newspaper.

What we need: a) USPS becomes independent of Congress b)USPS gets competitors

Re:Duh?

[NFN_NLN]

Or the very large arrays some make to backup their BluRay collection.

Pfft. That's nothing compared to my Peta-byte storage array.

~$ df -h

Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 680G 5.8G 640G 1% /
/dev/md0 44P 13P 32P 29% /mnt/sys

Re:Duh?

[hedwards]

Not really, and the figure is likely to get worse. I don't think that they've changed their envelopes to meet USPS requirements. If the USPS starts charging them for having an irregular shape, that would make it even worse.

What we might see is increased selection and a greater interest in stocking it up when they add the streaming only plan.

Re:Duh?

[Belial6]

Because you cannot count on the streaming movies to always be there. Sometimes they disappear from the streaming service.

Re:Duh?

[Golddess]

The streamed content is nowhere near the size of the data on a DVD.

Maybe it's just the particular titles I browse, but I'm noticing that many streaming titles are available in HD. And while I have no actual numbers to back this up, I imagine an HD stream is closer to DVD size than your "nowhere near" would seem to suggest.

Re:Duh?

[thesandtiger]

If the USPS could be severed from congress without the requirement that they service any address in the US or they could have competitors but those competitors be required to service any address in the US, then your options could work.

Personally, I think mail delivery should be limited to 1 day per week to any non-PO box or any non-government facility address.

Re:Duh?

[index0]

Sounds like big news to me. For other products, such as ebooks and physical books, I keep hearing that they are the same price at retail for the consumer because the money saved by distributing over the internet is small.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the USPS just get rid of bulk rate?

Re:Duh?

[timeOday]

The streamed content is nowhere near the size of the data on a DVD. If they were streaming the entire DVD it would cost much more.

It's is claimed between 1.8 and 3 GB per movie. Quite a bit less than DVD bitrate, but it's not 350 MB/hr like a lot of torrents used to be, either.

Subjectively, I think the visual quality of HD netflix streams easily surpasses DVD, evidently due to more efficient encoding. (Maybe I'm just not watching enough visually-frenzied action movies).

Re:Duh?

[Golddess]

You could always try walking upstairs and asking your mother to ease up on the streaming ;)

Re:Duh?

[Curunir_wolf]

Sure. But then what about the "handling" for streaming? Cost and maintenance for the servers, the storage, the routers and network equipment. The software! All that is a lot more of a capital investment than a bunch of mailing envelopes...

Re:Duh?

[Golddess]

To watch it someplace that may not have a reliable connection?

Because you happen to like the bonuses that some DVDs contain that you can't get streaming?

Because you pay for your connection by the (mega/kilo)byte?

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to keep a local copy.

Re:Duh?

[StuartHankins]

QOS is your friend. Various SOHO products provide bandwidth-throttling too. And if you happen to have a Linux box handy...

Re:Duh?

[Rob Riggs]

Just pay Amazon to manage it all for you . No more capital expense. It's all back to operating expense.

Re:Duh?

[fahrbot-bot]

I keep hearing that they [ebooks vs. books] are the same price at retail for the consumer because the money saved by distributing over the internet is small.

Ya. I think that's called a "lie". :-)

Re:Duh?

[Yaddoshi]

My ISP is already starting to buckle under the strain - I get serious latency issues each night from 8pm - 11pm and this has been an ongoing issue for the past three weeks. They are a local-owned company that is operating on CenturyLink's lines, and claim the source of the problem an overloaded switch that needs to be replaced with something that can handle the demand.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's not sharing those copies with others, then what's the problem?

Re:Duh?

[FirstNoel]

But then that's amortized out over millions of subscribers. The envelopes take manual intervention. someone to open and dump the disk. hourly employee +benefits. Servers, on 24 hours a day, no bennies....in the long run the servers are the better investment.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not self-funded if they post a 2billion dollar loss each year.

Re:Duh?

[misexistentialist]

Because of the government's make-believe zero inflation, the post office has had to keep rates the same for 2 years while UPS and Fedex increased their rates by 10%. With 170 billion pieces of mail delivered, USPS can increase revenue by billions by raising rates by a couple of cents: its financial problems are greatly exaggerated.

Re:Duh?

[matt4077]

Yes, next they should drop that silly government-knows-better requirement of shipping to everyone, everywhere. All those rural farmers cost us far too much. To further increase profits, they should be allowed to discriminate the material you mail. I'm sure there's more money in NOT shipping the ACLU's mail than in shipping it, if you ask the right people. Then, finally, the market will be free and everyone should be better off.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

He who dies with the most porn wins?

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

Strangely enough, I have serious latency issues with Netflix too around those times, but only when I use my Blu-Ray player's built-in Netflix viewer. If I use one on a PC, I don't have that problem at all.

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

This is on Cox Cable in Phoenix, btw.

Re:Duh?

[metrometro]

Yeah, it turns out that the founders of the country had rather peculiar ideas about mail. They thought the easy and reliable access to periodicals (ie, information) was essential to the continuation of democracy in America. Their was a raging debate early on between the pragmatists, who felt that newspapers should get deeply discounted mailing rates, and the idealists, who argued that newspapers should be able to use the US mail service for free.

They also argued that mail service should go to everyone, not just urbanites, for much the same reasons. Those inconvenient postal rules are a legacy of this passionate advocacy for free information.

This is all mostly forgotten today, but I wish it wasn't. The illustrative points about the utility of free exchange of information in a democracy. The illustrative lessons for last-mile broadband and an open Internet are so obvious I don't have to mention them.

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

Simple: they'd fold. Even though it's cheap, the bulk-rate crap is where the USPS makes a lot of their sustaining revenue. It sucks, but by receiving junk mail (and hopefully throwing it straight into a paper recycling bin), you're keeping the USPS afloat so they can deliver other stuff cheaply and reliably to any address in America.

Yes, it'd be nice in the long term if they could find a way of getting rid of this dependency, and continuing to deliver real mail cheaply and reliably everywhere in the country and staying in the black, but for now it's necessary.

I think they should try to improve their services (and prices) for larger parcels. With the internet, people are buying more and more stuff online, and the USPS already has a delivery system in place. However, they also have competition from Fedex and UPS, but I find it interesting how USPS can deliver very lightweight and smaller parcels very cheaply ($5 and less), but they get really expensive as the weight goes up, whereas the other carriers basically have an $8-10 minimum, but as packages get heavier their prices become much better than USPS. Of course, the other carriers also charge you differently based on destination (or the distance of travel), whereas with USPS it's all flat-rate.

Re:Duh?

[mdarksbane]

If you ever want to hear a beautiful example of an employer and a union doing their best to screw each other over, listen to a post office employee for a while. Horribly management of the things they can change combined with union opposition to any change that could be more efficient (and therefore mean less workers).

The big question mark in reducing deliveries is whether it bumps the weekly workload for mailmen below 40 hours a week, at which point it becomes a very different kind of job.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your comment about the ISPs 100%.

Re:Duh?

[Target Practice]

Also, DVDs via mail take longer to get to your house.

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

I wouldn't say they're exaggerated, I'd say they're easily fixed, yet also nearly impossible to fix because of government interference. As you pointed out, a simple rate hike would probably fix things greatly, but also reducing service would do so. But the USPS can't just do these things as necessary, they have to get the morons in Congress to approve them, which is nearly impossible.

BTW, the USPS just raised rates on Jan 2, but only for higher grades of service (Priority and above)

Re:Duh?

[MightyYar]

I imagine an HD stream is closer to DVD size than your "nowhere near" would seem to suggest.

The analogue to an HD stream is BluRay, which holds up to 50GB (and at least 25GB).

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

No, delivering to everyone in the country is a sensible requirement, as set out when the USPS was first created long ago.

However, being required to do it 6/7 days is not. I don't think that was even required back then.

The problem is the Congress is too involved in minor details of how the USPS operates itself. It's supposed to be an autonomous, government-owned nonprofit company. It's not supposed to be micromanaged by politicians for political purposes (some of whom probably want to give it impossible requirements so that it will fail and then they can say that government shouldn't be involved in mail service). That's why it's having trouble.

Re:Duh?

[Duradin]

"Personally, I think mail delivery should be limited to 1 day per week to any non-PO box or any non-government facility address."

Invested heavily in UPS and Fedex?

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if they went down to 5 days a week service, that would have them working the same number of days as almost every other 40-hour worker in America, as long as they spend 8 hours doing it. You might need fewer workers, but it should be pretty easy to make sure they're all working 40+ hours.

Re:Duh?

[Locke2005]

I don't, but then, I use bittorrent.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been obvious for years. Distributing music and video on pieces of plastic is not economically viable.

Re:Duh?

[maxume]

There are probably routes where limiting delivery to 1 day a week would be more expensive than multiple day delivery. The idea should be to free up the post office to increase their operating efficiency, not to make up new arbitrary rules for them to follow.

Re:Duh?

[men0s]

And lose roughly 85% of their revenue? I don't think so.

Re:Duh?

[Duradin]

"However, being required to do it 6/7 days is not. I don't think that was even required back then."

If 6/7 days is too much for you did you know they used to deliver three or four times a day in some major cities?

Re:Duh?

[Obfuscant]

QOS is your friend. Various SOHO products provide bandwidth-throttling too. And if you happen to have a Linux box handy...

During the recent discussions on net neutrality I heard a network provider engineer comment that the first thing they do is strip the user-provided QOS data from every packet that comes in and reassign QOS based on required latency.

Re:Duh?

[Obfuscant]

To watch it on a portable device that has NO network connection at all.

To stop the 1984 Amazon debacle from happening.

Because you want to watch it again and have paid for it once already.

Because you don't want to be tied to your computer for the entire time the movie streams.

Because you like seeing the ads and using the captive menus.

Because you like supporting the post office.

Because you don't like supporting Comcast.

Re:Duh?

[Golddess]

Sorry, I didn't realize you meant just the SD streams and their DVD counterparts when you said "The streamed content is nowhere near the size of the data on a DVD". Thought you meant all streaming content and just used DVD to mean the amount of data that a DVD is capable of holding.

Re:Duh?

[wagnerrp]

Netflix HD is 720p or 1080p VC-1, running at a maximum bitrate of 6Mbps. While comparable in bitrate and better in quality than a DVD, it's still lesser quality than broadcast HD MPEG2 (from a station with good encoders), and far lesser than is available from Bluray.

Re:Duh?

[wagnerrp]

If you use the by-mail version of Netflix, you pay nothing for postage and pay only the Netflix membership fee. Industrious users will wind up with not only a happy memory of the movie, but their own backup copy of it for later viewing.

I think most people would call that theft.

Re:Duh?

[wagnerrp]

And when people sent everything through the mail system, that was supportable. That sort of rapid package service still available through small messenger services in the cities, but in order to make it a viable business, their prices are considerably higher than the Post Office ever charged.

Re:Duh?

[demonlapin]

That was a profitable business back then. Now we have fax machines serving the same purpose.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get modded 'insightful'?
There is no similarity between limiting the days you deliver mail and discriminating against certain groups of people.

Re:Duh?

[cayenne8]

"Why would anyone rip a copy of a DVD that's available for streaming? That's like backing up your porn colection - either way, you really don't need to: the internet already has that data."

For watching later at convenience...to watch a DVD in a car player. Also, to transcode them, and put on various iPods.

Better quality than a streamed viewing...just to name a few.

Re:Duh?

[PopeRatzo]

It's a surprising disparity

That's for sure.

By my estimation, if this disparity is true, then "streaming-only" Netflix accounts should cost about $1.25 per month, allowing for a hefty Netflix profit.

Re:Duh?

[PopeRatzo]

someone to open and dump the disk. hourly employee +benefits

"Benefits"? What country do you live in?

Here in the US, "job benefits" for most people means "you get to not have your ass booted onto the street". And even that's not a guarantee.

Re:Duh?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

A big part of the problem with the USPS is that lots of employees take extra hours routinely. These hours are paid at 1.5x for a while, then at 2x. Bringing down hour commitments to 40h per week would be a huge money saver at a relatively small cost of quality of service. At the same time, it would make the job less attractive to a lot of people who make a nice living delivering mail.

Re:Duh?

[demonlapin]

To be fair, remember that rural delivery was only to the nearest post office until just before the 20th century. Rural Free Delivery.

Re:Duh?

[Obfuscant]

I think most people would call that theft.

And yet "most people" think nothing of loaning (or borrowing) a CD to rip a copy of a song or two. In fact, the standard argument is that there is no way to prove that a sale was lost by such activity, and it serves to spread the knowledge of the author.

The only difference in what I wrote is that you aren't sharing the movie with other people who haven't seen it and might buy a copy, only with yourself, and you've seen it and are less likely to buy a copy.

Re:Duh?

[timeOday]

Blu-Ray's picture is probably great, but between the problems of having to pay extra, and wait for a physical disc, and not being able to copy it over to my iPod Video (for treadmill viewing), I've never actually watched one. The quality of streaming video has improved so rapidly in just the last few years - from animated GIFs to illicit VCD to youtube to Netflix HD - plus the massive upgrade from NTSC to broadcast HD - I'm thinking I'll just skip Blu Ray.

Re:Duh?

[sinclair44]

Netflix HD is 720p or 1080p VC-1, running at a maximum bitrate of 6Mbps.

Citation? Not that I don't believe you, but everywhere I've looked for details on Netflix streaming has been "we don't really quite know what codec/bitrate they're using".

Re:Duh?

[froggymana]

Do you only use your internet connection for netflix?

And, $50/month is a bit high for internet connection in my area... An "average" DSL connection is about $20/month here, and I'm in the USA!

Re:Duh?

[Obfuscant]

Invested heavily in UPS and Fedex?

He probably has a PO box or lives in a government-run loony hospital.

Or he's a postal employee who doesn't like having to live up to this "rain, snow, sleet, dark of night" standard.

Re:Duh?

[markdavis]

Because you don't like your movie suddenly changing video quality in the middle of watching it.

Because you would like to use the 1.2x or 1.5x speed play capability of your DVD player.

Because the cue and review of your DVD player is instant and easy and with streaming it is not.

Because you want true 5.1 or better digital audio.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

USPS employees get pretty good benefits, but thanks for trying to derail the discussion with your off-topic hyperbole. Your tireless efforts at making Slashdot a less intelligent place will not go unrecognized.

Re:Duh?

[StuartHankins]

Yes external QOS packets don't survive but internal packets serve the purpose in this case. If you have a device acting as a router, you can use ipchains / iptables to assign priority based on origin or destination IP for example.

Some devices, such as Allot's NetEnforcer, do this also in a friendly GUI by port (although the version I used did no stateful packet inspection). By using a Linux / BSD machine you have more options.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exabyte, on ZFS.

thumper-pool/n01_oradata1 1612P 112P 1500P 1% /n01/oradata1

Re:Duh?

[PopeRatzo]

Stop whining. I'm just doing my job.

Re:Duh?

[thesandtiger]

Six day per week mail service is not essential for 99% of people, I'll wager. If one routinely receives things that are so time sensitive that they can't wait for a weekly mail drop, then they can rent a PO box and get daily delivery. Delivery to government facilities on a daily basis makes sense because it's the government eating their own dogfood, as it were, and also because having regular access to mail for serving military personnel is a nice way to boost morale.

When discussing (as this thread was) the idea of finding ways to make postal service more efficient without gutting it completely, one big thing would be to reduce OVER service where possible. We are, currently, largely overserved by 6-day-per-week post.

Which is not to say I'm not loony. I certainly could be.

Re:Duh?

[Seumas]

Fixing and replacing damaged product. Replacing lost product. I believe I once read that a significant percent of their physical movies get lost in transit.

Re:Duh?

[Seumas]

Of course, they're saving on bandwidth by serving shitty stereo audio. Granted, they recently announced that they are doing 5.1, but I've yet to find any content that is actually provided (by Netflix) in anything other than stereo.

Re:Duh?

[lgw]

Well, timeshifting makes no kind of sense - stream it then. I get acceptable quality from streaming. Shifting to a mobile device - OK I can see that.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of those sentences are lies.

Re:Duh?

[geekoid]

The postal service in the US isn't really mismanaged at all, and country to what some dimwitted elected officials seems to think, it is exceptionally reliable.
Yes, people use general mail a lot less.
I think mail should only be delivers on Mon, Weds, and Fri.
Preferably on foot.

"he FCC is complicit in media consolidation and is opposed to network neutrality, so this is what we're going to see in the US very soon"

False, I suggest you read the Comcast/NBC agreement.

Re:Duh?

[geekoid]

I had totally forgotten about that.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the premise. The implementation is out of date obviously. Not many people relay on snail mail for staying informed.

But extending it to the spirit of the original idea; why doesn't the USPS do the 'last mile' broad band?

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

The postal service in the US isn't really mismanaged at all, and country to what some dimwitted elected officials seems to think, it is exceptionally reliable.

I agree completely. If it weren't for the interference from the politicians in Congress, the USPS wouldn't have a lot of problems. An autonomous, government-owned company can work well, but not when it's micromanaged by politicians with various agendas.

Re:Duh?

[Degro]

Need those jobs... My mail keeps the city recycling guys employed too. I rarely get any real mail, but every day I have to go to my box, take out a wad of trash and stuff it all in the recycling bins.

Re:Duh?

[mdarksbane]

Yeah. Right now mail service is a shitty job that pays decently well. While it probably makes more business sense to make it a mediocre job that pays poorly, that's not what anyone who is working there wants to hear.

Re:Duh?

[wagnerrp]

Just going off information found on wikipedia, fourth paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Internet_video_streaming

Re:Duh?

[evilviper]

Same reason people buy cars, rather than always renting .

Re:Duh?

[adolf]

I can vouch for the bandwidth part: I frequently see Netflix HD material consuming 6 megabits/second. Some films seem to be less, and the occasional non-HD footage is substantially less, but it's never been higher than that.

Re:Duh?

[FoolishOwl]

I'm curious if we could find a way to calculate the total costs of developing and maintaining the postal system versus developing and maintaining broadband Internet access, per unit of information transferred, and if we could calculate these costs in such a way as to measure the ecological effects.

I'm inclined to think that, in the long run, broadband communication will be both cheaper and better for the environment, but I'd like to see some testing of that hypothesis.

Re:Duh?

[Phoghat]

I've been a Netflix subscriber since the beginning and mainly used the mailing service because I didn't want to watch the movies on my PC. When the ROKU device came out I bought one to attach to my LCD so I could watch the streaming movies the way I liked. I used streaming more and more and I finally gave up the mailing service altogether for the streaming service only $7.95 plan (so I'm cheap sue me) Sure the movies for streaming haven't always included what I wanted to watch, but they have been improving on that with some movies that are more current. A lot of cult movies though are DVD only which I can't understand.

I wouldn't mind if Netflix doubled the streaming option price and made everything available and have often made that suggestion to them

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe a company like Apple or Google will purchase a company like Comcast and turn that company into an ISP only distribution mechanism for content. (effectively shutting down the traditional "broadcast" TV services.)

Re:Duh?

[garwain]

My local post office gave me a free P.O. box, and stores my mail there, and delivers once a week because I'm living off in the middle of nowhere. Prety much everyone in my area is set up that way. We still have rural delivery, but once a week, with the ability to get our mail ourselves if we are in a hurry for something. This works well, and saves the post office a LOT of money.

Re:Duh?

[ncc74656]

I would have to write off the cost of the Tb disk to keep all the video on, though. ...

You'd better plan on more than just a 1-TB disk if you keep at it for a while, too:

janeway:~ salfter$ df -k
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
[...]
//salfter@inara/media 4370984960 2482499316 1888485644 57% /Volumes/media

Of that 2.4 TB used, about 1.4 TB is movies and TV shows.

Re:Duh?

[Maxo-Texas]

Sarcasm... an under appreciated talent.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

cut the bulk mail delivery to only 3 days a week from 6 and leave first class mail as a 6 day a week service

Re:Duh?

[psyclone]

Netflix would stream everything if they could. It is a licensing issue. See the original hollywood reporter article, not the stub linked from the summary:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-execs-privately-netflix-71957

Re:Duh?

[Grishnakh]

What would that accomplish?

They'd still have to send the carriers out on their entire routes, only now they'd skip more houses and more stuff would pile up back at the office.

The thing that costs so much money is 1) paying the carriers to go on their route for that day, and 2) any costs associated with that (fuel, vehicle maintenance). If you only deliver 1st class and above, you're essentially wasting a trip. Even if a carrier doesn't have any 1st class to deliver on his route (very unlikely), you'd only save fuel costs; you'd still have to pay him to do nothing all day.

The way to save money is to reduce the amount paid to carriers, and the only way to do this is to reduce the number of carriers needed, by not sending them on every route 6 days/week. In mathematical terms, the cost of service is a linear function of route-days. The routes can't really be changed; I'm sure they're already optimized well for what a single carrier can get around to within his shift (also probably accounting for whatever prep work he has to do at the office before going on the route). So the only way to reduce costs is to either reduce the number of routes, or the number of days. You can't reduce the number of routes obviously, since you have to deliver to all addresses, so that leaves only days.

Since the carrier has to travel to all the addresses on the route every day he delivers, the way to maximize profit is to have him deliver the most mail possible on each delivery day. There's no real limit to how much mail he can deliver (I'm sure there's a practical limit, but I'm sure they're nowhere near having too much mail in each truck; they could easily double the volume with no trouble). Giving the carrier less to deliver simply makes no sense at all.

Re:Duh?

[bhiestand]

...However, they also have competition from Fedex and UPS, but I find it interesting how USPS can deliver very lightweight and smaller parcels very cheaply ($5 and less), but they get really expensive as the weight goes up, whereas the other carriers basically have an $8-10 minimum, but as packages get heavier their prices become much better than USPS. Of course, the other carriers also charge you differently based on destination (or the distance of travel), whereas with USPS it's all flat-rate.

I imagine that's based largely on USPS's requirement to go by nearly every address every day, so their marginal increase in fees to deliver a package is minimal. UPS/Fedex, on the other hand, have to travel extra distances, make extra stops, etc. Simple enough economies of scale.

I've no idea why USPS gets so expensive with real heavy packages, but it could be the added difficulty in light of the way they deliver packages. A mailman can carry a few small packages and lots of mail on his person, but large/heavy packages will require extra care for delivery. It's just not their specialty.

Good Plan

[SuperCharlie]

Until....buffering......buffering..... pesky.....buffering...buffering.... Comcast et al does their dirty deeds.

Re:Good Plan

[TooMuchToDo]

Seriously? My wife and I watch maybe 40-50 hours a month of Netflix Streaming content over our Comcast connection, and have only had a problem once. I'll live with that to have an entire content library at my fingertips.

Re:Good Plan

[morari]

An entire content library, really? I can hardly ever find anything worth watching through Netflix's streaming option. On the other hand, I have hundreds of DVDs sitting in my queue. Besides... I get to rip and/or burn the DVDs and mail 'em back the very same day. I get good turn around. ;)

Re:Good Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Currently about 95% of our TV usage is Netflix streaming. We went from using a few GB of data a month on Comcast to over a 100GB. No problems at all for the few months we've been on the service.

I wonder how much more this is actually costing Comcast and when those costs will be passed on to us users as more and more people stream more.

Re:Good Plan

[joocemann]

Comcast has oversold your local drop or you need your lines fixed.

Re:Good Plan

[jc42]

Until....buffering......buffering..... pesky.....buffering...buffering.... Comcast et al does their dirty deeds.

Well, you can expect that this will soon improve for movies owned by NBC. ;-)

Re:Good Plan

[hoggoth]

Just imagine what you could do with 40-50 hours. A part time job. A hobby. Become an expert in something. Make something. Write something.
Not picking on you, these hours are not unusual. Just thinking.

Re:Good Plan

[TooMuchToDo]

I have 15 movies in my Netflix DVD queue, 212 in my Watch It Now. I'd be happy to screen cap and link.

Re:Good Plan

[morari]

I believe you. I'm sure that there are a lot of films available for streaming... I can never find anything that looks good though. Perhaps it's just a difference of taste?

Re:Good Plan

[l0g0s]

Good point. If Net Neutrality ever fails in favor of providers offering streaming service to THEIR streaming content and filtering out competition, then Netflix will long for the days when they had a business model that cost an extra $700 mil per year to give them access to customers.

Re:Good Plan

[Binestar]

I know a large portion of my watch it now queue is TV shows. Rewatching Sliders, watching Earth2 for the first time. Checking out A-Team because I didn't watch it as a kid, etc.

Re:Good Plan

[elrous0]

It varies greatly from device to device. I have a Xbox 360 and a bluray player that both support Netflix. My 360 almost never has buffering issues, but the blu-ray player is constantly having them (even though it has a gig of storage built-in). This is especially true of HD movies.

Re:Good Plan

[hedwards]

I wish that were the case. Comcast doesn't do anything dirt cheap.

Re:Good Plan

[zach_the_lizard]

Battlestar Galactica is a good choice, and is available for streaming in HD. It has all 4 seasons (split into how they were released on DVD). Also in the Sci-fi genre, there's Babylon 5 (I've yet to watch it; I don't know if they have all seasons or if it's in HD, but it is streaming). There's Firefly and Serenity. How about Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? ? If you look, you can find plenty of good things to watch. Their DVD selection is way better, of course, but that doesn't mean streaming is bad. It's especially good for classic films.

Re:Good Plan

[zach_the_lizard]

Crap, that last link is meant to be for the King of Kong. I fail HTML.

Re:Good Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

How is watching television not a hobby?

Re:Good Plan

[Belial6]

Well, there is your problem. When I first signed up for Netflix a decade ago, I put every movie I ever wanted to see on the list. When I finished with that, I put every movie I ever wanted to rewatch on the list. Once I had seen every movie I ever wanted to see AND rewatched every movie I ever wanted to, I was left with putting the movies I saw trialers for on the list so that I could watch them when they got released to video.

That is when I moved into watching the movies I didn't want to see. You may think that is crazy, but there is value in it. I get a frame of reference to what other people like, as well as every once in a while I find a gem that I would never have watched other wise.

Sometimes it's good to streach a little in what you expose yourself too.

Two good examples of movies that I very much enjoyed, but didn't expect to:

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Dr._Horrible_s_Sing-Along_Blog/70115760?trkid=2361637#height1765
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Netherbeast_Incorporated/70067394?trkid=2361637#height1448

Re:Good Plan

[Golddess]

Only problem with streaming titles is anything from STARZ just plain blows chunks. If it's not cropped to fit a 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it's cropped for 4:3.

Re:Good Plan

[StuartHankins]

I use the Netflix app on Wii. I don't use a browser to select or find movies because I'm lazy. One thing I noticed is you can't really browse the titles on Wii -- only a small subset is shown. But after a few weeks of watching movies it tends to show more that I like. I can always search using the interface if I know part of the name.

Re:Good Plan

[TooMuchToDo]

No no! I didn't mean you didn't believe me, just like you said, we have different tastes. I watch *a lot* of Nova/PBS/Frontline documentaries, Discovery shows like Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, and shows like Bones, Lie To Me, etc that are on there.

Re:Good Plan

[Belial6]

First you assume that everyone parks themselves in front of the TV and does nothing else while watching it. Many people, like me, use TV the same way other people use the radio. It runs. They are aware of what is happening on it, but it doesn't consume them, and they do all sorts of other things at the same time.

Second, you assume that the 100GB is a single person's viewing. If they have 5 people in the house, you are not looking at 40-50 hours for the poster to put into something. You are talking about 8-10 hours a month to put into something. 20 minutes a day isn't an unreasonable amount of time to just sit unproductive.

Third, you assume that these other suggestions hold more value than watching TV. If the person is financially stable, getting a second job is likely to be less productive than sitting and watching a movie. Working every waking moment isn't something that most people classify as a "Good Life". It works for some, but it is not inherently better. Hobbies are great. Frequently they are great because they give the person time to relax and shift gears away from work and the other responsibilities of life. Watching TV and movies is a perfectly valid way to do that.

I know that it is hip to call TV a waste of time, and point out how useless it is, but that only comes from people without the ability to see outside their little world. What value is there in sitting in the woods over watching TV? None. What value is there in collecting Pez dispensers over watching TV? None. What value is there in fixing up that classic car over watching TV? None. Hobbies are all about wasting time. If they were about being productive, they wouldn't be hobbies. Sometimes they pay off, but usually they don't, and that's OK. It's OK whether it is watching TV, or growing flowers in your garden.

I'm not picking on you, your misunderstanding of human nature is not unusual. Just thinking.

Re:Good Plan

[AvitarX]

Perhaps it's on during other things?

I mean dinner and clean-up plus laundry can all be done while watching the TV (not the eating though, bad form if with people). As can reading some interesting news and website. Very basic looking into problems at work too.

It's really not so bad at all. More than myself, or most I would think, but not really that crazy either.

Re:Good Plan

[Gilmoure]

Just pissed that comcast encrypted most of their signals. I was using an EyeTV on my Mac AV Server to stream live tv to my iPhones and iPod. Now, only a few channels are available. And none of them are The Ocho!

Re:Good Plan

[Gilmoure]

Hey, because of the singularity, I no longer have to worry about running out of hours or years. Who cares if I spend a few decades watching tv? There'll be more time to do stuff later.

Re:Good Plan

[TooMuchToDo]

I'll have to investigate further. I do admit the one time I was having problems it was because I was choking my upstream with Flickr uploads, but I fancy having continued quality streaming from Netflix.

Re:Good Plan

[TooMuchToDo]

Usually it's when we're falling asleep and just want to throw something on, I wouldn't be doing something useful anyway. Also, I may have overestimated the time. It's probably closer to 20-25 hours a month (~45 minute show around the time we're crashing, and maybe a couple of movies throughout the month).

It's not like I'm also doing other things (full time job, welding/material sciences/fabricating classes, volunteering, etc). It's just to kill time when I wouldn't be otherwise productive anyway.

Re:Good Plan

[pugugly]

I can't say there's not a lot of stuff to sift through, but I've found a *lot* of fun stuff on Netflix Instant Streaming (On Wii) - Older movies, good Documentaries that fell under "Yeah I wanted to watch that", cartoons I get to queue and claim I'm going to watch with my Niece/Nephew, some good TV series et al . . .

What it lacks is good organization - I have to sort stuff using a greasemonkey script running just to sort stuff into categories and such, when what I'd like would be able to tag or make folders or something.

Pug

Re:Good Plan

[morari]

I've never ran across any of the Nova episodes on streaming. I'll take a second look for that if nothing else. :)

Re:Good Plan

[demonlapin]

You know, I did that for a little while, got about 20 dvds... and other than the first season of Dexter, which we watched on a vacation, I've never watched one of those movies again. I can't think of more than a couple dozen movies that I have actually wanted to see more than twice (as opposed to watching because they were on, and wasn't that a good story, etc. - I mean seeking it out to watch it.)

Re:Good Plan

[kryliss]

I second the Xbox 360, Always streams without a hitch plus the browsing of titles is awesome. The blueray players have to have you put movies into your queue whereas the 360 doesn't. Plus it's worth it to pick up the $20 remote for the 360 instead of using a controler that keeps shutting itself off every 15 minutes of non use.

Unfortunately

[BrianRoach]

I don't want to watch old movies or flops all the time.

Their streaming selection is ok for TV shows, but for movies it's fairly poor. This is no doubt directly due to the MPAA restricting what they can stream.

Re:Unfortunately

[MrDoh!]

Totally. I'd be happy paying another 10bucks on what I currently pay to be able to stream something released in the last 15 years.
Caught up on my early 80's Zombie flicks, just want more recent (well, better!) films... Big film companies need to make this work as an awesome service before everyone heads back to Bittorrenting.

And as for ISP's wanting to charge more? Why did you sell me a high speed link if you didn't expect me to actually use it?

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

For your money?

Re:Unfortunately

[kellyb9]

Streaming is slowely taking over their entire model. They have plans that don't even include the disk service. I'm assuming that as more and more people have set top boxs/game consoles, they'll have a better selection. It really isn't that terrible at this point compared to other comparable services.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

I was speaking with a CS rep at Netflix recently, and they told me getting the licensing worked out for streaming is a real PITA and that something as simple as one Artist on one Track on the Soundtrack who isn't cooperating can hold up and entire movie/show from being able to be streamed.

Re:Unfortunately

[h4rr4r]

They actually have lots of pretty decent indie and foreign films. If you really must have something that Michael Bay directed you can always get the DVD.

Re:Unfortunately

[h4rr4r]

This is why they sometimes have one episode missing from a season of a show they stream.

Re:Unfortunately

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I don't want to watch old movies or flops all the time.

Their streaming selection is ok for TV shows, but for movies it's fairly poor. This is no doubt directly due to the MPAA restricting what they can stream.

The flip side of that, though, is that you can find stuff to watch while you're waiting for the next batch of stuff to arrive.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but it hasn't been as impactful as I first imagined.

Re:Unfortunately

[joocemann]

I agree a million fold.

I am hoping these findings will give netflix some incentive to get us streams of everything they make available.

Re:Unfortunately

[djbckr]

I've noticed on a couple of occasions that they will have a movie available online, only to have it removed at some date. It'll say something along the lines of (available until Jan 30, 2011). I can only assume this is for the same reason as the parent poster pointed out.

Re:Unfortunately

[genghisjahn]

Here's a list of movies available on Netflix Instant that have been released in the past 15 years...

Last 15 Years List.

Requires Silver Light. It's pretty cool.

Re:Unfortunately

[Notquitecajun]

Probably in the next 3-5 years, we'll more or less be there, whether through another payment wall - where Netflix essentially becomes PPV; in 5-7 years they won't be mailing at all.

Re:Unfortunately

[jc42]

And as for ISP's wanting to charge more? Why did you sell me a high speed link if you didn't expect me to actually use it?

They didn't sell you a high-speed link. Try "abusing" it by actually using the bandwidth that you thought you were buying, and watch what happens to your download speed.

They advertised a high-speed link, but that was just to draw in the suckers who believe advertising. If you check the fine print of your contract, you'll find that the advertised service wasn't quite what you're paying for.

Re:Unfortunately

[ShakaUVM]

>>Their streaming selection is ok for TV shows, but for movies it's fairly poor. This is no doubt directly due to the MPAA restricting what they can stream.

Maybe if they offered them 50 cents per view instead of the... $0? 5 cents?... the content providers would allow them to expand their selection.

The worst part is that they take down stuff available for streaming all the time, so I'll queue something and come back later to find I can't watch Zoolander, or whatever.

Re:Unfortunately

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I wonder, is that why Top Gear Series 9 episode 4 isn't available to be streamed or is it the blatant america bashing that keeps it from going out via netflix?

Then again, BBC America showed it so...

Re:Unfortunately

[Kizeh]

That's awesome... Although selecting Sci-Fi and Fantasy as genre results in a depressingly short list.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right. The only movie I saw was "Get Silverlight". I searched IMDB for it and nothing showed up.

Re:Unfortunately

[BrianRoach]

Ignoring the obvious fact that you're trying to show how awesome you are for not watching all those non-indie films directed by Michael Bay, you know what? Every once in a while a Michael Bay movie is JUST what the doctor ordered. It's big, loud, over the top and the man certainly knows some folks who can make things explode.

Watching indie films doesn't make you better or smarter than other people. From my observations, people who talk about how they only watch indie films are FAR more annoying than the people who only watch Michael Bay movies. The latter generally aren't claiming to be sophisticated due to what they watch on their TV.

Re:Unfortunately

[antdude]

For me, it is the subscription. I don't watch a lot of movies and old television/TV shows/series these days due to work and other real-life activities. I wouldn't mind if they had a payment on demand like RedBox (99 cents for a day rental!) and others. I also don't mind if I have to pay more if I can't watch it within a day.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

so true ... i wonder if netflix is going to get boxed out of the whole thing by the ballbusters and amazons of the world. their streaming movie selection is embarrassing.

Re:Unfortunately

[timeOday]

I would rather netflix stay fixed cost for unlimited service, and have somebody else charge for "premium" content. (Amazon Video on Demand is my current favorite, although their price of $3.99 for new releases is too rich for my blood.)

If netflix got into both, I fear the amount included in the fixed monthly bill would become less instead of more.

Re:Unfortunately

[Binestar]

Nope, that's their agreement with Starz. Those are movies that Starz is currently offering, and when Starz stops netflix stops.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are generally the movies that are from Starz Play. There were also all the Viacom shows, which all disappeared at once, because Viacom decided it didn't want to do that kind of thing anymore.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they offer VoD, and have to pay out to media Cartels to get premium channels w/ loads of commercials, over-commentated sports, mediocre tv shows, and highly underrated bundled channels....

Would have left cable-tv a long time ago, but can't get high-speed net without it where I live. DSL? What's that? FIOS/FTTP? Verizon said I'd have that 3 years ago. Don't see too many of their trucks around. Where's all that USF and Broadband initiative going again?

Re:Unfortunately

[Mr Otobor]

There are other services besides Netflix. Blockbuster (*gasp*) offers lots of new releases and recent movies, for streaming or download. But you have to pay 3.99 or 4.99 per movie: Not unexpectedly, you can't watch every new release for 7 dollars flat or whatever Netflix is charging these days. They are still subject to random blackouts and other annoyances of the studios, like lots of B-grade and indie movies only being available to buy. Why the heck would I pay 20.00 for something I stand a good chance of not enjoying even the first time or might be good, but not 20.00 good? In any case, access to movies doesn't start and stop at Netflix.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

you know what? Every once in a while a Michael Bay movie is JUST what the doctor ordered.

You know what? I don't think your doctor is a real doctor.

Re:Unfortunately

[h4rr4r]

I never said I only watch those. I merely stated netflix had them available. Judging by the horror he did on Transformers I would rather watch paint dry than another of his films. Hint to director; Transformers is not about the people. Yes Megan Fox is hot you can keep her, but get rid of that douchy kid.

Re:Unfortunately

[AvitarX]

I find it odd that they charge so much for Comcast on Demand.

Yeah, OK, Redbox is delayed by a month (barely an issue if I didn't care to see it in theaters), but the max for a rental there is going to be the Comcast price, and if I return it early it's only $1.00.

A streaming service really needs to hit that price-point for movies, and lower for TV (like $10/season tops). An expensive ad slot is $.02 per viewer (grey's anatomy, youngish viewers), and can't show more than 40 an hour (20 minutes of non network bumps of 30 second ads). I wikipediad advertising, and greys anatomy and did rough math.

They could probably still show some ads (I would certainly pay for the convenience of something I wanted to watch if the ad density was similar to early hulu).

A 35 ad deficit in what is shown is $0.70, and the $.05 to stream it. The revenue isn't quite there for me to pay for a show in real time ($.15 deficit for a $.50 TV show in a $10.00 season) and that is without me even watching with someone else, boosting those un-shown ads cost.

But anything that is not-available conveniently (like for example when I went to watch Rubicon, and the first episode wasn't available anymore, losing a viewer for an entire season potentially) it sounds like a big boos in revenue to let netflix stream things at a price of $.40 per an hour, with limited ads (6 per an hour).

The ads could be very well placed using demographic and movie liking information, Netflix could charge $.50 getting an extra $.05 in revenue, and have current content free still (to keep subscriptions).

I find it amusing that even networks and shows I thought got it (Always Sunny and Hulu mutually benefited a lot at the start) appear to be forgetting how they got big (I know I saw far less ads for that show this year catching about half on demand vs all on Hulu).

Re:Unfortunately

[geekoid]

Yeah, nothing cooler then having to install a 3rd party app in order to read a list~

I mean, how did anyone ever do anything on the net before that?

Yeah, I'm sure it's nifty, but couldn't they list have a link to the list for those of us that don't want to install silverlight?

Re:Unfortunately

[scot4875]

Every once in a while a Michael Bay movie is JUST what the doctor ordered.

No, they really aren't. I love action movies, I love explosions and loud scenes. Michael Bay movies are insipid pieces of garbage that make me long for the day when "action" meant something like "Last Man Standing." Instead, Bay gives us shaky-cam, close-up, slow-motion, impossible-to-follow "action" where every surface and substance on the planet is somehow explosive, and the characters do stupid, pointless things for no reason other than to give him the chance to have a "cool" chase sequence.

--Jeremy

Re:Unfortunately

[penguinchris]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a licensing issue, as they're quite liberal with their use of popular music. I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with their America bashing, which at least for me (as an American) is one of the best parts* of the show :)

* in fairness I would probably say that every part of the show is one of the best parts ;)

Margins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This article seems to be missing something important. How much does Netflix pay to the content provider for a license per movie played? Last I saw, estimates for most big players were something like $.50 to $.80 per view. For DVD's Netflix has to maintain a huge network of warehouses, staff, and buy replacements for what is broken, and the shipping, but in many cases that still seems to be cheaper than getting a license to stream the same film.

Re:Margins

[donnyspi]

wouldn't they still need some special license to rent out the DVDs?

Re:Margins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...wouldn't they still need some special license to rent out the DVDs?

No, the media companies lost that battle long ago.Legally you can rent out movies you own, so long as you have the physical media, aren't copying that media, and aren't renting them for public viewing.

Re:Margins

[kdawgud]

First sale doctrine says they can do whatever they want with the DVDs once they buy them...

Re:Margins

[jgtg32a]

Nope, First sale doctrine

Re:Margins

[Kjella]

Under US law, no. In any other jurisdiction, check your local law.

Re:Margins

[doconnor]

While that is true, I understand most big rental companies get their DVDs at a fraction of the cost, in exchange for giving the movie companies a cut of each rental.

Re:Margins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While that is true, I understand most big rental companies get their DVDs at a fraction of the cost, in exchange for giving the movie companies a cut of each rental.

This is often the case, but the maximum price for any given rental is set by the price in the consumer DVD/DVD resale market. Thus prices are pushed down dramatically. "What you don't want to give us a break, okay, we'll just buy a couple from Ebay on the cheap." With streaming, there is no maximum so media producers push a lot harder. Netflix's rental by mail business is all that gives them leverage to push back, because they can't be "banned" by any media company until they comply with absurd licensing fees.

Re:Margins

[TooMuchToDo]

Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios. If they want the content, they'll just buy the studios or the copyright rights wholesale. Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?

Re:Margins

[nine-times]

Actually they just buy the DVDs. They often get special deals, so the DVDs are cheaper than if they bought normal retail versions. Still, if you're going to count the licensing fees for streaming, then you should figure in the entire cost of DVDs and not just postage. How much does it cost to buy the DVDs, to warehouse them all over the country, to send them out and then sort them when they come back in? How often do they have to replace DVDs that are scratched, broken, or lost?

And then compare that cost with the cost of streaming. Not just bandwidth, but building datacenters and servers, providing tech support, etc. And then what else goes into the equation? Does Sony pay Netflix something to support the PS3? Or does Netflix pay Sony something to support their app? Or is there no money/licensing involved there?

Re:Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete nonsense, every major studio these days is owned by a megacorp, even if Netflix wanted to buy them (which they don't) they couldn't come close. The current big 6 are owned by the following (mkt cap):
Time Warner ($35B)
News Corp ($37B)
Viacom ($25B)
Sony Corp ($3T)
Disney ($73B)
GE ($193B)

Exactly which of these do you think Netflix ($9B) can buy?

Re:Margins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Netflix has a market cap bigger than some studios.

Not bigger than a lot of studios' parent corporations. There is a lot of consolidation there. Also, market cap and available cash are not exactly synonymous. Market cap is a good indicator of how much it would cost to buy Netflix, not how much buying power Netflix has. To date Netflix has acquired one, very, very small studio.

Who is going to stop them? Blockbuster?

Apple, Disney, Comcast/ABC, Newcorp... they're all in the game and all have a lot more cash on hand. Heck, many have suggested Apple buy Netflix outright, as it would only take something like 10% of Apple's reserve cash and would be a good way to give themselves a market boost in streaming, more bargaining power with the media companies, and kill the only major Silverlight customer.

Re:Margins

[bill_mcgonigle]

Last I saw, estimates for most big players were something like $.50 to $.80 per view.

Yeah? I read that Netflix negotiated a yearly license fee for each item in their streaming catalog. I was just looking into this this morning, coincidentally, and found that there's not much reliable information on it that's an easy Google search away. I'd love to hear from folks who know more.

Re:Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

well, clearly your assumptions are wrong.

Re:Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

Then technically couldn't they have a huge wherehouse of dvds, and if someone wants to stream that movie, they load up the dvd and stream it to that 1 single user, effectively letting that 1 user borrow the content for the duration of that stream? Why is this not legal?

Re:Margins

[jandrese]

It's hard to imagine a situation where giving the movie company a piece of every rental is worth saving some part of the $10 it would cost to buy the DVD retail (and I assume most rental places get wholesale). This probably made sense back in the 90s when VHS tapes often cost a fortune, but with DVDs it just doesn't make sense. Maybe if it gets you access to movies before they're available retail or something, but from a cost perspective I just don't see it.

Re:Margins

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a very interesting legal case... but it counts as copying, so it is covered under copyright law.

Re:Margins

[TooMuchToDo]

I wonder why Google doesn't buy Netflix. They have the cash, the ability to strongarm content providers, and it's their mission to organize the world's data (and that content would fall under that).
*shrugs*

Re:Margins

[hypergreatthing]

ohh anything they want? Like stream them? yeah, thought not.

Re:Margins

[b0bby]

Last I saw, estimates for most big players were something like $.50 to $.80 per view. For DVD's Netflix has to maintain a huge network of warehouses, staff, and buy replacements for what is broken, and the shipping, but in many cases that still seems to be cheaper than getting a license to stream the same film.

Well, if the cost of mailing is ~$1, and streaming is ~$.80 + .05, then the streaming is still cheaper. I'd bet it's that the studios won't give them the license to stream at all on some of their newer releases.

Re:Margins

[JustNiz]

Thats not exactly right. For sure they can't legally copy them or rip them to their servers, for example.

Re:Margins

[skine]

How do you stream a DVD?

I can understand streaming a video file, but the physical DVD, not so much.

Re:Margins

[fermion]

Blockbuster's success was due to fact that maintaining a huge network of stores was not so expensive. Buy the movies wholesale, rent them out, make money pretty quick. The storage never seemed to be a major issue. Netflix is essentially killing them by killing the late fees.

It is clear that streaming is a pay per view situation rather than buy once and earn money after a certain number of rentals. This however is not a bad thing as Blockbuster did the same thing. At some point, for some movies, rather than buying the movies they entered into some sort of revenue sharing agreement with certain studios. This let them take out the smaller video rental stores, but did not protect them against Netflix.

One thing that is true with streaming is that while a person on a $10 plan might get 100 CDs a year, it would be easy for a person who to stream 5 or 10X that number. In fact there is no information on average shipping costs, which could be dramatically lower the $1 maximum value. But if we take the 5 cent number as fact, a year streaming could easily cost revenue from three months of subscription, with licensing fees eclipsing that cost.

However we know that Netflix has raised prices for DVD subscribers, apparently to encourage streaming, so either streaming costs are not so dramatic, DVD costs are more than we think, or people are not streaming significantly more than they were receiving media.

Re:Margins

[Pieroxy]

When I put my DVD in my player and press play, doesn't the DVD gets copied over to a memory buffer and then - worse - to my TV screen? How is streaming any different?

Re:Margins

[AvitarX]

This $.50 to $.80 /view comes close to my estimate for the value of a pair of young eyes advertising revenue per hour of TV interestingly (based on wikipedia for grey's anatomy, and advertising, assuming 40 30 second spots per an hour).

Doesn't sound sustainable for Netflix though, we can way outdoor the $8/month subscription at home with that high a fee.

I also am pretty sure they pay a flat per/month rate and not per a view for most of their streaming catalog.

Re:Margins

[Grumbleduke]

Legally you can rent out movies you own, so long as you have the physical media, aren't copying that media, and aren't renting them for public viewing.

This is, imho, one of the few things US copyright law "got right". It also seems fairly unique to the US (which is rather surprising).

This is also why there is no Netflix-type thing anywhere else (iirc Canada only has the streaming side); getting the rental licences would be far too problematic.

Re:Margins

[doconnor]

New release DVDs usually cost more then $20, at least in Canada.

Many movies are only heavily rented during the first week or two of release so many of the DVDs are probably only rented two or three times.

Although there is a good streaming collection

[Rooked_One]

I tend to see that very popular movies (especially new releases) are not up for streaming.

You have to know that Netflix realizes they are saturating the internet, and perhaps they are doing us a favor by biting the bullet when it comes to paying a little more to ship... Maybe... I'd say they are one heck of a non conformist company if this is the case... But i'm going to say its pure laziness until I hear otherwise.

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[Cwix]

I believe they would stream the latest if they could get the rights to stream it.

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[h4rr4r]

No, they just can't get deals to stream those at low enough prices. Also they will not "saturate the Internet", please learn something about CDNs.

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[ProppaT]

They could get the rights to stream it if they were willing to invest in content. Don't get me wrong, I find plenty to watch, although I could see how the average user would be disappointed in their streaming selection. The issue seems to be that they're picking out bargin bin titles with the occasional A list film thrown in for good measure. It all comes down to money in the long run and I believe Netflix is waiting for critical mass before they start dropping the big bucks on content.

Movie studios don't see that only 5000 people may watch a title, they see that Netflix has a million subscribers (these numbers are arbitrary) and that a million people could potentially watch the movie. The more people who use the streaming service, the more titles they'll get because they'll be forced to buy less physical dvd's and will have more money to put towards streaming.

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[bigstrat2003]

Look, the internet is not something you dump something on, it's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes, and if you don't understand those tubes can be filled...

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[aztracker1]

But tubes can explode if under too much pressure.. omg, my bits could be sprayed all over someone's router somewhere...

Re:Although there is a good streaming collection

[Anonymous Coward]

What about streaming all the 3D movies? What if all movies are eventually 3D? How will this affect Netflix' streaming business then?

Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[Saint Stephen]

If you like really old and/or REALLY REALLY bad (think: unbearably awful), then Netflix Streaming is for you. Except for the occasional non-stinker.

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[jedidiah]

The same applies equally well to any other form of movie distribution including Snail Mail.

The crappiness of Netflix streaming is grossly overstated. Apple fanboys screaming sour grapes perhaps?

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[Andy Dodd]

It's improving rapidly.

Their selection now is MUCH better than it was six months or so ago. (They have recently made quite a few deals with content providers, those deals are why the bumped up prices a bit.)

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[h4rr4r]

Or really good indie films or foreign ones.

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[Duradin]

Why Apple fanboys? There's a Netflix app for iOS and I believe you can go to their webpage with Safari under OSX.

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[Scott64]

There's also a lot of content for children, which is why I subscribe (because I'm a parent...not because I'm a child :P)

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[omnichad]

They have all 5 seasons of LOST ;-)

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[Jaysyn]

I don't use NetFlix, but my many friends that do have nothing but good things to say about the streaming part of it.

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[jandrese]

On the other hand, they had a coup with the Stars Play feature. Basically they argued (successfully) that the Starz contract allowed them to stream movies without having to negotiate extra streaming rights. However, that contract is up for renewal in a few months, and you can bet that the studios aren't going to make the same mistake twice. Losing the Starz content would put a big hole in the streaming library.

Basically, Netflix streaming is awesome, but the studios hate it with a passion and are going to figure out a way to kill it. They already bend over backwards to make sure nothing recent shows up on there.

Re:Streaming is great if you like bad movies

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The crappiness of Netflix streaming is grossly overstated. Apple fanboys screaming sour grapes perhaps?

Umm, wouldn't that be the screaming of Linux users, who can't even get a functional, native Silverlight plug-in? Apple users can view the content on their Mac or iPhone (although the relative quality of Silverlight compared to Windows is an interesting question).

And some of us marginalized

[franknagy]

Some of us are stuck with "braodband" in the 1.5Mbps and movie streaming is
just not an option. May the telcom industry go stuff itself!

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Politburo]

I'm on 768k and Netflix (via Wii) usually works fine without rebuffering. It prebuffers for a couple of minutes, which can be a little annoying, but still better than waiting 1-2 days for the disc (or longer if you're watching a TV series on multiple discs).

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Anonymous Coward]

I stream several Netflix shows a week on my 1.5Mbps DSL connection. Works just fine.
I use my Wii, though--no way am I going to run Windows and Silverlight on my PC.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's a pity that Netflix doesn't support more aggressive caching. They obviously trust the DRM of their various streaming platforms enough to keep the wicked, wicked, stream-rippers at bay, so one would assume that an equal level of protection could be afforded to larger chunks on disk(that, and the fact that anybody who cares about quality would just pirate from the DVD or blu-ray, not a compressed stream).

Even a full DVD9(8.54GB) would take a touch under 13 hours at 1.5Mb/s. Assuming some amount of ISP lying and/or other use, call it 20-24 hours.
That is a factor of 10, in round numbers, too high for streaming; but it still beats out postal mail, were caching allowed.

Given that very few movies actually fill an entire disk, most cases would be better than that. Give the user the option to queue the various special-feature crap first, last, or not at all, and the volume shrinks further. Any reduction in quality would, of course, also reduce the time between starting the download and the time when you are close enough to the finish to watch straight through.

Obviously, not all Netflix streamer devices are physically capable of heavy caching(to reduce BOM costs, the Roku boxes and some of the netflix supporting DVD/blu-ray players just have a tiny amount of RAM to cache into); but it wouldn't exactly be rocket surgery to offer a "RokuStor" or something that either contained a low-end 2.5 inch drive, or had a USB port for BYO external drive. If the studios screamed about piracy, it would be easy enough to encrypt the caching drive with a key that never left the (presumably secure enough for them, since they are currently for sale) appliance.

For basically everybody but dialup users, internet delivery would still beat the postal service(assuming one disk at a time), and it wouldn't be a huge leap of imagination to build a "prepare stream" button into the website, so users with a cache-capable netflix device could initiate a download from offsite, then enjoy when they got home. For DVD quality or less, the cheapest HDDs you can buy these days would still hold a fair number of movies, and even a 1-2TB, enough to hold 20 or 40 full BRDs, is only $100-odd with a little shopping.

I'm actually a little surprised that they don't offer such a device, or such a feature in their software player. It would presumably expand the number of people who opt for (cheaper for netflix) streaming services, and the added BOM cost would only amount to a few months of upgraded ISP service, in most of the US...

Re:And some of us marginalized

[characterZer0]

Some of us use Linux, and streaming is not an option, regardless of our Internet connections.

Oh well, Netflix can keep paying to mail me DVDs.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Belial6]

Streaming to a PC that isn't hooked to your TV is an inferior experience, so I wouldn't recommend it. While streaming to your PC is convenient, to be a replacement for DVDs, you need something hooked to a TV with a remote. Windows 7 comes with MediaCenter that has a Netflix Plugin. This means that it will work out of the box with any MediaCenter remote. You can also use the Wii, XBox360 or PS3. The Wii doesn't have as good of a picture, and the Wii mote is an inferior remote for the purpose, but it works, and if your TV isn't huge, it looks fine. You can also get Netflix streaming to many TVs and Blu-ray players, so if you are buying any new home entertainment devices, it may just come bundled. Finally if you MUST know that linux is driving your video, you can always go with a Roku.

http://www.roku.com/

It is a linux device (as I suspect many of the TVs and Blu-ray players are). So, you can enjoy streaming AND feel good about using linux.

Streaming to the desktop is not an OPTION for netflix streaming. There are far more, and far better options for streaming to an actual TV.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[characterZer0]

What is wrong with streaming to my laptop? The only TV I have is an old 27" CRT.

I do not use Linux to feel good. I use it because it works well. Well, except for streaming Netflix.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[ShavedOrangutan]

I bought a cheap Blu-Ray player at Best Buy that does streaming Netflix, Pandora, Blockbuster, and Youtube(?), for like $50. Also Blu-ray, DVD, CD, MP3 CD, or anything on a USB drive.

And my wife has no problems using it, unlike the Linux based media player that it replaced. I know I'm drinking the cool aid with a name brand proprietary device that supports HDCP, MPAA, RIAA, and WTF, but when she pushes the play button, it starts working. When she's happy, I'm happy.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Belial6]

There is nothing wrong with streaming to your laptop, if you want to watch movies on a computer. You may live in a dorm, or alone in a very small apartment. Most people like to watch TV on a real TV. Not because a TV and a monitor are dramatically different technologies, but because a TV has a remote control that works better for the specific use, they can sit on their couch an watch the box across the room, and they can watch it with multiple people. In your case, your TV is 27". Your laptap screen is, what, 17"? This is the difference between sitting on the couch watching a movie, and sitting at your computer. If you have your laptop on your lap, it is the equivilent of holding your little 17" TV in your lap.

Your question of "what is wrong with it" is a little like asking "what is wrong with a tv that has no remote?" The answer is nothing under very specific circumstances. For most people, having a real TV that is an optimized experience is worth the extra effort.

Actually, the best example would be to compare it to DVDs. When you want to relax and watch those DVD's that you rent from Netflix, do you watch them on your laptop? Or do you watch them on your TV? Every single pro and con that can be applied to using a DVD player on your TV vs. your laptop can be applied to using a Roku or other Netflix streaming device hooked to the TV.

I like that I can play a DVD on my Laptop and Desktop. It just isn't the best viewing experience.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Belial6]

Oh, and Linux works just fine for streaming Netflix. It is one of the best OSes available for it. It just doesn't work on your distribution of choice. For proof, refer back to the Roku. Linux works so good for streaming Netflix that people are buying hardware with Linux pre-installed for the express purpose of streaming Netflix on it.

Re:And some of us marginalized

[Belial6]

Yep, for years, I would periodically grab a new copy of MythTV, and try to get it up and running reliably. It never worked out. I would spend a few day trying to get everything to work, and after a few days of scouring the web for fixes, I would pack it away, and wait a few more months to try again. When I cancelled my Dish service, there was nothing left in MythTV that wasn't either handles just fine from XBMC on Windows, or with a cheap dedicated box. MythTV would have made a much bigger splash if they had made a point to pick a list of currently available hardware, and tested it from formatted disk to watching on screen with the reference hardware. Instead, it was left up to the user to figure out how to get their parts to work under Linux. For common stuff like keyboards and mice, that was no big deal, but for stuff like video capture (beyond crappy USB webcams) and remote controls, it was a total PITA.

wake me up when the streaming service works

[Anonymous Coward]

It only ever told me that my operating system was not supported.

Pass the cost on and continue offering both

[syousef]

Don't live in the US, and don't know how Netflix operates. But the way I see it...

A lot of people won't blink at an extra $1 per DVD to hire movies in a way that is convenient to them. Not everyone has high speed unlimited broadband. If peoplewant physical media and postage they can pay for it. A $0.95 fee per DVD probably won't phase anyone, where as $700M per year might be too much for a company to absorb.

However, I do wonder how many DVDs are lost or damaged and what the loss from that is...that might make the DVDs more expensive.

There is also the environmental factor. I'm not sure how much fossil fuel is being used and greenhouse gas produced shuffling DVDs around.

Re:Pass the cost on and continue offering both

[Dthief]

If the increase the price people will just go to other services.....e.g. blockbuster who has (probably) similar amount to stream and easier access to discs because of their brick and mortar stores/infrastructure. I use and enjoy netflix's service, but if they increase the price again I'll start looking at what else there is.

Re:Pass the cost on and continue offering both

[Junta]

I don't know about your area, but in this area, blockbuster has thoroughly gone extinct in terms of brick and mortar presence. Basically, netfilx is the only offering currently doing both streaming and nationwide disc access. Now you could do one company for streaming, and redbox for another.

I also seem to recall some idea for Blockbuster to do Redbox like kiosks, but streaming video and letting people walk away with them on customer provided flash memory instead of on discs.

Re:Pass the cost on and continue offering both

[h4rr4r]

$1 per DVD?
I pay $20 per month for 3 at a time and go through probably 15 movies a month. No way would I pay another $1 per DVD. There is nearly no environmental factor, those mail trucks run with netflix or not.

Volume Comparison

[Alanbly]

Yes, on a per-movie basis streaming is far cheaper but what's the difference in movies streamed per account versus movies rented via mail. I'd wager the average Netflix customer who doesn't stream consumes far fewer movies per month than the average streaming customer.

Re:Volume Comparison

[jedidiah]

I figure it will only be a matter of time before the studios make it cheaper to send things by Snail Mail.

It's just in their nature to be greedy beyond sustainable levels and to squeeze their customer facing distributors (like movie theatres).

Re:Volume Comparison

[Kjella]

Yes, but somebody wins when you cut costs. If you stream more movies, the customer gets more and is probably willing to pay more. Or you can create a limited streaming subscription for people that watch less than X hours with the same price but higher margins. Or lower the prices and make it up on volume. Or maybe it goes straight to Netflix's profits. Either way someone ends up better off (except the postal service).

Re:Volume Comparison

[Alanbly]

My only assertion is that the raw costs are misleading. I would guess that as of right now Netflix nets significantly more money per mail-based customer than per streaming customer.

Re:Volume Comparison

[dbet]

I think you're assuming that Netflix pays the same amount to stream the movie as you would to rent it individually from a site like iTunes. This may also be why they don't carry new releases, because studios know they can get you to actually rent those movies, or buy them. It may be that once Netflix can stream anything, they may have to charge per movie since the new ones will be closer to $1 and the older ones may still be closer to 10 cents.

Re:Volume Comparison

[Alanbly]

No, I'm assuming no such thing. I know they pay significantly less (or the iTunes model wouldn't work). What I'm asserting is that there is some number of movies that can be streamed after which it costs Netflix more to stream a particular customer than to mail them movies. Because snail-mail has a fairly large latency (mail takes days to arrive each direction) and because Netflix enforces a strict bandwidth limit (as set by the account) they have very limited maximum risked cost for the mail-based service. Worked out it's around $1 * 3 (discs at a time) * 30 (days / month) / 6 (days per round trip) which works out to a total maximum cost (which noone ever reaches unless they're just copying the discs and returning them) of $15 a month. Streaming, there is no limit to volume. Sure noone will hit $15 at $0.05 a movie but bandwidth isn't the whole picture. It also costs them $0.50 - $0.80 to stream a movie in licensing. Can you watch more than thirty movies a month if you're a heavy user, absolutely. My argument is that the balance works out to about 3 discs a month versus more than 6 movies which would make streaming more expensive than mail.

Re:Volume Comparison

[omnichad]

Netflix has the upper hand. They already have a sustainable business model for snail mail. If the studios want their cut of the profit, they have to beat the price of disc acquisition and distribution. I like the convenience of streamed movies, but that's not why I subscribe to Netflix. I'm their customer because I can get just about any movie ever made by one means or another. Sometimes Netflix can stream what I want, and other times, I can just stream something while I wait on another physical disc. My life doesn't revolve around TV/movies, though, so I can get by just fine with the wait.

Re:Volume Comparison

[moortak]

The fact that they seem to be pushing customers towards streaming seems to indicate it is the more profitable option.

Re:Volume Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

But are they pushing customers away from the mail-based service? I would argue that they are trying to pick up a separate customer base with the streaming service, that they believe the streaming won't cannibalize their existing market too much to make it worth it. They've largely saturated the market for mail-based rentals so it's only natural that they should explore other avenues, but it doesn't mean streaming makes them more money.

War against Netflix

[GPLDAN]

Content providers are at war with Netflix, and Netflix is differentiating Classes of Service depending on hardware used.

How I do I know? Same way you could know if you did the research. I have a Wii, a PS3 and Apple TV. Hook them up to a FastE hub, or a FastE switch that supports SPAN. Attach wireshark on a laptop.

Start the Netflix viewer on each device. Note that they each have different data centers that they reach out to. Always.

Traceroute to these IP addresses. Note that the Apple one in particular is congested at the last hop.

That is why the Netflix service sucks using the ATV2 unit.

So you have Netflix giving different hardware manufacturers different experiences - AND - you have bandwidth providers (mainly cable) trying to kill Netflix outright by rate shaping the traffic.

If I were Netflix, I wouldn't put those DVD burners on Ebay just yet...

Re:War against Netflix

[Cwix]

That would explain why streaming from my PS3 is so shitty compared to my computer.

Re:War against Netflix

[bill_mcgonigle]

you have bandwidth providers (mainly cable) trying to kill Netflix outright by rate shaping the traffic.

Oh, heck, my Roku can't even deal with Comcast's Powerboost. It sees the initial availability of high bandwidth to Netflix, tries to run at full quality, then once the buffer is exhausted finds it needs to re-buffer back to a lower quality.

I'd really really like to be able to tell it to just run at 3-dots quality all the time. Heck, I'd probably take 2-dots most of the time if the content wasn't visually striking for faster buffer loads. Instead, I need to plan to fill a minute doing something else while it gets its brain together when a movie starts.

Re:War against Netflix

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Streaming on my 360 is perfect. I really don't notice it.

Re:War against Netflix

[matty619]

Interesting....but how would Netflix do this? Have you analyzed the DNS request coming from each device? Is each device requesting a different address? Because that's the easiest way they could do it, as Netflix isn't going to know anything about MAC addresses.

Re:War against Netflix

[DragonWriter]

Content providers are at war with Netflix, and Netflix is differentiating Classes of Service depending on hardware used.

[...]

Start the Netflix viewer on each device. Note that they each have different data centers that they reach out to. Always.

That could be discrimination in class of service, it could be that they use platform-specific DRM systems on the user end, and that they support that with separate servers because its just easier to do that way.

Re:War against Netflix

[h4rr4r]

Works fine on my PS3, but on all my computers is just says operating system not supported.

Re:War against Netflix

[CmdrPorno]

Were you viewing the same content on each device when you did this test?

I have seen an issue before where some content would barely stream, but other content would play fine in HD. Within a few hours, the problem disappeared. I assume that, at least some of the time, not all of the Netflix streaming library is available from the nearest/fastest location.

Re:War against Netflix

[h4rr4r]

The PS3 does this too, honestly the real problem is the cable providers nonsense. You can work around it by pausing as soon as the film starts then getting a drink or snack or talking to a human for a minute.

Re:War against Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Content providers are at war with Netflix, and Netflix is differentiating Classes of Service depending on hardware used.

How I do I know? Same way you could know if you did the research. I have a Wii, a PS3 and Apple TV. Hook them up to a FastE hub, or a FastE switch that supports SPAN. Attach wireshark on a laptop.

Start the Netflix viewer on each device. Note that they each have different data centers that they reach out to. Always.

Traceroute to these IP addresses. Note that the Apple one in particular is congested at the last hop.

That is why the Netflix service sucks using the ATV2 unit.

I don't doubt your network analysis, but the Netflix app and streaming works flawlessly on my ATV2, iPhone, and iPad. Never an issue. I guess YMMV.

Re:War against Netflix

[icebraining]

If they use normal DNS (as opposed to DNSSEC or a custom lookup service), you could possibly spoof it and get access to a better host.

Re:War against Netflix

[bill_mcgonigle]

The PS3 does this too, honestly the real problem is the cable providers nonsense.

I'm not sure you can call it 'nonsense'. Certainly it's designed for Web-like applications, but it does help customers doing that kind of Internet activity.

You can work around it by pausing as soon as the film starts then getting a drink or snack or talking to a human for a minute.

Your PS3 might have a bigger buffer than my Roku. Mine has to exhaust the buffer at full quality and then fail to receive packets in order to train down. Usually this means you have to watch a minute or two of the film. If it's introductory credits for the first 3 minutes, you're all set.

Re:War against Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

some additional details on the netflix streaming system and other details from the netfilx blog...

http://techblog.netflix.com/

Re:War against Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they need different delivery servers because the video formats and streaming method are tailored to the device. The PC may be able to play 1080p H264 at high bitrate, but the Apple TV or Wii will not. Given the volume, it's more effective to handle each on separate servers/networks.

Re:War against Netflix

[real gumby]

Streaming on my 360 is perfect. I really don't notice it.

Hmm, and do you think this might have anything to do with that?

Re:War against Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

So, with things being what they are from this experiement, would Net Neutrality* help, hinder, or do nothing for the home user Netflix experience, console independent?

I'm actually curious to know what would fix this specific scenario. All traffic is created equal?

Re:War against Netflix

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Clearly Sony just doesn't understand how to do business in the U.S.

Re:War against Netflix

[aztracker1]

I've felt this... my HTPC running Boxee is always congested, but my LG TV does fine, and usually far better quality...

Re:War against Netflix

[geekoid]

ALl you did is collect some date. The reason you think it is happening is purely speculative.

Now if only...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Now if only they'd get Season 7 of "The Office".

I realize that's almost a complete non-sequiter. I just want to see Season 7, and I don't want to put up with Hulu's commercials.

Re:Now if only...

[Surt]

Yeah, that's going to kill Hulu, I bet. The number of people who just aren't going to watch commercials with their content any more is going nowhere but up.

Re:Now if only...

[An ominous Cow art]

It's the reason I haven't, and won't, try Hulu.

It blows my mind...

[sideslash]

...that so many "A" titles are unavailable for streaming from any source (not just Netflix). C'mon, people, it's the 21st century. Put everything up there; I'll gladly pay a buck or two to rent what I want, whenever I want; and I think most adults have the same attitude (not necessarily a lot of Slashdot readers, but anyway).

Re:It blows my mind...

[alen]

you can rent it on vudu, itunes and other services for $5 or so

Re:It blows my mind...

[omnichad]

The studios ARE doing that (not with Netflix). Just at such a HIGH cost that we go for what's cheapest - physical media. Netflix can buy a DVD for $30, and rent it out several hundred times, paying only for the postage. If it weren't for the little legal loophole that allows for the renting of physical media, we'd be paying $5-10 each viewing to rent any movie over a streaming service.
 
Netflix made it so convenient, that online streaming is only an afterthought for many people. The studios are probably just begging to be allowed in, but then they don't want to put up with the prices Netflix is demanding - so they give their lowest value titles in return for some profits - but are still trying to negotiate higher prices for their A-list titles. Netflix isn't going to double their subscription costs just to give the studios the amount they're asking.

Re:It blows my mind...

[mitgib]

...that so many "A" titles are unavailable for streaming from any source (not just Netflix). C'mon, people, it's the 21st century. Put everything up there; I'll gladly pay a buck or two to rent what I want, whenever I want; and I think most adults have the same attitude (not necessarily a lot of Slashdot readers, but anyway).

If only it were that easy. Go look at Amazon and their rental rates for streaming new(ish) movies, $4, and you have to wait the 3-4 month window for the DVD to come out, then the 30 day window for Netflix to start renting, then maybe it gets put on the streaming rental circuit. The stupidios see these windows and a chance to sell another copy, I just see it as a chance for me to care even less about that title.

Re:It blows my mind...

[sideslash]

Where can you watch Star Wars Episode V (The Empire Strikes Back) streaming online, legally? There are times when I would pay $5 or $6 to watch the specific movie that I want to watch (darnit), and it's not available. In the 21st century I shouldn't have to go to a brick and mortar store, as long as I'm willing to spend money. OK, so I'm lazy; but I honestly don't understand why they don't want my money.

Linux Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

If streaming is so much cheaper than shipping you would think they would be interested in making streaming available to us Linux users. I find it hard to believe they couldn't show a ROI on that significant of a cost differential. I know it would certainly cut down on the number of disks I receive every month.

Re:Linux Streaming

[Dan667]

hollywood fears linux and not very many people use it on the desktop. That said, I would love and use Netflix Streaming heavily on my MythTV box.

Re:Linux Streaming

[Andy Dodd]

Problem is, it is VERY difficult to implement content-provider-friendly DRM on Linux.

Content providers still insist on DRMing what they can, despite the fact that many of their delivery methods are known to be fully compromised. (They're dumbasses like that.)

I mean, who cares if Netflix streaming can be ripped when the higher-quality DVD is 100% compromised, and even Blu-Ray is compromised?

Re:Linux Streaming

[h4rr4r]

and HDCP that the netflix stream will be played over is compromised.

It does not matter how fancy your DRM is when I can just record off the link.

Re:Linux Streaming

[glwtta]

hollywood fears linux

How so? Doesn't linux render most of Hollywood's movies these days?

Re:Linux Streaming

[bberens]

I thought netflix streaming was done via flash. While Flash isn't free as in freedom it seems like it wouldn't take much to get it working. What's missing from the Linux Flash that it doesn't work?

Re:Linux Streaming

[Maltheus]

What's missing is that it's not Microsoft Silverlight. Netflix doesn't use flash. I would imagine there was some backroom deal there.

There is a silverlight clone for linux, but it doesn't do DRM.

Re:Linux Streaming

[bberens]

Ahh, I didn't know it was Silverlight. Thanks.

Re:Linux Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Total FUD. Hulu works fine on linux. Netflix uses windows to wrap it's DRM. Hulu devs have even offered to show Netflix how to do it, but they don't want to know. Netflix is very anti-linux and anti-android.

Piracy is a windows thing, see many Linux warez sites?

Re:Linux Streaming

[heypete]

Indeed. I believe their stream-to-PC service used to be WMV videos, which used Microsoft's DRM. I suppose it was considerably easier to just use Silverlight (which plays nice with the existing DRM) rather than re-encoding all the videos to a different codec.

Too bad In Canada

[future assassin]

SHAW and ROGERS are pushing hard to penalize people for using services like Netflix with their new caps and $1-2 per gig for going over. CRTC+SHAW+ROGERS+BELL= Consumer shafting FTW!

Re:Too bad In Canada

[dwandy]

If we assume that Netflix is paying about 2.5cents/gig (the 5-cents quoted is for a 2gb movie),
and from bell we learn that their overage charge is currently:
Usage overage charge (up to $60)1 $2.50/GB
Wow, that's about 100x more expensive than netflix is getting their bandwidth.
I get that we're paying retail and Netflix is buying at near-wholesale -- but I don't know any retailer that enjoys 10,000% markup.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[vux984]

Ok, I'll bite. Boohoo... you use a ton of data, you have to pay for it. If you want to start a hydroponics garden in your basement you'll pay a premium for electricity. You want to stream 100's of GB of data you'll pay a premium for bandwidth. I find it really hard to get upset.

Shaw's plans in particular are pretty consumer friendly. You actually get a warning the first couple times you exceed the limit, so there is no 'suprise mega bill'. And if you want a lot of data, their nitro service is $150/mo, gives you 100mbps download speed, and a $350/gb cap.

Not enough? and you think $1GB/mo beyond that is too much? Add on a data plan... 250GB / $50 brings the price down to 20 cents / GB.

Seriously. $200/mo for 100mbps/5mbps with 600GB of transfer is pretty good.

You can whine that $30 bucks a month for unlimited high speed use is even better, but that pricing was made when the internet was predominantly text, and the vast majority of people didn't need a lot of data, but wanted it fast when they did. Anyone who thought that pricing would persist while peoples usage changed and grew exponentially is living in denial.

And in my opinion, you can't have net neutrality without metered internet.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[h4rr4r]

That beats the margins on Cocaine, from leaf to street.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[h4rr4r]

I get 25Mbps/25Mbps and have no such limit I can find for $50/month. Thanks FIOS.

You're getting screwed, eh?

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Vegan Cyclist]

Exactly - not to mention that fees are being paid on both ends... Netflix is paying to send it out, and we're paying to receive. Interesting model, that.

Imagine if the post office worked like that - you pay to have your letter mailed, and the recipient also pays when they get it...

Rogers is especially bad, but Shaw is really starting to lose touch as well. My fees have gone up ~$10 with Shaw in the last couple of years, from ~$42/mo to ~$52/mo, and i think i read that they're supposed to go up again soon...wtf?

Re:Too bad In Canada

[pete_norm]

Videotron charges 7$ per gig over your cap. I've been hit once, now i check it often just to be sure...

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Yvan256]

Stop defending those media megacorps. Most of them are in a situation of conflict of interest (they provide both content and carrier) and they all overcharge like hell when you compare to the rest of the planet. Look at prices in Asia or Europe. Hell, even the USA has better rates in some areas.

Instead of wasting/banking the profits for the last decade or so, they should have upgraded their infrastructures.

Seriously, 200$/month for high-speed internet with a cap of only 0.6TB is pretty expensive. Too bad our CRTC is corrupt and the conservative government won't do shit about it.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[lgw]

600 GB/month = 230 kB/second. My DSL is faster than that. Nice burst speed though.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp
You can get a 5M/800k DSL with an unlimited bandwidth cap for $40/mo (though you might be better off going with the 200GB package). I wouldn't say the speed is blazing or anything, but I've never noticed my netflix quality being impacted.
You can get faster cable modems if you need faster, but something I should point out is that what determines your real speed is more of a function of how oversold the line is, not how fast your cable modem is. A 5 megabit connection should be capable of roughly 500 to 600k per second, which should be plenty to run netflix, if you get it all.
I don't exactly run a meter on my DSL so I don't know how fast my data is really coming down, but at a guess I'd say I usually have at least 400k/sec.

Anyhow, my experience with teksavvy is that they're not cheap to sign up with but they have good caps and actually deliver the bandwidth you're expecting. Rogers and Bell (and presumably Shaw, though I have no experience with them) will entice you in with cheap "special offers" with free signups, but as you've noticed their overage fees are overboard and the caps are tiny.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[vux984]

Fios isn't available here, yet. Fios isn't even available to 90% of the US yet.

Personally, I look forward to increased bandwidth and lower prices, and while its popular to rail against the ISPs here and in most places, things are generally actually improving. Perhaps not as fast or as dramatically as elsewhere, but the trend is in the right direction.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[vux984]

Seriously, 200$/month for high-speed internet with a cap of only 0.6TB is pretty expensive. Too bad our CRTC is corrupt and the conservative government won't do shit about it.

Sure compared to a few isolated parts of Asia and Europe or one ISP in the USA we still suck.

Compared to most of the world including most of the USA we're doing pretty darn good. Compared to our own part of the world a year ago, things are actually getting better. Compared to our own part of the world 4 years ago things are much better.

Shaw Nitro's burst speed today is twice as fast as it was a year ago, and the up stream is more than double. The caps in place may as well not even exist for over 90% of its users. And the remaining 10% ... there didn't used to be an option to drop the per GB price to 20 cents/GB for overage like there is now. There used to be nothing to do but get a T1 line" once you started hitting the 'soft caps' enough to trigger their 'your abusing your service' notifications. (And you can still get a T1 line for that matter, although they aren't cheap.)

Bottom line, access is getting better and cheaper for everyone except for a small 1% minority that were allowed to get away with abusing $30/month unlimited internet access plans that were effectively subsidized by everyone else on the plan.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Rudeboy777]

What you say is true (fellow Teksavvy customer here) but those rates are gone, gone, gone when usage-based billing (UBB) is allowed by the CRTC.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05/06/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I personal feel like it is price fixing and limiting the supply of a competitors product. Remember Rogers is selling you cable and bell is selling you satellite. And the caps only came in around the same time Netflix came to Canada which was very convenient. If you feel the same way complain to a organization that can do something(not the CRTC) it is better then doing nothing. http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GH%C3%89T-7TDNA5

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Demonantis]

Listowel has FiOS not to be pedantic. The fact that Rogers and Bell has nearly every other company by there balls makes it even harder to tell if this is fair market value on these connections. Capping or no capping.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Mariognarly]

Shaw and Rogers are looking to make sure their networks aren't so saturated with HD video streaming that it ruins the experience for your neighbor who's trying to send a few emails.

Usage based billing (UBB) is currently a way to make it fair for everyone, although it is a drastic culture shift from what we're used to in Canada. Netflix pays the ISPs zero dollars to use their networks to stream to their customers, unlike how the content provider's pay the networks for airtime. Bandwidth unfortunately isn't free.

Imagine if it were free to use snail-mail to ship DVDs anywhere you liked. How would the post-office survive as a business?

Re:Too bad In Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

My ISP, Sasktel, is in direct competition with Shaw. 10Mbps service is $40 per month with no bandwidth caps at all. Oh, and it actually is my ISP - it's publicly owned.

Re:Too bad In Canada

[future assassin]

>Netflix pays the ISPs zero dollars to use their networks to stream to their customers, unlike how the content provider's pay the networks for airtime. Bandwidth unfortunately isn't free.

NO "I" pay SHAW to access and get info from Netlix, not my problem SHAW sold me on a service that they can't deliver on. What was the last time Slashdot paid SHAW so that I could access it from my home computer. Yah....

Re:Too bad In Canada

[vux984]

Listowel has FiOS not to be pedantic. The fact that Rogers and Bell has nearly every other company by there balls makes it even harder to tell if this is fair market value on these connections. Capping or no capping.

Well, its not just rogers and bell; there's telus and shaw and a few others... sasktel, mts, etc but there's only a couple in any given region. and everyone else just resells from them ... so 'by the balls' as you say.

But trying to establish "fair market value" in a market defined by government subsidized and regulated infrastructure of a natural monopoly* is something of a non sequitur. Its not a fair market and it inherently can't be fair... so how does one even define what "fair market value" means here.

The regulatory system we have certainly isn't perfect, but its necessary, and overall I think its working. I'd like to see faster speeds and higher bandwidth for cheap as much as anyone... but its a complicated market.

---
*Without which we'd have multiple small independant carriers only serving customers who paid them to run a phone or cable line to their home, and each carrier would have to negotiate with the government separately for all the easements and right-of-ways to get those lines to you, and when you bought a home it would have connections only to a subset of the carriers... or perhaps none at all... there are VERY good reasons its not a "free market".

Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[Maxo-Texas]

pay for improvements to the backbone.

Linux distros and other filesharing will disappear by comparison.

This is the service that pays for the next internet upgrade.

I know I've gone from 28kbps up / 380kpbs down to 120kpbs (sometimes 180kpbs) up / 800kpbs down on comcast in houston.

The capacity is there.

I regret not getting Netflix sooner but they seem to have exploded recently-- at least 20 new series and a hundred new movies seem to be added weekly. I'm now 450 hours behind on viewing and I haven't even added Lost yet.

This is the "cable TV" killer. Cable TV will have to lower rates from $10 a month.

And Columbo from the 1980's is just as entertaining. Watched a great Danny Kaye film last night.

There is a huge oversupply of entertainment-- it's time for the prices to start coming down!

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[dunezone]

...and a hundred new movies seem to be added weekly.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching bad movies. But of those 100 added every week maybe 2 or 3 are decent and everything else is terrible or B-Movie.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[BrianRoach]

No, it's not the "cable TV killer" because in most cases, that's who is providing the broadband pipe. And when it's not ... it's the phone company, which may also be selling you "cable" (See: Verizon FIOS) and/or "on-demand" content.

This is why Comcast wants to double-dip and change you AND Netflix for your internet connection. Without government regulation it will never be cheaper to stream the same content available from the last-mile provider; the last-mile provider will prevent that from occurring.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[h4rr4r]

kpbs = kilo per bit second?

Also 800 kbps would also be too slow to watch netflix. That is only 100 KBps.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[countertrolling]

There is a huge oversupply of entertainment...

And what minuscule percentage of it is worth your time?

Streaming is a great win for Netflix. With your knees being capped by the ISP, they now send it postage due. And no doubt the ??AAs will want a piece of that action.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[bberens]

Internet streaming still cannot compete with channel surfing. Once that hurdle has been overcome it has a chance, but not in its current state.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[CmdrPorno]

I agree it's a cable TV killer. Being able to watch series on demand with no ads is awesome.

The cable TV / telephone companies see the writing on the wall--they will provide only a connection, and consumers will be able to choose among various content providers like Netflix and have no reason to buy the "premium" cable TV package. This is the real reason Comcast and others are bitching and screaming about Netflix.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[omnichad]

Netflix streams at the average non-HD quality starts at 700kbps.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[Belial6]

I cancelled my DishNetwork service last May. It is the first time since I was ~6 years old that I have been without some form of 'cable'. The Hulu/Netflix combo has satisfied our TV watching pretty well. I only expected it to last a few months. So far, I don't see a need to go back.

Ironically, shortly before that, I started doing business with Comcast. Netflix/Hulu did kill 'cable TV' for me, but because of some serious monopoly shinanagans by AT&T, it didn't kill paying a bill for Comcast service every month. What I did learn though was that the secret to Comcast is to be a 'Business Customer'. You don't have to be an actual business, but because the service is intended for heavy use by businesses, things like port filtering and throttling don't happen. They also offer better support if there is an outage. If your internet goes down Friday at 4pm, and it is determined someone needs to come out, someone will be there on Saturday.

The basic price is ~$20 more per month, and can be more if you are looking at the introductory prices that Comcast sometimes offers to residential customers. I pay $59 a month for a 12/2 line. I have only once dropped below 12, and general can sustain transfer rates in the 24/6 range. Not that I ever do for long periods. I hate to say it, and I fear the future service of a monopoly, but Comcast has been a really good provider for me. So, if you MUST use Comcast, do yourself a favor. Pay the little bit extra and get a "Business Account".

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[TheoMurpse]

kpbs . . . kpbs . . . kpbs

I fail to understand how the heck you're able to stream a movie on 800 kilopers bit second

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[Maxo-Texas]

I have been using Comcast for internet for 10 years (well Time Warner and then Comcast).

However, I don't use Warner/Comcast cable TV and haven't for ages because their signal quality is bad. It's digital so they must just be pumping in crap or overcompressing. So I went to Dish and they kept inching up my rates. I finally cut them when I cut a $10 service to get the price down and next month they raised my rates by $10.

I'm willing to pay about $40 for cable TV( and the loss leader ads are always 29.95). But it rapidly hits $70 bucks without premium stations now.

And a lot of it is crap and has a lot of commercials.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[FoolishOwl]

One thing my family appreciates about Netflix is that the visual quality of the programs we watch is better than what we get from Comcast itself. I'm guessing that's because Netflix software tests our bandwidth and hardware and adjusts for optimal viewing, unlike Comcast, which just sends HDTV to our SDTV.

Re:Well then, they can pay up to 50 cents and..

[Anonymous Coward]

wait about an hour for it to buffer sufficiently?

Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[jaymz666]

Since it uses 2 or so GB per HD movie streamed, your comcast caps will be pushed. The USPS hasn't called me up saying I have used too much mail.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[GiveBenADollar]

Yeah but the latency sucks. I'm still waiting to re-spawn using IPoAC to play CSS and it's been 2 weeks. I only use my wired connection for slashdot.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Anonymous Coward]

You're paying per oz to send physical mail...

You're not paying per GB for what you're downloading...

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[tgd]

Comcast's caps are (soft) 250GB.

At 2GB per movie streamed (and in my experience its less than half that), that's 125 movies.

A month.

Four a day.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Kjella]

Because at the post office you pay postage for every packet by size and weight but at your ISP you don't. Even inside large companies the profit centers rarely care if they step on the toes of some other profit center, if Comcast the ISP think they can turn a good profit on offering a service for the heavy users they most likely will. It just won't be at the same rate as the mom and pops that use it to check their email and read the online newspaper. As far as I've seen the problem in the US is more the lack of competition, as long as the other alternative doesn't upgrade they don't need to either, so they can continue to take huge margins on old and downpaid equipment. So they cap to avoid having to improve the network unless someone forces them to.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[jaymz666]

One steam game, 12GB
backing up online (I did just 137GB in this last month from a single PC) 2GB per day for two computers, another 60 GB
2GB in other assorted network use per day (youtube, itunes), 60GB

Now we're down to 2 movies a day.

With only a single connection for a family of four, that's not an inconceivable usage scenario.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[rbayer]

You might want to check your math there. Comcast currently caps at 250GB per month, so unless you're streaming 4+ movies per day, you really shouldn't have trouble. You can say whatever you want about the appropriateness of bandwidth caps in general, but the truth is that 250GB is a LOT to pull in one month; in particular, you can download at 100k/s continuously for the entire month and still stay under the cap...

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[TripHammer]

The joke's on you, UPS does not handle US Mail!

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[TripHammer]

oh man you said USPS, gotta stop drinking at work.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[lgw]

So if you have 1 TV, and leave it turned on when you're home (as many people do), you can hit the cap pretty easily. So if you have a family and 3-4 TVs, it's likely to be a problem if that's how you get all your TV.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[jaymz666]

Sure, if ALL you do is stream movies... let's also remember their cap is total, up and down. I somehow used 495GB of bandwidth last month with a combination of the Steam xmas sale, being home and streaming movies and anime from netflix, podcasts, crashplan backups. All legit traffic.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Mariognarly]

I wish we could keep _unlimited_ bandwidth, but it's becoming harder and harder for the ISPs to keep up to consumer bandwidth demands. Especially when everyone and their dog wants to stream HD movies instantly both wired and wireless.

The USPS hasn't called you to say you've used too much mail because you pay on a per letter basis. Comcast gives you "x" GB for "x" a month and advises you if you go over, you may be paying per usage.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[jaymz666]

No, if you go over they cut you off for a year. Big difference.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Anonymous Coward]

That is assuming your internet connection is only being used for Netflix. There are other things on the internet. Comcast's cap is 250GB UP + DOWN combined. You are also assuming that there is only one person using the internet connection. If you have 4 people in your house, 4 movies per day isn't that much. If you have more, it can be easy. My current house has 4 adults sharing one comcast connection. My old house had about 16 adults sharing one Comcast connection. That house eventually switched to an unlimited business class connection, but it was a hassle getting the landlord to agree to do that.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[FoolishOwl]

I was worried about the 250GB cap, when we started watching Netflix daily, but we've never come close to hitting it.

We have always tried to limit our television viewing to, at most, an hour or so on weekdays, and two or three hours each weekend day -- so we already limited our consumption, but those aren't ascetic limits. Once in a while I'll download a computer game or a Linux distribution disk image. Our total usage per month seems to be around 100GB.

I expect that, over time, usage will go up, but at the moment, I think 250GB per month is a reasonably generous limit for residential customers.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[tgd]

Maybe your family of four should get up off the couch and go outside once in a while.

Inconceivable usage scenario? No.

Sad? Yes.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Uberbah]

I wish we could keep _unlimited_ bandwidth, but it's becoming harder and harder for the ISPs to keep up to consumer bandwidth demands.

The Japanese and their home gigabit connections put the lie to that bit of corporate propaganda. This isn't about "bandwidth hogs" and never has been. It's about executive greed and wanting to take all revenue as profit rather than upgrade their networks.

Re:Sure, but the USPS doesn't have caps

[Anonymous Coward]

Why go outside when he can just keep fucking your mom in the ass instead?

Hmm.

[seebs]

2M DVDs per day, ~300 shipping days per year (assume they don't ship on Sundays or holidays), that's about $600M.

But how on earth do we conclude that they spend "more" on shipping than they do on streaming? Do we have a number for how many movies they stream? I don't.

Re:Hmm.

[hedwards]

Because they're doing it on a per unit basis. If you read TFS you'd know that. It's in the link for crying out loud.

Oil companies aren't going to like that.

[h00manist]

But if they act quick maybe they can run some fiber along their pipelines. Oh, wait...

circuit costs ??

[Anonymous Coward]

how much are their circuit costs? 2,000,000 x 4.4GB per DVD.. ? fairly substantial bandwidth & server costs, too.

Re:circuit costs ??

[alen]

the content is hosted by level 3. it's not like netflix has a data center streaming content from one location

If I subscribe to Netflix...

[operagost]

... will they stop their garbage pop-unders on every other site I visit?

Re:If I subscribe to Netflix...

[Surt]

You should really invest the $0 an ad-blocker will cost you.

Re:If I subscribe to Netflix...

[lgw]

Given I've never once seen a Netflix pop-under, and I use IE with no blocker ... yes?

Re:If I subscribe to Netflix...

[omnichad]

Even if they only advertise on ad networks that disallow pop-unders, there are still web site owners that ignore those restrictions and get away with it.

Bit rate/resolution

[sixsixtysix]

Until their streaming can match the bit rate & resolution of the physical format, this will be true. Once they start doinxg full hd, and not the garbage they have, with multiple selectable dts-hd tracks, let's see the cost ratio. Their current best HD stuff looks worse than the worst cable or satellite compression.

Re:Bit rate/resolution

[hedwards]

That would be the ISPs responsibility, unless you've got a super fast connection. I was streaming Eureka for a while to my HDTV and it was quite sharp, definitely in the same league as what's coming over the airwaves, well 720p that's coming over the airwaves. It doesn't match Bluray, but it does handily beat DVD quality by miles.

what about comcast?

[hymie!]

Netflix currently pays up to $1 per DVD mailed round trip, and the company mails about 2 million DVDs per day. By comparison, the company pays 5 cents to stream the same movie.

Does this figure reflect the $20million Comcast payoff?

Look at the overall cost of transport...

[HockeyPuck]

When netflix ships a DVD, they pay $1 and nobody else pays. I don't pay to receive the DVD at my house.

When you stream a DVD, not only does netflix have to pay for bandwidth (akin to the $1 / movie with physical shipping), but the receiver has to pay for bandwidth to receive it as well. I don't have to pay for my mailbox, however, you could say that I have to pay rent/mortgage.

It's also cheaper b/c with streaming none of the bandwidth is dedicated to a specific user but is applied to all users. Whereas the mailed DVD, the $1 is specific to me.

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[Arlet]

The marginal cost of receiving data is often zero.

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[Junta]

Since netflix doesn't do a shipping surcharge per disk, the shipping is no more dedicated to a specific user than streaming. AFAIK, they do unicast streaming, so each concurrent user is getting dedicated throughput.

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[jaymz666]

One movie can be 1% of a comcast cap, that's not marginal in my books.

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[Arlet]

If you're using 50% of your "comcast cap", and you're paying a fixed price for your monthly bandwith, the extra 1% doesn't cost anything extra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[jaymz666]

The extra 1% or 2% that pushes you from 99% to 100% or 101% that gets you booted off their network for a year certainly costs you...

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[Arlet]

That's why I said "often", and not "always".

Re:Look at the overall cost of transport...

[Un pobre guey]

...with streaming none of the bandwidth is dedicated to a specific user

TCP packets are streamed to each specific end user, and the endpoints are tracked and reported (among other session data). Netflix must either pay the cost per MB associated with the sum total of each of their end users, or negotiate a billing model that depends on a flat rate plus occasional peaks, or squeeze Level 3's balls until they bleed profusely and they give Netflix some absurdly low rate that has no relationship with reality.

The Nextflix Effect

[surfer10s]

Can't wait for the Netflix effect. The company goes full streaming and Postage rates jump by 3%.

Or, as Tanenbaum might say...

[Arlet]

Never underestimate the cost of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

Re:Or, as Tanenbaum might say...

[Alanbly]

Never underestimate the cost of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

Sort of a backwards use of the quote. The idea is that you'd be surprised how much faster data transfer hauling tape than transferring via the network can be. It's not a celebration of the efficiencies of networks but a condemnation of embracing new technology blindly.

Re:Or, as Tanenbaum might say...

[Dunbal]

And never underestimate the power of a well placed TCP RST command.

Re:Or, as Tanenbaum might say...

[FoolishOwl]

And never underestimate the power of a well placed TCP RST command.

I hope asking this won't cost me my geek card, but, what do you mean?

Is there a Slashdot category for "Duh"?

[Shoten]

Of course it's cheaper. Netflix is just the latest to reap the benefits of cheaper delivery via digital means. Just as email is cheaper than snail-mail, spam is cheaper (unfortunately) to send than promotional mailers, Craigslist is cheaper to post on than putting flyers up in a neighborhood...it's even cheaper to use virtual tape drives for backup, and digitally replicate the backups over WAN links than it is to send tapes via UPS, overall. The examples of this seem endless, and there are many reasons why it happens that way.

All Netflix had to do was wait out Blockbuster....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

and bide their time in general to take advantage of what was inevitable: streaming media. Now that broadband is ubiquitous, it's the next evolution in watching movies. I just wish they had their ENTIRE library on line. It's going to be interesting to see if the demise of Netflix's meatspace delivery will bump up the values of Coinstar, owner of Redbox.

More simple math: only 19x more

[noidentity]

Netflix currently pays up to $1 per DVD mailed round trip, and the company mails about 2 million DVDs per day. By comparison, the company pays 5 cents to stream the same movie. In other words, the company pays 20 times more in postage per movie than it does in bandwidth. Doing some simple math [...]

$1.00 - $0.05 = $0.95 more per DVD. $0.95 / $0.05 = 19 times more per DVD. QED

Everyone else charges $4-$5 for current VOD movies

[billrp]

Amazon, Comcast, Fios charge big bucks for video on demand recent movies - there's no way Netflix can provide their unlimited streaming on current titles for just $10-$15/month. But maybe Netflix and studios can get creative, like Netflix buys a fixed number of streamable recent movies, and you just add a request to your streaming queue like for DVDs, and when a streamable movie becomes available then you get to watch it within the next 12 hours. (Wait, this sounds patentable)

kill the goose that laid the golden egg

[jollyreaper]

Netflix got a sweetheart deal on a lot of the content streaming. There's talk that the content providers want a far bigger cut the next go around.

Netflix created a market for them that they didn't even realize was possible and now they're bitching about not getting a big enough cut. I like that Amazon is funding their own studio. Create better content and to hell with the studios.

Re:kill the goose that laid the golden egg

[h4rr4r]

Then netflix will just go back to DVDs in the mail. Thankfully for them that sets a price ceiling they can show to the content providers.

Too bad their streaming options are limited

[grasshoppa]

At least for what I'm looking for. Every now and then I figure, "Hey! I'll watch X! I've got a couple hours, why not?" And of course, you can't stream X. Happens a couple times a week to me.

Of course, then there's the case of the missing series in my instant queue. I had farscape on there, checked back in Dec...it had been moved to disk only. Crappy and annoying. Then it reappeared in my instant queue in January. No explanation.

I love the entire idea of streaming movies, but they need to get things more robust and reliable.

Re:Too bad their streaming options are limited

[lgw]

Netflix makes everything is can possibly negotiate available for streaming - they're not the ones holding back. Eventually the studios will see the writing on the wall, and everything will be available for streaming. Given they're not famous for getting it, I'm not cancelling my physical media suscription just yet, but I expect to be able to in a few years.

Re:Too bad their streaming options are limited

[PRMan]

Hollywood said you can't have it for a while...

If only there were rules...

[DragonWriter]

Until....buffering......buffering..... pesky.....buffering...buffering.... Comcast et al does their dirty deeds.

Huh. If only the someone would adopt rules that specifically preventing ISPs from block, degrading, or discriminating against content providers that compete with services offered by the ISPs, particularly calling out voice and video services.

Oh, wait, they did.

Re:If only there were rules...

[SuperCharlie]

If you don't think they will play the network stability card and get a nod to tier the bandwidth you haven't really learned how govt and business work yet...

Re:If only there were rules...

[Grishnakh]

Obama's FCC is opposed to network neutrality, so pretty soon the ISPs WILL be blocking Netflix. Netflix is going to have to return to mail-only service. They've already approved a merger of NBC and Comcast, despite Obama's rhetoric about being opposed to too much consolidation back in '08 on the election trail. Obviously, Obama has shown yet again that he's a liar.

Re:If only there were rules...

[DragonWriter]

Obama's FCC is opposed to network neutrality

Which is why they adopted rules which mandate it.

so pretty soon the ISPs WILL be blocking Netflix.

Even though the FCC just adopted rules which specifically prevent that.

They've already approved a merger of NBC and Comcast, despite Obama's rhetoric about being opposed to too much consolidation back in '08 on the election trail.

Obama's statements on the issue were about maintaining diversity in the ownership of outlets. NBC Universal owns outlets, pre-merger Comcast did not. Comcast buying a controlling interest in NBC Universal from GE doesn't reduce diversity in ownership of outlets. So there is no conflict there.

Re:If only there were rules...

[DragonWriter]

If you don't think they will play the network stability card and get a nod to tier the bandwidth you haven't really learned how govt and business work yet...

Insults are not a substitute for facts and evidence, which you do not have.

Re:If only there were rules...

[Grishnakh]

Are you an ObamaBot or something?

The FCC just ruled against network neutrality, not mandating it.

And having a Comcast-NBC merger reduces diversity because there's fewer companies, duh. Not only that, but now Comcast will own a network which competes with other networks that it's supposed to deliver; how is that not a conflict of interest?

I love how Obama fans bash Bush, yet they back up Obama every time he does something that's exactly the same as the fascist, corporatist shit that Bush did.

Re:If only there were rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't think they will play the network stability card

I wish I could do that. My network card is totally unstable.

Re:If only there were rules...

[DragonWriter]

Are you an ObamaBot or something?

The latter.

The FCC just ruled against network neutrality, not mandating it.

No, the FCC issued a Report and Order prohibiting fixed and, to a lesser extent, mobile broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against lawful content, applications, or services, and particularly doing so to favor services provided by the broadband provider themselves or their business partners. That is, mandating net neutrality.

And having a Comcast-NBC merger reduces diversity because there's fewer companies, duh.

No, it doesn't. Because NBC Universal was formerly a subsidiary of GE in which Vivendi held a 20% stake. Now it will be a subsidiary of Comcast in which GE holds a 49% stake.

The number of companies before and after the merger (and the number of those companies that are corporate parents and the number that are subsidiaries, and even the identities of which ones are parents and which ones are subsidiaries) is not changed by the merger, though which parent company NBC Universal is a subsidiary of has changed.

Anyhow, Obama specifically made states about maintaining diversity in ownership of outlets which this does not affect meaningfully (Comcast, pre-merger, is not a significant owner of outlets, while NBC Universal is.)

Not only that, but now Comcast will own a network which competes with other networks that it's supposed to deliver; how is that not a conflict of interest?

So what if it is a "conflict of interest"? Corporations having conflicts of interests are generally not illegal in the US.

I would like to see local caching

[Marrow]

Streaming has a lot of downsides for me. Its really bad at fast-forward / rewind. It does not support subtitles. Extra DVD features are not present. So I like DVDs better. That said, they could get around some of these issues by caching the content at my house. If I put movies into my streaming queue, the content should begin downloading to my home right then, and not wait until I want to watch it. Sort of like a dvr with remote PUSH capability. Also if I an my neighbour add the same movie, then we should be able to help each others caching. And your netflix devices should just grab local cached data instead of streaming it from the internet. Doing it this way, the downloads could be done slowly, some could be done at night in off hours. And same-subnet boxes could scatter-gather the content to be even more efficient. The local cache would make the FF/RW perform much better. And extra features could be added as extra chapters that you can skip to.

Re:I would like to see local caching

[jdastrup]

Great idea, even if it involves buying a cheap device from NetFlix or Comcast/Local ISP to do the caching

Re:I would like to see local caching

[D Ninja]

It does not support subtitles.

Actually, many of the Netflix streaming movies are now offering options of CC. Not every movie, but I'm seeing it pop up more frequently lately.

Re:I would like to see local caching

[noc007]

Sadly the latest trend I've seen with new DVD releases is the discs are pressed specifically for NetFlix with a bunch of ads/trailers and no special features. They're pretty noticeable by having a gray label on the discs and the newer ones even have NetFlix's logo silk-screened on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of their streaming deals with the studios and the 28 day release wait.

For me, being able to rent the same DVD that's for sale in the store was part of the appeal of NetFlix. The extra content is great. With these content deals to have rental specific DVDs from NetFlix with a bunch of ads and no special features, I'd much rather stream that movie than use up a queue slot and waste time on ads. Sadly, I'm not seeing as big of an impact in their streaming selection as I expected from all of the hype surrounding these deals. If things don't shape up soon, I may end up reducing or ending my subscription and taking that money to RedBox; unless I missed the article where RedBox caved as well.

Re:I would like to see local caching

[penguinchris]

Some rental discs at Blockbuster are rental editions also, with no special features and extra ads. The Inception blu-ray I rented there had a big gray "RENTAL" silk-screened on the disc along with the film logo. Quite disappointing - there's no indication of this on the box, and you can't see the disc before paying - as I was looking forward to seeing some special features from that.

I've never used RedBox (I don't ever rent movies myself, I know of Blockbuster because I've rented movies there recently for my parents) so can't comment there. I've looked and have never been interested in anything I saw in a RedBox machine, and anyway if I'm going to rent something it's going to be on blu-ray and RedBox is still mostly DVD. However, the point of my comment is that if Blockbuster physical rentals are moving to rental editions, I wouldn't be surprised if RedBox will be forced down that road also at some point.

Re:I would like to see local caching

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM'd movie content served over BitTorrent could be nice for local caching.

From Comcast to NetFlix

[LWATCDR]

You knows it would be a real shame if that stream of yours got slowed down..

Not MPAA, studios

[SuperKendall]

They do have some recent stuff (like Alice in Wonderland for example).

But you can't blame the MPAA for this one, they are not involved. It's up to individual studios to decide to allow streaming or not. Many of them seem reluctant to let what they view as hot properties go on Netflix for what they view as a pittance (witness HBO's stance that Netflix users have to pay $30/month before Netflix will get HBO shows).

What I think will happen is that more people will switch to streaming and big studios will see rental revenue decline if they do not join. At some point Netflix will have to reach a compromise and charge somewhat more (not sure how much) in return for getting the "real" movies.

I don't really mind the current situation though as for the movies I care about more, I prefer to rent a blu-ray anyway for picture quality. Netflix HD is good (when a show is even in HD!), but just not nearly as good as physical media.

Re:Not MPAA, studios

[Anonymous Coward]

> Netflix HD is good (when a show is even in HD!), but just not nearly as good as physical media.

A lot of people don't realize that DVD is only a 10Mbit stream.

Re:Not MPAA, studios

[ShakaUVM]

>>(witness HBO's stance that Netflix users have to pay $30/month before Netflix will get HBO shows).

To be fair, HBO already allows streaming its shows... you just have to subscribe to HBO.

It wouldn't make sense for them to allow another company to sell the same thing for less.

Re:Not MPAA, studios

[kevinmenzel]

Of course on BluRay, the audio alone can be 24.5 Mbit/s, and the overall audio/video stream can be 54Mbit/s. As there is no provider willing to sell me a pipe at any cost that can handle a consistant 54Mbit/s connection rate plus whatever network overhead would be needed to maintain that, I'll stick to my BluRay discs.

Re:Not MPAA, studios

[kefler]

I totally agree.. streaming is pointless to me except for old TV shows or something. Movies, I can't put up with the quality. Even with Netflix HD which is not really HD quality, and nevermind the sound sucks. Seems like many people who would pay extra for entertainment would be in the same boat. Larger-screen 1080p displays and good sound systems.

I just know that a streaming netflix movie on a 108" 1080p projection screen turned up hurts your eyes and ears with the compression artifacts and compressed sound.

Re:Not MPAA, studios

[Anonymous Coward]

audio alone can be 24.5 Mbit/s

That doesn't make any sense. That bandwidth would give you five channels of 24-bit sound at 192,000 samples per second uncompressed. That's an order of manitude more sound quality than even an unreasonable person would say a human being could possibly perceive.

I would be ready to drop cable TV completely, if..

[matty619]

Netflix could figure out a deal to add cable TV channels available for live streaming a la carte. I would need a couple cable news channels, a few discovery channels, comedy central, and one or two others I'm forgetting perhaps. At $3-$5 each per month, I would still come out ahead of where I am now with my current basic cable w/ HD DVR. Make that happen, and cable TV would be on a fast downward spiral. Seems like the smaller cable TV stations would like that, as they wouldn't have to fight to get added to the lineup, just get enough money together to build whatever it is that a cable TV channel needs these days, do a little advertising, and if ppl want it, they'll subscribe directly. Cut out the middleman. I can't wait! :)

Where's the content?

[adenied]

I noticed yesterday that I have 154 movies or TV series in my Instant queue that are "saved". This means that they were once available to view but now aren't. Sure some of these are Stars releases that are only available for a limited time. But if even half of them are just things that Netflix had the rights to stream but has now lost that's really pathetic. As long as this continues and the only things available to stream are a very small percentage of their library, any of which might disappear with very little notice, there's no way they can do anything but spend the money to ship DVDs. They just raised their rates about 15% a couple months ago. I'm still paying because I don't know of a better legal option and I'm still holding out hope that the streaming situation will improve "sometime soon".

Who is to blame for that?

[assertation]

I would gladly watch streaming movies with my Netflix account, but Netflix doesn't support my operating system, Linux.

How so cheap?

[commodore64_love]

What I want to know - how do they mail DVDs at $1 round-trip?
  - It costs me about 3 dollars round-trip (first class - approximately $1.50 per mailing). What's their secret to such cheap postage? I want in on that deal.

Re:How so cheap?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably negotiated special rates with USPS, no big mystery there.

Re:How so cheap?

[uniquename72]

You're paying parcel rate. You should be paying letter rate (but then you can't use a normal jewel case). Also, they get bulk rate.

Re:How so cheap?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know - how do they mail DVDs at $1 round-trip?

  - It costs me about 3 dollars round-trip (first class - approximately $1.50 per mailing). What's their secret to such cheap postage? I want in on that deal.

Yeah, but you are mailing it in some sort of case and/or a protective envelope (either padded or cardboard). If you mail just the dvd in a paper sleeve in a paper envelope, you can actually get it through with 1 stamp. http://www.elivermore.com/mailing_dvds.htm

As that website says, you technically have to pay an extra 20 cents each way for being rigid, but you can usually get away without paying that. Netflix probably negotiated their way out of that fee (if not a lower cost too). So their cost is 82 cents + envelope + breakage + labor.

Re:How so cheap?

[aztracker1]

probably has something to do with their packaging, and pre-route barcodes on the envelopes...

Re:How so cheap?

[Rudolf]

What I want to know - how do they mail DVDs at $1 round-trip?
    - It costs me about 3 dollars round-trip (first class - approximately $1.50 per mailing). What's their secret to such cheap postage? I want in on that deal.

The post office offers all sorts of discounts for volume mailers, for things like pre-sorting the mail, using bar codes for addressing, etc.

If you start mailing 2 million DVDs a day, pre-sorted by mail route, then you will get a discount, too.

And yet...

[Enderandrew]

And yet Netflix will only allow you to stream a small fraction of their library.

I signed up for a trial because everyone swears by it. I couldn't find a single thing I wanted to watch that they were streaming that month, so I canceled my account right away.

Re:And yet...

[h4rr4r]

Check out the TV shows, the foreign films, the indie films. Either you have very limited tastes or you are lying.

Re:And yet...

[rshol]

Yes the catalog of movies (films suck, I want movies) is bad. I want popular movies not some drek with subtitles. Truly there is nothing entertaining to watch that isn't at least 10 years old, and I've seen all the 10 year old movies I wanted to see about 9 years ago.

Re:And yet...

[Enderandrew]

I like indie films, but I rarely watch many foreign films.

I largely detest TV as a medium, because like most monthly comics, TV shows are designed to not tell complete stories. They just want to get renewed to continue their stories to perputuity.

I enjoy movies precisely because they are complete stories.

Re:And yet...

[penguinchris]

I don't want to sound like a smug asshole who likes foreign films (though I do and probably am), but it sounds like your problem really stems from the fact that you don't watch foreign stuff. I rarely watch english-language indie films, because I don't generally enjoy them. But I watch loads of foreign films, from all eras, indie and studio.

The big problem many people have with foreign films I think stems from the way the big-name ones are imported to the US. I mean stuff like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Decent film, but it wouldn't be anywhere near my top choices for Chinese (and Hong Kong) films - I could probably name at least thirty or forty I would rank higher, few to none of which most people in the US have even heard of. And, those big-name ones are released dubbed, which *always* ruins it. Even worse, sometimes US versions of foreign films are heavily edited from the original, with the idea being that US audiences won't understand cultural references and/or they want something shorter. But for me, learning about other cultures - from their own point of view - is one of the great things about foreign films.

That rant aside, there's also the matter of TV. Your take on TV describes it very well - in the US. Elsewhere, stories on TV take a very different course (many of them anyway, not all obviously). Even just British stuff - no language barrier - is vastly different in how they handle storylines. Many shows are designed with a complete story arc in mind, and will run for only one season (or however long it takes to tell the story). Then there's foreign language TV, which largely follows the British model - strictly with a single story arc in mind. No matter how popular the shows are, they aren't brought back for a second season - because the story completely wrapped up. The cast and crew move on to something fresh.

Most available and accessible in the US is perhaps anime from Japan, the good examples of which run for 24 episodes (the ones that are played on TV in the US with endlessly produced episodes are crap). Cowboy Bebop and Neon Genesis Evangelion are good, highly accessible places to start. Japan also makes good drama series, generally of 12 or 13 episodes. You can find these on the internet - with fan-produced english subtitles - but it's less accessible. Odoru Daisousasen is a great example, and one of my favorite shows of all time.

Big difference: who pays for transmission.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

When mailing it out, Netflix pays for conveying the DVD from its warehouse to the customer and the return to the warehouse.

When streaming it out, the customer pays for conveying the content by paying the ISP the access fees. Essentially Netflix is just shifting the cost of transmission to the customer that is all. If people pay for the postage Netflix can ship DVDs for 2 cents too.

I still pay them for disks

[93 Escort Wagon]

Well, we cut down to one disk, actually. We still want the flexibility of seeing newer movies when they're released.

That's the theory anyway. In practice, it means we watch lots of streaming content while the same Netflix envelope sits, unopened, gathering dust on the shelf. Seriously, I think we've had the same Netflix Blu-Ray movie disk at home for a couple months now - I really should make time to watch it one of these nights.
 

It's not the 1.5 Mbp/s

[overshoot]

It's the "one DVD every two months" cap on downloads.

I am a nappy NF customer

[Ngarrang]

I have the streaming + 1 DVD at-a-time plan. My cost went up a whole $1. This is all still far cheaper than driving to the rental store and paying what is now an outrageous price. $4 to rent a DVD? No way. My wife and I may go through 7 DVD's per month, but the streaming part is used on a daily basis. We canceled DirecTV years ago, so the kids couldn't watch Backyardigans anymore. Well, problem solved. The entire Voltron series? Got it. Macross series? Got it and the kids love it. They like giant, flying robots. The wife get to enjoy the TV series we have now with DirecTV gone. We are totally caught up on Psyche seasons 1 to 4. We are on season 3 of Monk, watching one episode a night. I've watched a few other series through to their ends that I always liked (like Farscape, highly under-appreciated).

Regarding the math in the original article...well, duh! Of course the postal service is more expensive.

NF does have recent movie available. I recently watched Inception via NF DVD. Now, if they could track down a DVD of "Leap of Faith", I would be happier. But, my DVD Q is full-up for 3 to 5 months of movie viewing.

TV. My way. And no commercials. I love it.

Seriously

[Dunbal]

And they are just figuring that out now?

$700 million per year in postage

[countertrolling]

That can only mean that their gross revenues are very impressive. And I'm sure the movie industry is pleased, despite all their whining

This only considers 1/2 the costs involved

[wscott]

Yes physical DVDs are much more expensive than bits to get to my house. That isn't really surprising is it? Now consider the licensing fees. Netflix can buy a DVD from Walmart for $16 and send it to 100s of people at year. They don't need to give the movie industry any more money than their share of that $16. Yes Neflix has to buy 10,000 copies, but still we are only talking $160,000 of money up front to distribute the movie. Now what to take a guess how much Netflix pays to license a movie for streaming? Guess what, it is more than $160,000. A lot more. Like 100 TIMES more. The postage is still cheaper.

This is a known problem with Apple TV

[alispguru]

Apple TV uses a bad setting for DNS by default. See here for a description of the problem and solutions.

It's not Netflix's fault, surprisingly enough.

Re:This is a known problem with Apple TV

[GweeDo]

Apple TV doesn't use a "bad setting" by default. They use whatever you set it to or whatever your DHCP server tells it to use. If you have that set to OpenDNS or Google DNS or whatever you break Akamia. If you have it set to your ISP's DNS which most people will, you have no issue.

Re:This is a known problem with Apple TV

[AaronMK]

Using the ISP's DNS may be a good solution for helping to find a more local streaming server, but it brings back all the reasons I went away from their servers in the first place. I have not noticed any performance issues on any of my Netflix devices, or other services, by using an alternate DNS server.

Despite what Comcast would have you believe, most ISPs PAY backbone providers to deliver thier customer's out of network requests. If my ISP cannot provide me with a DNS server that will actually return a NXDOMAIN response instead of trying monetize my typos, I am perfectly happy for their backbone fees to increase as an indirect result.

Re:This is a known problem with Apple TV

[Palshife]

Not sure what you think that article is about, but it's saying that if you use a centralized DNS server then you'll get bad distribution from Akamai, etc.

It's not an Apple TV setting, it's a setting for your network. Doesn't explain GP's findings.

Re:This is a known problem with Apple TV

[Anonymous Coward]

That is hardly as interesting as it being a huge netflix conspiracy.

Re:All Netflix had to do was wait out Blockbuster.

[uniquename72]

It will be interesting, but I think it'll be a longer wait than some of us want.

Everyone I know has Nextflix; I'm the only one I know who watches it streaming on a regular basis.

Not practical yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe streaming video to be practical with our current infrastructure. Most ISPs "unlimited" data plans are going away and bandwidth caps are becoming the norm. A 10gb bandwidth cap sounds like a lot and it is under normal use; reading news, email, downloading a few MP3s, steaming some youtube, etc. HOWEVER, stream JUST ONE high-def movie and you have blown your data plan by a factor of 5. Streaming video-on-demand IS coming, but I don't believe the time is right yet.

For now maybe

[JackSpratts]

i have the single disc at a time plan in my household and i'm lucky - really lucky - if i turn around 2 discs per week. it requires watching the movie the day i get it and putting it in the post the very next day religiously - and having never-fail post office pick ups and drop offs. some weeks i manage it, most weeks not. i probably avg 5 discs per month on this plan, so netflix is spending 5 bucks a month in postage on my account. big difference between that and 25 cents for streaming the same content right?

not so fast. while i may watch one or two dvds by mail each week, there's no end to how many shows i can stream. it's really limited only by how much junk i can stand consuming. a family could effortlessly go through 2 or three movies a day. more even. if as hoped internet tv begins to replace typical american ota and cable tv viewing habits of 5-6 hours per person per day then netflix is looking at streaming 3-4 programs per night per household member. call it 100 shows per month, bringing their streaming costs to five dollars. or the same they're paying to service my mail account right now.

i'm sure they know all this but within a short while i have no doubt their streaming costs will exceed their previous postage costs, and then these huge and growing content licensing fees will weigh them down like a shipping container filled with obsolete vhs cut outs.

they may even look back on their old snail mail model with envy.

- js.

Including theft...

[choko]

I bet that figure is even higher if you include all the lost or stolen discs that they have to replace when stuff is sent via snail mail.

Re:All Netflix had to do was wait out Blockbuster.

[bberens]

Redbox has already announced it's moving into the streaming business. Competition is great.

Up to $1 per DVD?

[The Grim Reefer2]

According to the summery the uppermost cost for sending/receiving a DVD is $1. So by using the most costly value we can ascertain that all DVDs that are shipped by NetFlix cost 20 times more than the $.05 to stream them? Riiight. I'm guessing that most of the time it costs less than a buck to ship/return each DVD. So why is the summary claiming that it's a difference of a factor of 20?

I'd be interested to see how they got these figures. My guess is that NetFlix knows exactly how much it costs to ship each DVD on average. For me to ship a CD/DVD via first class costs $.44 each way for a total of $.88 round trip. I would guess that NF pays considerably less than that. They probably also have the USPS pick up their envelops as well. I have no idea what the cost is to run their facility, or frankly how it's run for that matter. Do they have people manually pick disks? Or is it all automated. How much needs to be factored in for the cost of broken, lost disks?

Why can't they stream everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please explain to me why I couldn't take every DVD i own, and stream them out users assuming that only 1 person gets to watch 1 dvd at a time therefore ensuring I am just letting that person borrow the content of my DVD for the duration of the stream? How is this illegal? I don't see why NetFlix can't simply build a robotic warehouse to physically mount the DVD's to a stream setup for each user, though I believe they should be legally allowed to do it digitally as long as they can prove they own a DVD for each person watching a particular show or movie at a particular time.

Netflix USA is 100x better than Netflix Canada

[Yvan256]

If you think the Netflix library of movies and TV shows is limited in the USA, check out Netflix Canada. I'm not even talking about the latest blockbusters or the latest TV series. There's no Columbo. No Cheers. No Seinfeld. No Simpsons (even season 1). We have Terminator 2 but strangely enough not the 1st one.

Sure, it's getting better every month. But I'm pretty sure that the Canadian media companies are fighting hard to keep Netflix from getting anything worthwhile. We have companies like Bell, who offer both media distribution and internet connections. Such conflict of interest should not happen, but here we are. All the big ISPs are implementing stupidly low caps, the CRTC is approving those caps and even forcing the 3rd parties to abide by those caps and fees. So any smaller ISP which need to use the bigger ISP lines are getting screwed. There is ZERO alternatives. The CRTC is corrupt, the conservative government is corrupt.

"Up to $1" != $1

[timeOday]

It's a surprising disparity to me to, and the wiggle words "up to $1" are probably there for a reason. With mail delays, you can get basically 2 DVDs per week for each you are allowed home at once. For the two at a time plan, that would be $16 per month on shipping alone for a plan that costs $14.99 per month. It's possible netflix runs that way, since most customers probably aren't nearly that efficient. But I am that efficient, and you'd think they would have throttled me by now if I were an unprofitable customer.

Re:"Up to $1" != $1

[markdavis]

But they *DID* start to throttle customers like us (yes, I ship back quickly too). Don't you remember all the news about it? Lots of customers complained loudly, and rightfully so- there was nothing in the terms or agreement that allowed Netflix to throttle. They were doing it secretly on plans listed as "unlimited" (sound familiar- like secret cell phone data caps?). I remember quite well being throttled and being penalized at the end of the month when they decided I had rented too much. But then, after several months of that, the throttling suddenly stopped and has remained gone.

If they want to throttle, then fine, but they HAVE to disclose that to the customers and stop using words like "as many as you like" or "unlimited". You can't have it both ways.

But how long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices now are cheaper to stream than to do mail-order, but how long will that last?

Back in 2008, when Netflix made their deal with Starz, they apparently got a steal-of-a-deal(TM), and in the most recent numbers Netflix "pays Starz less than 15 cents per month for each of its roughly 17 million subscribers, while TV operators pay Starz $2 per subscriber per month, or about $1.2 billion as of 2009."

Techdirt has some pretty interesting articles on this issue which show studio's ever-declining approval of Netflix, and squeeze out every last dollar:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/10223012145/netflixs-move-dvds-to-streaming-shows-massive-value-first-sale-doctrine.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101203/01564912107/just-as-record-labels-resented-apple-dragging-them-into-internet-age-movie-studios-resenting-netflix.shtml

Summarizing those articles, Netflix can purchase $10,000 DVDs for $150,000 (at $15 a pop); taking the price of $1 makes it even cheaper. In contrast studios want 16million dollars for a 2 year streaming license. However, hollywood studio execs aren't happy about this, and want more money:

"The problem is that Netflix is not the company we thought it was when we started doing these deals a few years ago. It has changed,"
"When it is time to renegotiate, Starz will likely need to extract 'many multiples' of what Netflix paid for the 2008 deal or 'risk making a pretty significant hit to their traditional business,'"

Now I'd much rather use Netflix' streaming service to watch my movies, but I wonder what will happen when that new deal is negotiated?

All quotes from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B060E20101201

Re:But how long will that last?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, starz is pretty much a free channel since not many actually care about it like HBO. I guarantee you if you don't have starz and you call up comcast, they will set you up with starz for free. When I used to work there we used to just give subscriptions for free, mainly starz because nobody really knew what it was and you could easily sweeten the deal by saying "we'll give you starz movie channel for free" and they just bit.

the irony

[Anonymous Coward]

first they want you to buy HD. Then they want you to buy FULL HD and blu-ray. Then they make HD content look like DVD and says that's "the next big thing."

besides, most of the streaming content isn't even HD to begin with.

USPS

[ca111a]

...could try becoming an alternative ISP. The one where public interests count...

$700mil+ in postage?

[__aatirs3925]

Then why do I STILL have to wait in line at USPS for an hour and a half because there's only one person working there? :(

Netflix will be irrelevant soon

[JustNiz]

Netflix's trend is clearly towards totally removing its DVD service, and also to continue to ignore support for streaming to PC Linux-based computers.

As a Ubuntu user who doesn't own and refuses to ever buy a copy of Windows, Netflix will by their own hand have exactly 0 service I can use, so will be losing me as a subscriber.

As I and many others will soon have our Netflix money available to spend with someone else, I wonder if anyone (e.g. Mr. Shuttleworth) has given a Linux-friendly equivalent of the Netflix service any thought?

Re:Netflix will be irrelevant soon

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLZZZZ!!!! Oh, you Linux fanbois are so funny. Thanks for all the laughs. I'm sure Netflix will miss all 3 of you.

Re:Netflix will be irrelevant soon

[JustNiz]

Sorry, I meant to include this justification of my earlier "continue to ignore Linux support" statement.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1745

Re:Netflix will be irrelevant soon

[WrongMonkey]

You don't need Windows to stream Netflix. Every major game console does it just fine. The fraction of households that don't use Windows and don't have any game consoles is so small that I'm sure they won't notice the loss.

Re:Netflix will be irrelevant soon

[JustNiz]

I for one don't have a game console. Even if I did, I wouldn';t want to have to get it out and use it just for netflix streaming when I already have a perfectly good MythTV box thats the core of my Home Theater setup.

ANYBODY can stream movies...

[Sturm]

And lots of companies out there are probably better at streaming technology than Netflix. When the little red envelopes disappear, Netflix will lose the biggest part of what differentiated them from the plethora of other streaming services. How do they not see that?

Modern physical media

[SuperKendall]

Netflix HD beats DVD (well it is kind of artifacty sometimes). But I'm talking about Blu-Ray discs, which have way better video and audio quality.

Regionalize and P2P

[LoudMusic]

The bandwidth cost could theoretically be reduced with a P2P system or cache servers stored at ISPs. As for shipping costs, those will only go up. Even if they provide local distribution in every city over 100,000 population the postal rate is about the same no matter how far the disk travels within the US.

Hopefully this will help motivate them to get more content available for streaming.

Netflix streaming on U-verse

[sdguero]

My roommate recently bought a fancy Panasonic Plasma with the netflix app built in (among others). I linked it to his account in 5 minutes and we up and were streaming HD movies.

I was surprised at the quality, its actually better than Uverse's HD (which is pretty bad). I investigated a little further with Uverse's real time tool, a very neat utility btw, and discovered while streaming a movie on netflix we are pulling 7-8mbps down our Uverse dsl pipe. This is a little more than uverse uses for a single HD stream (around 6 mbps). I think we are actually going to trim back our Uverse channel lineup now because netflix is so nice. Here's to hoping netflix streaming keeps on keepin on. :)

Most used service at my house..

[Pontiac]

The only complaint I have is the 1 concurrent stream pr DVD limit and the 6 "device" limit..

I have the 3 DVD package we can watch in the living room while the kids watch on the Wii and the kid desktop PC at the same time..
We will be adding a 2nd kid's PC so I'll need to bump it out to 4 soon if conflicts pop up.

Dish Network is going away at our house..
Netflix, Hulu for most things. OTA with a MythTV box will fill the local programing void..

some of the the $$ saved by dropping dish goes into higher bandwidth..

MOD PARENT UP

[ClickOnThis]

Yes, next they should drop that silly government-knows-better requirement of shipping to everyone, everywhere. All those rural farmers cost us far too much. To further increase profits, they should be allowed to discriminate the material you mail. I'm sure there's more money in NOT shipping the ACLU's mail than in shipping it, if you ask the right people. Then, finally, the market will be free and everyone should be better off.

Your post has a delicious and insightful sarcasm that, unfortunately, is yet to be noticed in this discussion.

I suppose the market-libertarians would be quick to say that the ACLU would be free to set up their own post office, so what's the problem?

Lost

[vgerclover]

I'm now 450 hours behind on viewing and I haven't even added Lost yet.

Do yourself a favor and don't. If you do, assume that it got cancelled midway through. You'll enjoy it much more.

no streaming on a plane/train/boat/abroad...etc.

[schlachter]

...and sometimes I want to watch a movie where there is no broadband access like on a train/plane/abroad/hotel or a TV in my house which is not "connected" to the web and it's just nice to have a DVD/Blueray.

Now if Netflix would fix HD buffering & stream

[joeszilagyi]

Here's what happens:

You start to stream a HD selection. We happen to run it through Tivo.
It buffers and has the little HD icon.
It buffers some more.
Then it buffers some more.
Then it runs. Hurray HD!
Then it buffers after 4-5 minutes.
Then it buffers some more.
Then it runs again. Hurray HD!
Then it buffers after x minutes.

Give us the option to:

1. Select what mode we want. I'd happily not see everything in amazing HD 1080p glory in exchange for everything just going. Yeah, Lost Seasons 1-6 looks astonishing in HD, but I'll happily take it just blasting through without CONSTANT buffering.

or

2. Allow us to build up a much larger buffer locally. If licensing prohibits this, see option #1 -- give us some exposed controls over this.

Before anyone says, "Well, upgrade your connection!" -- for some of us, that may not be a feasible suggestion.

More channels, can be uncompressed

[SuperKendall]

That bandwidth would give you five channels of 24-bit sound at 192,000 samples per second uncompressed

That sounds about right, though don't forget there's usually a subwoofer, and lots of discs have more channels than that encoded.

The idea is to give you as lossless audio as possible. 192k samples/sec is not unreasonable for those goals. It's not anything like an order of magnitude more than you can hear given how awful 64k recordings sound, even uncompressed.

Re:More channels, can be uncompressed

[scot4875]

You're confusing 24-bit, 192khz (samples/sec) with 64kbit/sec.

CD audio is 16 bit 44.1khz per channel, if memory serves, which is roughly 88.2 * 16 = 1400kbit/sec.

You're also confusing "lossless" audio with high sample rates. Of course higher sample rates will yield better quality audio, but you don't "lose" data by not sampling more frequently in the same way that you lose data by compressing it in a lossy format. FLAC is a lossless compression codec; a 192khz recording can be compressed using FLAC, or using a lossy format like MP3. The choice of compression algorithm has nothing to do with the original sample rate.

You also can't say "how awful 64k recordings sound, even uncompressed", because you're comparing two completely different things, and nobody records at 64k(...what? hz? bit?) anyway. The one thing you (sort of) got right is that 64kbit audio streams do indeed sound pretty terrible.

Basically, your understanding of audio compression and sampling are utterly wrong.

--Jeremy

Re:More channels, can be uncompressed

[kevinmenzel]

Yeah, the 24.5Mbit/s is for DTS-HD which uses 96 kHz/24bit resolution in up to 8 channels, using a form of lossless compression that also includes a fully backwards compatible DTS audio stream (though it can also be 192 KHz/24bit.) Which some people see as overkill because it contains frequencies that the ear can't possibly hear... and there are various theories as to why more audio resolution may be necessary relating to the interaction between close frequencies, and other things like that. Personally I'd like to see them move to a floating point audio standard like 32bit or 64bit - though I must admit most people's setup would do nothing with the extra dynamic range.

Cutting service won't save the US Postal Service

[Shivetya]

They are burdened under horrendous labor agreements. They are not legally allowed to use their profitability as part of labor negotiations. As in, even if the current contract or proposed contracts would cause financial distress that fact is not allowed to be considered when negotiating a new labor contract. How do you expect them to be profitable when they cannot consider that one major facet of their viability? My Aunt and Cousin both work for the Post Office; retired and active; and achieved the Post Master (?) level which meant they ran their own offices and both ended up with large regions under their control. My cousin used to call it "her name"'s Day Care. The childish behavior of her unionized employees was beyond silly she said. She had her hands tied in many areas, there was simply no way to discipline employees with many years of service. They could go out sick whenever they wanted without any Doctor's notes, they could "forget" houses in their routes. It was atrocious. Then top it off with gold plated pensions and you have a system ripe for Federal intervention. Oh, throw in that dropping a day requires Congressional approval.

No, they cannot be saved until they adhere to the rules of business, which primarily is, can we operate profitably with these labor and other capitol costs?

Re:All Netflix had to do was wait out Blockbuster.

[Mariognarly]

I'd love to see their entire library online too! Netflix is currently victim to their own success though. Content provider's don't see the revenue stream for giving Netflix the rights to their latest shows. So Netflix has been forced to go after the older releases. Whereas cable companies and networks already pay the provider's to carry their shows. So if the cable companies said "Hey, we're now going to deliver your content via the web and give you 50% of the on-demand video price", content providers I think would go for vertical integration, given that roughly 80% of their revenue stream still exists with cable TV offerings.

It will be interesting to see the business model mature over the next year, and see where the chips will actually fall.

So naturally

[geekoid]

streaming their service is 1/20th the cost..no? well there are fixed costs, so the probably just cut the cost in half, right? right?

Re:Now if Netflix would fix HD buffering & str

[geekoid]

3: Plan your movie watching a little bit ahead so ot's buffering while you do other things, like eat dinner.

You have a slow connection, fine. That means YOU need to plan around it, not have everything change to suit you.

4: look to see if your local library has the content on disk.

Re:Now if Netflix would fix HD buffering & str

[joeszilagyi]

The point is that you can't buffer ahead of time. I've let Netflix buffer for 30-60 minutes on pause and it still chokes out at times. It's all a tightly held Netflix licensing secret but there general consensus all over from researching it to fix it, that I've seen, is that Netflix can only serve so much at once for licensing reasons. Unlike Amazon Video on Demand, who can send the whole media file at once.

My internet is fine. It's a blazing fast Comcast line, and it's simply the HD buffering that fails at times. Everything else for non-HD is fine. All I'm asking for is a toggle to simply downgrade at will.

Netflix is killing the Interwebs

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be cheaper to stream movies for Netflix but they're making all their money at the expense of millions of other Internet users. According to a Sandvine analyst, Netflix accounts for 20% of Internet traffic at peak usage times (8:00PM-10:00PM). Think about that. 3.5 million Netflix subscribers are accounting for 20% of Internet traffic. This is not a sustainable model, no matter how cheap it is to stream these movies right now.

Re:Test to see how long

[Anonymous Coward]

test to see how long it takes to post

Stuck out in cap-ville

[tepples]

this assumes that you purchased your broadband connection to do noting but watch movies.

Or that you're stuck out in cap-ville and have to buy your Internet access in 5 GB/mo units. Satellite and 3G are like this.

Video as a comment on video

[tepples]

Why would anyone rip a copy of a DVD that's available for streaming?

Mostly for using short scenes from the film in your own video that makes a criticism, parody, or other comment on the film. As I understand it, that's a fair use of a copyrighted work.

Only if you live close enough to the DSLAM

[tepples]

An "average" DSL connection is about $20/month here

Only if you 1. haven't already given up POTS in favor of UMTS or CDMA2000 and 2. live close enough to the DSLAM. Not everybody lives in DSL's coverage area; some people still rely on satellite Internet.

KPBS is in San Diego

[tepples]

Unless grandparent is talking about a Public Broadcasting Service affiliate west of the Mississippi River, like KPBS in San Diego. See list of K stations.

People who live outside Comcast's service area

[tepples]

Then what are people who live outside Comcast's cable TV service area supposed to do to watch Universal movies?

Re:First Sale Doctrine Was Gutted

[glodime]

First sale doctrine says they can do whatever they want with the DVDs once they buy them...

Unless the DVDs are manufactured and sold in another country (see Costco v. Omega) Netflix needs to get very cleaver politically and legally or they are going to get marginalized over the next 5 or so years.

The Content Lords

[ThatsNotPudding]

will hear of this and leap to the hide-bound conclusion that they should increase the fees they charge Netflix by 19x.

And yet...

[P. Legba]

...we have zero indiction that the company plans to move toward beefing up its streaming offerings, preferring to hold key titles for mail only. I've asked my wife several times in the past couple of weeks what can possibly be in it for Netflix to continue to operate as if streaming weren't going to be its primary focus going forward. Now I see...20x the cost of doing business.

Not complete costs..

[psyclone]

Those figures do not account for all of the costs Netflix incurs for providing a user some content.

The Hollywood Reporter article states that licensing fees are not included in the distribution price of $1/disc, $0.05/stream:

That means licensing fees can keep climbing as Netflix moves more of its business to streaming and away from DVDs. Sending a disc round-trip can cost as much as $1, and Netflix mails about 2 million DVDs a day, whereas streaming a movie costs the company about a nickel.

Also, the figures quote "as much as $1" -- I bet that is not the avg/mean price per roundrip mailing.

I question the source of the streaming figure: Is it five cents just for the bandwidth? Or does it count the complete infrastructure of data centers housing encoding and streaming servers, peering agreements, and technical staff?