Netflix Plans To Raise Prices By "$1 or $2 a Month"

New submitter Burphytez (3625571) writes with this excerpt of a Reuters story, as carried by the Chicago Tribune: "Video streaming service Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month to help the company buy more movies and TV shows and improve service for its 48 million global subscribers. Investors welcomed the announcement by Netflix, which had suffered from a consumer exodus and stock plunge after it announced an unpopular price increase in July 2011. The company's shares jumped 6.7 percent in after-hours trading to $371.97, after the company released plans for a price hike and posted a rise in first-quarter profit that beat Wall Street expectations."

Comments

Milk that cow!

[B33rNinj4]

I guess they found a way to cover the costs of their deal with Comcast.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Mashiki]

Doesn't really matter anyway, even at raising the rates for new customers by $1-2, it's still got more value than cable or sattelite TV by leaps and bounds. That's pretty scary isn't it? Especially with all of the crap programming and reality TV garbage that they have on these days. I sadly remember when things like History, NatGO, Discovery and TLC had something worthwhile on them. The last time I watched them when I was in the US(last year) it was wall-to-wall reality TV programming. Good riddance to them.

Re:Milk that cow!

[alen]

more like the content costs

if you look at their financials 3/4 of revenues goes to pay for content. networking costs are maybe 1/10 of revenues

Re:Milk that cow!

[SJHillman]

The really curious part is the fact that Netflix is so much cheaper than cable *in spite of not having commercials*. The fact that you pay for cable TV only to be bombarded with commercials is a slap in the face that most people are too willing to accept.

Re:Milk that cow!

[jeffmflanagan]

The media reports on the deal with Comcast turned out to be complete bullshit.
A friend did some research on this:


There are three companies involved:
Netflix (Content provider)
Cogent (Transit provider)
Comcast (Internet service provider)


It was Cogent, not Comcast that was the bottle neck.

Here’s how the industry works. These companies negotiate with each other to use each other’s services.

So, Netflix agrees to pay A for Cogent to provide B amount of bandwidth. Cogent agrees to pay C to Comcast for D amount of bandwidth.

What happened is that Cogent ran out of bandwidth. Under normal industry standards, Cogent is expected to pay E for F additional bandwidth. In what appears to be some pretty underhanded and sneaky business practices, Cogent demanded that Comcast provide the additional bandwidth for free and tried to make it look like it was Comcast’s fault.

Basically, Cogent was getting money from Netflix to provide a service that it couldn’t provide.

The Comcast-Netflix deal is basically, that Netflix decided to replace Cogent and hire a new vendor. Comcast is a large company and offers multiple services. Netflix could have gone with any vendor they wanted. They choose to go with Comcast apparently because Comcast was offering them a better deal than anyone else. I don’t know if that means they are charging less than Cogent or perhaps there’s some technical advantage (such as better performance or more reliability) with hiring the same vendor for two different services.

So, the reason why Netflix is paying Comcast is because Comcast is now providing a new service (transit provider).

Also, this money is not a brand new fee that Netflix has to pay someone. This is the money (A) that they were going to give to Cogent.

Again, Netflix could have used any transit provider they wanted. They choose Comcast because apparently, they offered the best deal.

Re:Milk that cow!

[jeffmflanagan]

Correct. I was paying about $100/mo for DirecTV many years ago. NetFlix could raise their rate to $40/mo, and it would still be worthwhile to me. I use the service almost every day, so it'll still be a bargain at $10.

Re:Milk that cow!

[sycodon]

I really look forward to more Grade B movies that they always describe as "Not to be confused with the Blockbuster..."

Maybe the new arrivals list will turn over more than once every six months now too!

Re:Milk that cow!

[Noah Haders]

Yeah but all the shit adds up. Netflix $12. Amazon prime streaming $99/yr. Hulu. iTunes rentals. Nytimes. The amount of money I spend on entertainment content remains roughly the same.

Re:Milk that cow!

[fistfullast33l]

Agreed - I was paying a $200 cable/internet/phone/HBO bill a few months ago and my wife and I decided to cut costs. We got rid of cable, the whole-house DVR, and the phone and now just have the internet and Hulu and Netflix. Add in 3 chromecasts and converting my NAS to a plex server, and that dropped our monthly bill to $75, and we still get all of our shows except my wife's Bravo and my sports, which I've found various shady ways of watching on my own with no problem. It's been great, and I'd gladly pay $10 a month to keep watching their original series and movies.

I figure the only way to change the way we watch TV is for people to keep cutting the cord and forcing the broadcasters to adapt.

Re:Milk that cow!

[SJHillman]

Maybe it's time to consider reducing what you pay other people for entertainment and start finding alternatives or making your own? If you have that much leisure time that you actually use all of those services, you might be better served learning a skill or hobby. It'd be cheaper.

Re:Milk that cow!

[jchawk]

You're close but there is some additional details you missed.

Normally large providers of bandwidth will peer with one another. Meaning I'll give you 1 gigabit of bandwidth and you do the same for me. The assumption is that traffic will be flowing at a near equal rate between both providers. As usage goes up you continue to increase the peer.

The problem is Cogent is notorious for being a low cost bandwidth provider so they end up being a bigger sender then receiver of data. Cogent tried to throw a hissy fit demanding that Comcast, Verizon and others increase the peering agreement even though Cogent was lopsided. Comcast and others said no -- pay for the bandwidth you are using with us because you're lopsided. This is an industry standard practice.

Cogent's CEO and Upper management decided they would blame everyone else, drag in the public and try to make this a PR nightmare in order to get these companies to cave to their unreasonable demands.

Good on Netflix and the rest of the industry for standing up and saying no to Cogent's bullshit.

Re:Milk that cow!

[zoomshorts]

You are absolutely correct. Those channels you mentioned were my favorites, then the bullfeathers set in. Reality TV? The Loser Channel et al now suck so hard that golfball is sliding down the garden hose.

I am tired of midgets and bad relationship programs.
I am tired of Discovery playing crap like Swamp People, which are glorified poachers. The scene is shifting, but when enough people cut cable, it will be a win-win for all consumers. Celebrity crap? Kuntdashians? Worthless waste of electrons.

Re:Milk that cow!

[flufythedestroyer]

Netflix pays for data management and don't pay for infrastructure throughout the US or where they give service. On the other hand the provides that gives cable or cable service, they have to pay for the physical infrastructure and the data management. In other words. your cable provider pays for everything...thats why its not cheaper with them instead of netflix

Re:Milk that cow!

[Dcnjoe60]

The really curious part is the fact that Netflix is so much cheaper than cable *in spite of not having commercials*. The fact that you pay for cable TV only to be bombarded with commercials is a slap in the face that most people are too willing to accept.

Netflix doesn't have infrastructure costs like cable or satellite. However, you do need to have internet access to get netflix, so the true cost isn't the $7.99 bot $7.99 plus the cost of your internet service. Most likely, it is still cheaper than cable, but again, there is the infrastructure cost.

Re:Milk that cow!

[SJHillman]

That only explains why cable costs more. It doesn't explain why cable costs more and yet still has as much ads as content.

Also, for most people, the ISP bill is a sunk cost. They would still pay it even if Netflix didn't exist, and therefore it should not be included in the total cost of Netflix (again, for most people, there will be exceptions).

Re:Milk that cow!

[Dcnjoe60]

That only explains why cable costs more. It doesn't explain why cable costs more and yet still has as much ads as content.

Also, for most people, the ISP bill is a sunk cost. They would still pay it even if Netflix didn't exist, and therefore it should not be included in the total cost of Netflix (again, for most people, there will be exceptions).

It doesn't matter if the ISP is a sunk cost or not, it is still a cost of receiving netflix. As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending? As such, the fault should be for the networks, not the cable company. OTOH, they might as well broadcast 60 minutes an hour of commercials if all they offer are those crappy reality shows.

What netflix and hula plus and some others are doing is providing an on-demand content service. That's something that people have been trying to get cable companies to do for decades. The technology has been there for years, they just kept the old business model and now others have stepped up to fill the void. If I were a network, I'd take it to the next level and go direct to subscribers via the internet. There's probably no more than 10 channels I regularly watch, even though my cable overs ten times that many. I'd gladly pay a a few dollars a month to each of them (even with commercials) for the privileged of watching their content.

Re:Milk that cow!

[king neckbeard]

There's no reason that the flow of traffic has to be symmetrical. Netflix wants this to happen, and so do Comcast's customers. If Comcast was really upset about that, they would give their customers symmetrical connections.

Re:Milk that cow!

[guises]

... Comcast is an consumer ISP, of course the transfer is lopsided - Netflix and the rest of Cogent's customers pay Cogent to upload, Comcast's customers pay Comcast to download. Data is supposed to go in one direction, that's how it's set up.

What you're describing is the typical arrangement between networks in the middle of the process. Let's say that you have a server on network A, and someone on network D requests something from you. Any packet that you send is going to have to traverse networks B and C to get there, and B and C will have a peering arrangement exactly as you describe - those arrangements are intended to account for traffic that's just passing through the network and is generally uniform in both directions. The problem here is that the data isn't passing through Comcast's network, they are the destination. Cogent was trying to deliver the data to Comcast and Comcast refused to put in the equipment necessary to receive it.

Basically, Comcast sells itself as a consumer ISP when it's time to bill their customers and as a backbone ISP when it's time to negotiate peering arrangements. They're double dipping, charging on both ends.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix doesn't have infrastructure costs like cable or satellite.

That cost is about $15-$30 per month, which includes maintenance and upgrades. Prices have been going down over time, especially with fiber. Now matter how much customers use the infrastructure, the prices is the same, it's a one time up-front fixed cost with periodic costs to fix back-hoes cutting lines.

But this has no bearing on the cost of cable TV. The service is greatly more expensive.

Re:Milk that cow!

[J-1000]

I wonder now if we aren't gradually trading one bad situation for another. With each service getting more and more exclusive content, I hope we don't end up needing ten different $15 subscriptions just to see the shows we want.

Don't get me wrong, it would still beat the pants off cable. You could always subscribe for a month, binge watch your show, then cancel until they release something else you're interested in.

Re:Milk that cow!

[jfengel]

It's cheaper because it's giving you second-run content. If you want to talk about the ending of last night's Mad Men or bet with your coworkers about who's going to win whatever reality TV is most popular, you need cable. News and sports are available for free OTA, but your selection is very limited.

Cable gets to charge a premium price, even with commercials, because the traffic will bear it to have that content right now.

If you're willing to wait to know how Lost turned out until a year after everybody else (like I am), Netflix is indeed a bargain compared to cable. Its back catalog makes it even more valuable, though for me at least it didn't take all that long to see everything I wanted to see. Plus the lack of commercials. But if you're like a lot of people, access to current content is worth paying the price.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Cogent, not Comcast that was the bottle neck.

Funny thing now. I was just watching a BSDCon presentation from Netflix and they said that now they peer with Comcast, Comcast is now the limiting factor. Netflix stated that Comcast's internal network is unable to keep up with the data and Comcast has configured Netflix to be rate limited as not to flood their horrible network.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the reason why Netflix is paying Comcast is because Comcast is now providing a new service (transit provider).

They are doing paid peering, not transit. If this was transit, then Comcast would be delivering data for Netflix to AT&T, Verizon, TWC also. It is never transit if your are the destination.

Re:Milk that cow!

[cpotoso]

What are you smoking?? WE pay for the internet service (monthly bill, anyone?). So why should Netflix have to pay on top of that?? The infrastructure? Yes, coming from your monthly bill. Duh!

Re:Milk that cow!

[awyeah]

As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending?

Yes, but the commercials you see are a combination of the national commercials and commercials that are overlaid by your cable provider.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Dcnjoe60]

As for the commercials, isn't the cable company just transmitting what the channel is sending?

Yes, but the commercials you see are a combination of the national commercials and commercials that are overlaid by your cable provider.

Yes and no. The cable provider isn't gapping the show to add commercials. The slots are already there. If there aren't local commercials, primarily for local businesses to advertise on national shows, then another national commercial will be displayed. Basically, network determines there are X minutes of commercials in a show and they are allocated between national and local markets.

Re:Milk that cow!

[antdude]

I wished Netflix had the latest episodes and on demand payments (no subscriptions) like Amazon, iTunes, etc.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Noah Haders]

It's surprisingly expensive to learn a new skill or hobby. Eg buying a guitar then taking lessons? $$$$.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Archangel Michael]

You're correct, except for one point. Cable TV expects life to revolve around the 7-10PM slot, when I happen to be busy with "life". And, I often don't have time to watch for several weeks in a row. And DVRs are stupid with On Demand Viewing like Netflix available. All said and done, unless you HAVE to be that annoying person who "spoiler alerts" every freaking conversation, then please spare me the "second run content". That is so 20th Century.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Archangel Michael]

start finding alternatives or making your own?

Just tried that, and my wife slapped me and called me a perv. Thanks asshole!

Re:Milk that cow!

[Darinbob]

Most Netflix streaming customers are still paying someone else for internet and thus paying for the infrastructure. Many of those internet customers get internet directly from the cable companies. (maybe that's a good reason for municipal internet, if only cable companies stopped lobbying to make that illegal).

Re:Milk that cow!

[Darinbob]

ISP costs are quite varied though. On average in the US I suspect that cable access is considered far more important than high speed internet. Even boring old DSL is far more than enough internet for basic web browsing even if it won't support netflix very well, and that runs maybe $20-$30. Many people still use dialup for internet as well. Internet good enough for streaming is usually $50 or more, which is still more expensive than my satellite was a decade ago.

When I do cut the cord for satellite some of that savings may go into improving my internet.

I've met so many people who have said that the only reason they keep their cable company instead of using Dish or DirecTV is because they get a discount when combining it with internet from the same company. Even then though, the marginal cost to add television service on top of internet is probably more than the cost of Netflix+Hulu+Amazon.

The only problem really is that the streaming services feel so clumsy in comparison to regular television+DVR, the interfaces need so much work, trying to find a program is slow, too much fluff to info ratio, etc. These are nice first steps and it will get better, but I think it's only the high cost of cable and lack of service that is making so many customers give up and try to use something else. If cable companies offered television on top of internet for only $20 more and customer support treated them like human beings that most people would stick with cable rather than go streaming.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Darinbob]

It's not just on-demand, it's an alternative to lousy cable companies. I'm moving that way soon, but it's not because I want anything on-demand (I was happy with time shifting with dvr). It's just that streaming is the only alternative, I'd prefer to have a DVR like system using the internet (and be legal). But the costs keep creeping up and even though my satellite is still much cheaper than cable alternatives there's just so little on at times that it seems like a waste of money, plus my equipment is getting old and will soon need replacing.

Cable could recover if it lowered prices, offered ala-carte choices (ie, pick 6 channels for one price), increased their on-demand selections, had some actual competition (though satellite/uverse is competition it's not always available or practical), and treated customers like human beings. Except that cable has been in bed with Hollywood for a long time so it's unlikely it will change soon.

Re:Milk that cow!

[jfengel]

I'm just saying there ARE a lot of people who really want that. I'm not one of them; I actually kind of prefer things "spoiled". (Hell, if I'd waited until Lost had finished completely, I might have skipped it altogether and had a few dozen hours of my life back.)

I do think it's a real part of culture to discuss TV that's on Right Now. Not my thing, but I can see why a lot of other people are into it. Perhaps fewer than they think; maybe a lot of people would be happier ditching the cable and getting Netflix. I think the cable providers definitely fear that.

But I don't get the hate for DVRs; people time-shift things a few hours or a few days and can still get in on the conversation. Yeah, if you let it go for months you might as well just wait until it's on Netflix (though a LOT of Netflix material is still DVD-only, and I still maintain the mail service).

Re:Milk that cow!

[Darinbob]

There are enough people who use DVRs or video recorders to time shift stuff that there hasn't been any must-see-now TV for ages. No one talks about Mad Men at the office because too many people in the office haven't seen that episode yet. They'll see it on the weekend maybe, or when the spouse gets back from a trip, so no spoilers allowed at work. Hollywood hates this time shifting though. Advertisers hate that people will fast forward through the ads.

As for waiting, there are a lot more people willing to wait. Even without streaming or television service there are people who keep up with Walking Dead or who watched Lost using DVDs from Netflix. Waiting is acceptable. It does mean that people learn to limit the amount that they watch though.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the quality isn't "roughly the same."

Cable's 3 good channesl and 297 channesl of total horse shit and a crappy DVR service so you can record that one good show that comes on at 3AM because the rest of the prime time is taken up by the hundreds of asshole-chef-reality-show-copy-cats. Act now and we'll charge you for 15 to 20 minutes of blaring ads on every show! Our ads were so fucking loud that congress had to take action!

I know lets fix it with a 300 button remote and an impossibly slow channel guide that is not even remotely user friendly.

Fuck broadcast/cable/satilight TV... it's out of control and can't be fixed. They have no idea what the customer wants and basically only get my busness because I don't have a choice where I can get interent from. And they exploit that monopoly to treat me like shit when their service doesn't work.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Jason Levine]

You can't count the full cost of your Internet service unless you ONLY use your Internet service for Netflix. A normal Netflix household will use their Internet connection for a few things including Netflix. So the true cost of Netflix is $7.99 a month plus some fraction of your monthly Internet service fees (the latter of which will vary from house to house).

Still a better deal than cable TV.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Jason Levine]

The only reason we haven't cut the cord is that our cable provider gave us a good deal: $85 a month for TV and Internet. Ditching TV would save us $50 a month but some of that savings would be eaten up by purchasing shows on Amazon VOD that we (or our boys) like and wouldn't want to miss - like Mythbusters. However, if our deal expires and the cable company won't give us a good deal again, the cord is getting cut. We're not paying $100+ a month for television.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Jason Levine]

Plus, unlike the different cable providers, these services actually compete. Sure, Netflix might have exclusive Show A while Amazon has exclusive Show B, but they are both vying for our entertainment dollars. Right now, the cable companies have divided up the market into exclusive zones so there is only one cable operator per location. (There might be some overlap, but that's the exception, not the rule.)

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

The problem is that if they did, 3 episodes would be more than the cost of a subscription.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

You don't understand the industry at all. Customer symmetry is irrelevant - at the peering points, data is meant to be equal and symmetrical. Basically, (example) Comcast and Verizon connect at peering point A. Comcast's customers download X from Verizon's customers, and Verizon's customers download Y from Comcast's customers. It evens out. But, when Cogent routes 90% of their traffic via Asia in order to benefit from cheap transit (which they do) it jeopardises the whole thing. It also means Cogent's traffic is cheap and nasty - there's a reason high grade hosting providers make a big deal of "No Cogent!" as a selling point.

Re:Milk that cow!

[SJHillman]

But once you buy the guitar and take the lessons, you won't need to pay those costs again. As opposed to a subscription service in which you pay ad infinitum. Also, there's much cheaper hobbies than guitar, many of which you can get started with a book/Google and $100. Gardening, knitting, blogging, drawing, web design, programming, hiking, bird watching, and cooking all have very low barriers to entry in terms of both skills and money. There's also plenty of hobbies that can provide a positive ROI over time - I've taken up woodworking as something that I can easily recoup my investment in tools and make it a break-even hobby.

Re:Milk that cow!

[antdude]

I rarely watch. What about new episodes that were recently aired? Also, downloads (no streaming)?

Re:Milk that cow!

[king neckbeard]

I understand the industry a bit, I also understand that there's no technological reason why a peering relationship has to be symmetrical. I understand that, in practice, it usually is or is fairly close, and that business models work on that assumption, but there's no technologically compelling reason that they have to be, or why such a relationship would be an actual problem. It's largely a bizarre holdover from telephones when operators had to physically switch connections.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

The "symmetry" argument is almost entirely exclusive to transit. The only real reason there is paid peering at all is because it's cheaper than transit for the same quality.

Most ISPs would be willing to peer for free with a CDN, but if the CDN has an SLA that requires more than just "free peering" quality, then that CDN would be willing to pay an ISP for better access. In this case, a CDN has a business motive to pay for a colo in the target ISP, which may be a requirement to meet the SLA.

In the normal case, it is beneficial for both parties to do peering for free, even if the data is lop-sided, but when one of the parties needs something above and beyond the basics, then it turns into supply vs demand and the other party has more leverage.

In the case of Netflix, they don't really need a SLA, so there is little reason for Netflix to care about paid peering since most ISPs want cheap bulk bandwidth and are very willing to peer without question. Comcast decided to play chicken and was willing to throw their customers under the bus in a successful multi-year attempt to get Netflix to pay extra.

For Netflix, it was a good short term decision, but will it be a good long term one? Only time will tell. One of the rules of peering is once a customer, always a customer. Netflix will now have a hard time getting out from under paying. They set a precedent where they effectively admitted that they should pay, even if they shouldn't.

What will happen in a few years once their contract is over and Netflix decides to not pay? Comcast will just tell their customers that Netflix decided to stop and now the quality degraded. It will look worse for Netflix than Comcast because Netflix was a paying customer to Comcast and stopped paying their "bill". Prior to this payment agreement, Netflix was an equal with Comcast and Comcast was the bum not willing to work with Netflix.

Re:Milk that cow!

[ColdSam]

DVRs solve your problem with watching cable TV in a narrow time slot, making them not obsolete and certainly not stupid.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Dcnjoe60]

You can't count the full cost of your Internet service unless you ONLY use your Internet service for Netflix. A normal Netflix household will use their Internet connection for a few things including Netflix. So the true cost of Netflix is $7.99 a month plus some fraction of your monthly Internet service fees (the latter of which will vary from house to house).

Still a better deal than cable TV.

That is that new math you are talking about, isn't it. The cost to have internet in a household is the $7.99 plus the cost of the ISP. The fact that the internet service can be used for other purposes does not change that. Look at it this way, a new subdivision is built with two houses. House A wants cable and House B wants netflix. How much does the owner of House B need to pay to get netflix - $7.99+internet service. If the owner of House B adds other internet content then, yes, the cost of the ISP is spread over multiple uses, but, it doesn't change the cost to get netflix is $7.99+internet service. Put differently, if you fail to pay your ISP and they cut you off, you can continue to pay netflix $7.99 all you want, but you won't get to watch it. To watch netflix, you need to pay their fee plus the ISP.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

Actually, an asymmetrical relationship does hold problems for a provider actually - and it's a big one. When a provider is being flooded with traffic by a "nett sender" who isn't paying for it, they face the problem where they are receiving traffic for which they have no adequately prepared and built capacity for, and are receiving no funds with which to increase capacity. Hence, why they then demand that the nett sender make payment to transit that traffic. Where the amounts transiting are roughly symmetrical, the capacity they already built out to handle their traffic is generally sufficient to handle the return traffic from the peer (since it's generally in response to their own traffic).

It's NOT a "bizarre holdover" it's a very real, very reasonable, requirement. In fact, it's also the very same principle applied in global telephone network agreements. When an AT&T customer in the US calls a Vodafone customer in Australia, for example, no payment changes hands between AT&T and Vodafone so long as their traffic remains roughly symmetrical (the so-called "Bill and Keep" arrangement - now try work out why international phone calls cost more than local ones). As soon as that traffic becomes "lop-sided" the nett receiver will start making noises about implementing a termination agreement (or outright blocking communications from the sender - it's why Clickatell and similar low-cost SMS providers find themselves unable to route to some networks so frequently).

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

I don't think we'll ever see downloads without streaming - that requires a whole new category of rights from the rights-holders (no, seriously) which cost more to get.

In terms of recently aired episodes, you would see them probably a day after the last US state gets to see them; and there's already a service that lets you do that, it's called Hulu Plus. I don't think Netflix is really aiming for the "recent episode catch up" market like Hulu is.

Re:Milk that cow!

[antdude]

Amazon and iTunes let you download with their software.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

iTunes doesn't have a subscription, and charges $3 per episode. Amazon only lets you stream less than a third of their library with a subscription, and requires you pay $3 an episode for the rest.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Archangel Michael]

And DVRs are stupid with On Demand Viewing like Netflix available.

Why would I want to have a DVR, when there are perfectly good alternatives that COULD fully replace it? I used to buy Tapes and DVDs for access to movies and whatnot, but with the advent of Hulu and Netflix, why should I? These companies maintain a library and I get shelf space back.

Granted, there are a few BluRay movies that are probably worth it (1080P, 7.1 stereo etc) but those have got to be spectacular IMHO.

Re:Milk that cow!

[antdude]

But they have seasons that are discounted instead of buying per episode.

Re:Milk that cow!

[ColdSam]

Except there aren't perfectly good alternatives to replace it, at least not according to you. If you don't think that cable TV is at least marginally better than the alternatives then why do you even care when they air their shows? Cable TV is not the best option for everyone, but your arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Re:Milk that cow!

[awyeah]

(That's what I meant by "overlaid") - but yeah that's exactly right, and that's why you'll sometimes see the last 2 seconds of another commercial - it's because the clock is off on your local cable provider's hardware.

Re:Milk that cow!

[mattack2]

It's not "a better deal" since you can't get all of the current/new programming. (Also, I skip all the ads with a Tivo.)

I would pay a LOT more for something like Hulu Plus if it didn't have commercials (yes, having it all On Demand _is_ easier than "having" to record it myself, even with lots of tuners, since there are preemptions, annoying timeslot overruns that make the # of tuners less than you think you have, etc.)..

I was a Netflix subscriber from the VERY early days until around a year ago, btw.. and am still a "fan"... Just not a subscriber, except maybe for a month or two sometime to get their orig shows and one or two other things they have exclusive rights to.. but not as a continuing customer most likely.

Re:Milk that cow!

[mattack2]

Because, as noted, you don't get the _current_ programming.

BTW, I used to do exactly what you did, with e.g. movies or HBO shows.. Just "wait a year" and get them from netflix.

Heck, I don't even stay current with my shows, I'm just now watching this season of "The Following" and "Revolution". But I'm still watching them much sooner (and without commercials) than other places get them.

If you want to watch the commercials on Hulu, great.. and I've used it one or twice in the past for some rare missed show (a local preemption perhaps).

Re:Milk that cow!

[Jason Levine]

To make the inevitable car analogy, suppose you drive to Grocery Store A and buy $50 worth of groceries a week. Is the cost of your groceries really $50 + the full price of owning a car (purchase cost, gas cost, maintenance cost, etc)? Or is the true cost $50 + some fraction of the car's cost (the gas it costs you to drive to the store plus some negligible amount of purchase/maintenance costs)? Unless the only time you use your car is to drive to the grocery store and you would not own a car otherwise, it would be ridiculous to state that your entire monthly "car cost" needs to be tacked on to your grocery bill.

In addition, Internet service is required for many other things. If I buy something from Amazon.com for $20, is the real cost of the item $20 + my ISP bill? When I post on Slashdot from home, is Slashdot really costing me my monthly ISP costs? Or do they get divided up based on usage and the monthly ISP costs?

Almost everyone has Internet access nowadays. Most people use it for various purposes: E-mail, Facebook, Twitter, Slashdot, Netflix, Amazon.com purchases, etc. I doubt many people pay a monthly fee for Internet access and *ONLY* use it for their Netflix service. Maybe those people can claim their Netflix bill as being $7.99 + Internet service, but they are the exception, not the rule. Everyone else would calculate "true cost" by taking some fraction of their Internet service and adding it to Netflix's $7.99 a month.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Kalriath]

True. But the discount still doesn't make it anywhere near as cheap as a Netflix subscription.

Re:Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your intenet bill must be expensive:

netflix + internet /. + internet
email + internet ...

Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[sortius_nod]

While as a consumer I'll bemoan paying more, the reality is, to deliver quality content they need to find the price sweet spot. It's still way below the cost of cable TV, so I don't think it will hurt them in the long run.

Yes, it seems like it will mainly benefit shareholders, but with the lack of ads and low price, even after the increase, who can really complain?

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[The Grim Reefer]

While as a consumer I'll bemoan paying more, the reality is, to deliver quality content they need to find the price sweet spot. It's still way below the cost of cable TV, so I don't think it will hurt them in the long run.

Yes, it seems like it will mainly benefit shareholders, but with the lack of ads and low price, even after the increase, who can really complain?

From TFS, "Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month..."

Unless my reading comprehension is on the blink, as a current customer, you shouldn't see a rate increase. Yet.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[CastrTroy]

However, for most people Netflix is not something you get instead of cable. It's something you get in addition to cable. If the extra $1 or $2 brings us stuff that just aired last night, and live sports, then it will be a replacement for cable.

Personally, I'd still keep the service, even if it cost $2 more. But they better start to get more content if they are going to raise prices.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[SJHillman]

I've had Netflix for three or four years now and it's definitely worth the price. I don't think I'd seriously consider cancelling it until it reached at least $20/mo. However, if it gets much higher, they might want to consider having multiple tiers of streaming. My parents stream less than 12 hours a month, so some kind of time-limited lower tier would be needed to keep them as happy customers. Implementation would be a little tricky, but I think if you did something like allowing them to finish whatever movie/episode they're currently watching when that limit is reached would keep most people happy.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[bluefoxlucid]

It's called sustainable business. They have increasing costs as they try to search for quality; they're not at a point where they have the value to lobby down the content cost, which is complex and requires having so much content rolling through that they can argue that they're a major income source for new content (i.e. they have so much new content that if your new content is not on Netflix then you are going to miss out on profit opportunities). As the services fragment (Hulu, Amazon Prime,etc.), it will become "we need to be a part of the digital distribution model in full, or else we're missing important profitability".

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[pr0fessor]

Basic cable runs about $40-$50 a month with no extras Netflix $7.99 + $30-$40 Internet. Most people can say well I'm going to have Internet for work or cause I game, but it really depends on the situation {cable and Internet prices of course vary}.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Talderas]

Yep. Their goal is to encourage long term subscriptions and not binge subscribing. They have a "problem" where people will subscribe for one to two month, binge watch content, and then unsubscribe for about six to eight months.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Guybrush_T]

I'm amused to see that in the US, having an internet access is still optional :-). Are the US considered an under-developed country ?

That said, I'm sure your comment only makes sense to a very small portion of the population ; which will make cable companies useless in the short term.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[pr0fessor]

which will make cable companies useless in the short term.

Where I live cutting the cord isn't really cutting the cord. I canceled my tv subscription but if I want reliable Internet at a good price and speed I have to keep cable Internet. Satellite Internet is a joke {I can't get on the Internet to check the weather because of the weather}, the dsl is expensive {$3.49/mbps vs cable $1.33/mbps for their mid-tier accounts} and the dsl service in the area isn't that great either.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[fistfullast33l]

You don't get anything with basic cable these days. Most sports channels and the decent cable channels require a premium subscription. I looked at DirectTV, Dish, and Verizon before cutting the cord completely. There was no way I could keep my wife and my favorite channels like ESPN 2, NBC Sports, Bravo, etc. without spending a minimum of $70 just for the cable alone, not including boxes and remotes which they charge extra for.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is a VERY conservative country; Americans hate change. This may sound paradoxical, from a country well-known for its innovations, but it is the truth. The knee-jerk reaction of the American society to change is to stop it, giving up reluctantly and only after lots of soul searching. A possible root cause is that Americans are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the US is the best country in the world (which it is, in some areas, but it certainly isn't in many others) and that their constitution is nothing short of holy writ, perfect, eternal and God-given.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[pr0fessor]

I already moved away from cable TV, long before I actually canceled the subscription. I have netflix, hulu, plex media server to store all my DVDs {plex also has channels for cbs, spike, history, nat geo} I have either a roku or game console on each tv.

We're not a sports family so no one really noticed, the shows my wife likes are on hulu mine are on cbs through plex the kids {teen agers} like netflix and hulu a lot of cartoons. We can browse the dvd collection on any tv, laptop, or tablet.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that's a problem when you only have a month or two worth of worthwhile content. Unsubscribe, wait a year for the next month or two of worthwhile content...

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[SleazyRidr]

Maybe if you want to watch 16 hours of TV a day you'll run out of content before Netflix adds anything. If that's the case then Netflix really isn't in a position to help you.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[SleazyRidr]

He may as well have included the $100/month for electricity, although I suppose you need that for cable TV too. The problem I have is that the TV and internet are bundled in such a way that it would actually cost more to just have internet. I very rarely use the TV, but as it's not costing anything I keep it around just in case.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Add easy optional single use overages to that and I think it'd make a lot of sense.

"Hi, you've used up your streaming for the month on your plan. For $blah you can add an additional blah hours of streaming for this billing period only. Click blah to continue or blah to cancel"

Or something.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[nblender]

I don't subscribe to Netflix. However, It's true that I watch more TV in the winter than in the summer. I don't generally have a lot of free time in the summer. So if I were a netflix subscriber, I could see myself being 'one of those'.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[Darinbob]

Where do you get cable for that? Comcast seems to be $70ish for new customers for the first year (probably with 2 year commitment?). I haven't seen anything for $40 for many years. Basic cable though is almost too basic. You really only get your local channels (that you could get with a good antenna much of the time), shopping channels, a few sports, some news, and maybe one or two "interesting" channels. Trouble is most of those "favorite" channels people have aren't on basic service but it's too expensive just for getting local broadcast.

Cable companies should have gone with ala-carte pricing a long time ago.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing

[umafuckit]

While as a consumer I'll bemoan paying more, the reality is, to deliver quality content they need to find the price sweet spot. It's still way below the cost of cable TV, so I don't think it will hurt them in the long run.

That depends how people choose to use it. If they choose it as an alternative to cable then, yes, a small price increase is no big deal. If, however, they have Netflix in addition to cable then it's a different situation. Given that you can't get news or most TV shows on Netflix then I suspect we're dealing with the latter situation. Personally, I've just cancelled my Netflix subscription and subscribed to HBO for the duration of Game of Thrones (or at least the first two months of it: I'll see what I think it's worth to me).

....profit

[leuk_he]

1. Provide reruns as streamable video.
2. Raise price of rerun to new customers
3 ????
4 Profit.

Re:....profit

[wonkey_monkey]

2. Announce forthcoming price rise applicable to new customers as of a future date
3. Watch those people who were previously on the fence about it sign up to avoid the price hike
4. ???? ...and so on.

Repeat July 2011

[BitZtream]

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike ... and I'll be in the first wave myself.

They are always way behind on everything that comes out, if the price goes up much, it will cost as much as a basic cable subscription, which has access to pretty much all new major content releases, where as netflix is at least 2-4 years behind on everything I want to watch.

The ONLY thing that keeps me paying now is that there are NO commercials, and commercials are exactly why I dropped my Hulu Plus subscription, anything of any popularity has as many commercial breaks as broadcast TV, and my WMC DVR has no problem letting me skip commercials, hulu on the other hand thinks forcing me to watch some shit commercial about something I have no interest in is a good thing. I know of no one who still pays for hulu due to the ever increasing commercial count.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[The New Guy 2.0]

I'm not sure there's going to be an exodus due to this. Who's the competitor offering the old price? What's better for access to these movies/shows? Why won't the viewer notice the new-to-Netflix options coming?

Re:Repeat July 2011

[sinij]

I don't think you could compare Netflix to 'basic' cable. For me basic cable is unwatchable - you have excessive amount of commercials and no on demand service. Sure, you can get all of this out of cable, but at that point you are no longer on 'basic'.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[tsqr]

I'll be in the first wave myself.

If you're going to quit, you must be an existing customer, which means you won't see a rate increase. Are you going to quit as a statement of principle?

Re:Repeat July 2011

[DogDude]

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike

First off, it's "they're".

Secondly, I'm not going anywhere because there's simply not anywhere else I can rent DVD's. My stupid fellow citizens quit going to our local video stores, so now there's exactly *one* way to rent DVD's, and that's Netflix.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

>Who's the competitor offering the old price?

Amazon Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Grishnakh]

You're forgetting Redbox. Plus, there's Amazon's own video-on-demand service.

There's nothing stupid about abandoning local video stores. What kind of moron would pay $5 to rent a movie, plus ridiculous late fees? With Netflix at $8/month for all-you-can-view online, or maybe double that for online + 1 DVD checkout, it's a no-brainer. Or you can go to Redbox.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[SJHillman]

I just got a Prime trial subscription, mostly for streaming movies. I find the interface to be more confusing than Netflix, and the closed captioning isn't as easy to read. I've also had issues in which Full Screen will switch it to my primary monitor, so I have to use the Pop-Out viewer. Also, the price of Prime just went up recently as well which may be one of the reasons Netflix is more comfortable with raising their rates too.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[DogDude]

Redbox has a smattering of mouth breather blockbusters. It's no substitute for Netflix any more than a 7-11 is a substitute for a grocery store.

Video-on-demand on Netflix isn't much more comprehensive than a Redbox vending machine.

That was my point. There's no substitute for Netflix DVD rental.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[The Grim Reefer]

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike ... and I'll be in the first wave myself.

Did you read anything past the title? You know, like the first sentence of the summary. The way I read it, only new customers will see the rate increase. So unless you aren't currently a customer you won't be affected.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[alen]

it's not supposed to be for recent releases. not at that price point

$8 - $10 a month you get an awesome deal on catalog content that's also on demand

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Redbox has a smattering of mouth breather blockbusters. It's no substitute for Netflix any more than a 7-11 is a substitute for a grocery store.

Video-on-demand on Netflix isn't much more comprehensive than a Redbox vending machine.

That was my point. There's no substitute for Netflix DVD rental.

True; I use Redbox to get movies for my 12-14 year old kids when we're on a road trip. This weekend, there was Frozen, which is actually pretty good, and then the only other thing we could find which was passable was Despicable Me. The great unwashed out there are really watching crap.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[BitZtream]

Are you going to quit as a statement of principle?

Yes, because this won't remain 'just for new customers' for very long at all.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Githaron]

Compared to Netflix. Amazon Prime is a joke.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[BitZtream]

If you think there is only one way to watch 'rented' movies, then you are really pretty stupid. Amazon Prime cost less and is far more useful as it includes more than just movies.

As for the spelling mistake ... you must lead a really sad life.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[NotDrWho]

No one is leaving Netflix over a fucking $2 price hike.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[geminidomino]

You think? I'm not, but that's a $24/yr increase. Look at the shit Amazon took over a $20/yr hike on Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Talderas]

Why would there be an exodus, current subscribers are not having their prices changed, only new subscribers. This is a move to counter binge subscribers in order to smooth out their revenue. In fact, if Netflix wanted to be brilliant about it, the would offer their Xth month free with a $1-2 reduction in your subscription cost. Basically, you're "paying forward" the extra $1-2 towards a month subscription that you only get if you stay subscribed long enough. That would essentially provide the exact same lower costs for long term subscribers.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[NotDrWho]

You mean you don't like Generic Superhero Movie 2?? I thought it was even better than the original!!

Re:Repeat July 2011

[jeffmflanagan]

I have Prime for the shipping, but the streaming is pretty terrible. You can start watching a series on Prime, then after a few episodes to get you hooked, they'll want something like $3 an episode in addition to the Prime membership. With Netflix, there's never an attempt to add fees for particular shows or movies.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[N1AK]

So why leave when there is no price rise or change for them which will just look like noise to Netflix instead of leaving with other subscribers when the price goes up for everyone and making it clear to them that they lost business because of that change?

Re:Repeat July 2011

[jeffmflanagan]

Why would you want to rent awful 480p DVDs when you can stream 1080p? DVDs have been obsolete for years now. Your fellow citizens weren't stupid to stop going to video stores, they moved on. You were left behind, and now oddly call the more advanced people "stupid."

Re:Repeat July 2011

[jeffmflanagan]

Some lunatics will. People lose their minds over trivial changes, and make bad decisions all the time.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Richy_T]

And the price of Prime didn't just go up a little, it went up a lot.

Then there's inflation to account for too. I'm sure Netflix' cost has gone up over the past few years.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[erp_consultant]

Yup - noticed that too. Or they don't have every episode of a given series available to stream. I had to make a choice and decided to keep Netflix and ditch Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[symbolset]

We use Redbox. They have a lot of blockbuster movies. I don't see it as a replacement for Netflix, but an enhancement. There is no way Hollywood is going to let Netflix show Gravity any time soon, but I rented the Bluray at Redbox for $1.50. There are a lot of Redbox kiosks in our area and their website knows what is in each one at any given moment, so we have a good selection.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix doesn't have all titles available to stream. I have even had them pull streaming vids to DVD. I assume this is to do with how they license the titles.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[pnutjam]

Amazon prime sucks, IMHO. I will however, use Amazon to rent movies. They do have a truly deep selection, it's like walking around an old blockbuster and browsing the $1 movies, but you pay $3.99, :`(

Re:Repeat July 2011

[suutar]

For stuff that I'd care that much about the image, I wouldn't. I'd rent blurays. For the stuff that I want to watch that's not on bluray, it's usually not streamable, and if it is, it's not 1080 because they transferred the source at that resolution, it's upconverted.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only get 4G LTE. Streaming 1080p is certainly possible but it will not be very cheap.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Darinbob]

Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime are the big competition. Netflix seems to come out slightly ahead when balancing it out for most people, plus those three are roughly similar in price. Change the pricing and the balance shifts around. This really hurts when trying to get new customers with no experience in the market; they'll want the one that seems cheapest with the most content, and $8 Hulu versus $10 Netflix will make a big difference (and all the services are vague about what you'll actually get until you create the trial account so it's hard to do comparison shopping). Plus there are the smaller players, maybe with a smaller movie selection but more than you'll ever get around to watching and they could win big here.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Darinbob]

But why will they get new customers when they have actual competition who have lower prices? Ie, Hulu or Amazon or itunes? A new customer won't be able to really evaluate the difference between them. After all, having the most movies to offer sounds nice until you realize that even the company with the 5th most movies available still has more movies than are watchable in one lifetime.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Darinbob]

I thought Generic Superheroes Team Up Movie was better, especially the scene at the end where they go to eat generic ethnic food.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[tsqr]

But why will they get new customers when they have actual competition who have lower prices? Ie, Hulu or Amazon or itunes?

Hulu Plus is $8/month, and has advertising. Sorry; ads I can get on cable. Amazon Prime is $79/year ($6.67/month), but recent tv shows and movies aren't free ($2 to $3 per episode). Amazon has less content than Netflix (by a factor of about 2), but has more, recent TV shows. As far as "more movies than are watchable in one lifetime" -- it isn't the quantity, it's whether they have what you want to see. I like foreign movies and TV shows, and the selection on Netflix is pretty good; I don't really know how Amazon is in this regard, but the unsubstantiated rumor is, not so great. As for iTunes, I have no insight.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Jason Levine]

To be fair to Prime (which we have but don't like as much as we like Netflix), it went up $20 a year. Netflix is talking about a $1-2 a month increase which would work out to $12-24 more a year. So the Prime and Netflix price increases are in the same ballpark.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Kalriath]

I believe the competitor offering the old price is Netflix as the price rise is for new customers only.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[amxcoder]

Agreed. The typical redbox has a VERY limited selection of DVD movies to rent, all of which are just a small subset of new releases and "popular" movies for the given time. This works if you don't rent older movies or the less popular indy movies, or movies in any other Genre but the mega-summer-blockbuster-no-plot-pointless movies.

I keep Netflix around for the fact that any movie, even ones I haven't seen in years, or since I was kid are available as a DVD rental. Most everyone else I talk to about Netflix use it only for Streaming, which is not Netflix's best part. I wouldn't pay for streaming only service (without DVD rental) since their streaming selection for movies sucks, and their streaming selection for shows are mostly shows I don't watch (with a few exceptions). Even if they did have shows I watch, I'd have to wait 2-3 seasons before they would be released on Netflix (depending on the show this might be more/less).

Last time there was a mass exodus of Netflix (when they tried to split the streaming and DVD rental into 2 different sites), I was the only person I knew that dropped the streaming side, rather than the DVD side of Netflix. After a long time I finally added streaming back on, and low and behold, their selection was not any better.

Now I'm starting to use a Raspberry Pi running XBMC and MashUp and am starting to like it. I still pay for TV, and Netflix, but screw it, if these companies want to charge so much for every subscription. Most of us can get the content for free at this point. If they get too greedy, they won't get any of our money. The only subscribers they'll end up are going to be the few who are the ones recording and posting the shows up on bit-torrent sites for the rest.

Don't get me started on CableTV... as a person who only watches about 5 channels regularly, why I have to pay big bucks for mostly channels I don't want is ridiculous. I think channels should be a-la-cart selection, and the channels that can't stay on the air because they suck, need to go out of business. I watch no sports, and half the channels I pay for are in a languages that I can't speak. Why am I paying for all this? Because in order to get the 5 channels I want, I have to subscribe to the second to highest channel tier, that's why, and then the cable company takes my big bill, and evenly distributes it to all the channels I don't want.

It's so frustrating, it ALMOST makes cutting off all my services and living with YouTube cat video's as my only entertainment start to seem enticing.

Re:Repeat July 2011

[The New Guy 2.0]

Netflix has always been the most content leader, giving them an ability to charge more. Will there be a competitor price hike soon?

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Redbox is very flawed:

1. Extremely limited selection
2. Usually has a line of mouthbreathers who take 20 minutes per page
3. Very poor security. If the client can not connect to the Redbox DB, its solution is to crash, exposing a XP desktop with keyboard and admin access

Re:Repeat July 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix DVD rental is great. They have everything and you can get a lot of movies every week to copy as an ISO file to watch with VLC anytime you want.

No other service gives you the ability to so easily break copyright law and get good quality copies.

Fine logic

[LookIntoTheFuture]

Investors welcomed the announcement by Netflix, which had suffered from a consumer exodus and stock plunge after it announced an unpopular price increase in July 2011.

Well, the first price increase cost us customers so the stock plunged. What will make the stock soar? A price increase!

Re:Fine logic

[SJHillman]

In other news, Netflix's accounting department has been outsourced to the MPAA.

Re:Fine logic

[dunezone]

Well, the first price increase cost us customers so the stock plunged. What will make the stock soar? A price increase!

The company has outgrown its current monthly fee. The only way for Netflix to continue growing and offer a better experience is to increase its monthly fee. Its one thing to bring in new members but they need to protect their retention rate. Netflix lately has been suffering from a quality issue where they lack new content and to a lot of us older members are starting to get annoyed by it. The good thing for Netflix is that a decent alternative doesn't exist yet but the bad thing is if the service starts to suffer and an alternative comes around people can easily jump ship.

Re:Fine logic

[Richy_T]

The price plunged to around $90 (and lower) but has since played well above $400. The previous change was a dumb move but the low price was well undervalued (and I was lucky enough to take advantage of that). I think they've immunized themselves against such a fairly small increase causing them any problems this time.

Re:Fine logic

[Tony Isaac]

This time, the price increase is less than 15%. The first time around, it was 100%. Big difference!

Re:Fine logic

[Galilee]

The previous price hike happened at the same time they announced that they were going to split the streaming service (Netflix) from the DVD by mail service (Kwikster?). There were going to be two different web sites, two different user accounts, and no integration between them. Fortunately, they realized that this was a stupid idea and cancelled it. I don't know why this isn't mentioned when reporters cover the backlash from their previous price increase. The split bothered me a whole lot more than the price increase.

More content!

[NotDrWho]

I don't mind paying and extra buck or two, if you can improve the content. I'm getting a little tired of movies dropping out of my queue, not to mention multiples seasons of TV shows (some of my TV shows have went from having every season available to just a few in the last year). I'm glad you got House and Cards and all, but what you really need to focus on is your meat-and-potatoes movie and TV show content.

Re:More content!

[Richy_T]

Hemlock Grove was not too bad an effort either. I think they're probably going the right way in producing their own content.

Re:More content!

[NotDrWho]

I think they're probably going the right way in producing their own content.

Not if it means cutting their existing content of shows and movies (that they didn't produce). I'm not paying $7-$9 a month just to watch Netflix series.

Re:More content!

[Richy_T]

It can probable be seen as some kind of bargaining chip also. If Netflix is dependent on content from others, it makes them vulnerable.

Re:More content!

[Darinbob]

It also keeps them distinct from other services. I just got a roku and I'm amazed at all the "channels" that have a huge amount of overlap in content (ie, not current movies and tv series). So why get Netflix instead of Amazon+Prime, or why get Amazon instead of Hulu, and so on? So they want either some original programming or some exclusive content, and hope that there are people willing to pay $8/mo or $80/yr just for that one program not found elsewhere.

Wonder if....

[Anonymous Coward]

Come let us come let us come,
let us come let us come let.
Tus come let us come,
let us come!

 

Vote With Your Wallet

[semilemon]

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your wallet, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?

Re:Vote With Your Wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

I've watched one movie in a month.. so not much I guess. Netflix basically has been getting free money. Now I might just turn it off.

Verizon FiOS

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm a Verizon customer, and Netflix streaming has become less useful to me since the whole monopoly shakedown business happend.

I'm willing to pay a few dollars more per month to Netflix, if it returns streaming to its previous glory on Verizon.

Bonus points if they use the money to buy a law that makes being a Verizon executive a capital offense.

Re:Verizon FiOS

[tbuddy]

I'd subscribe to Netflix if they could pull that off, and I'm not a Verizon customer.

Re:Verizon FiOS

[AnontheDestroyer]

Fuck that. I'll pay Netflix for Netflix, the ISP should be providing the brandwidth that you're paying for to all sites. Would you pay more to Verizon if they ACTUALLY provided what they say they're giving you?

I'd pay more for Netflix just to see more content.

Re:Verizon FiOS

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Yes but that money should be charged directly to you by Verizon. They lied to you, claiming X speed, when they deliberately degraded it. They should be charged with fraud.

Re:Verizon FiOS

[ArsonSmith]

It's just like how you might buy 110V AC current from the Power company, except that during heavy usage hours that drops to 55V and during peak it sometimes even drops below 20V, stutters or even stalls out for long periods of time.

Where's the money going?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is cheap, don't get me wrong -- however, is it money needed for more content, or money needed to ward off extortion from Comcast? After all, it doesn't matter how much content you have if you can't deliver it to your audience.

Also, any chance of paying for what I want to watch at reasonable prices? The ultimate conclusion of "price hike for more content" is $80/mo so I can get Disney content for my kids and a whole swath of shows I don't care about -- hmm, sounds like current cable. Or is the whole "a la carte" thing a just a dream?

Reported Increased Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use those increased profits to provide better service and buy more movies and TV shows?

Oh right, those profits belong to our wealthy investors. So we have to stick it to the little guy to make them happy.

Re:Reported Increased Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use those increased profits to provide better service and buy more movies and TV shows?

Oh right, those profits belong to our wealthy investors. So we have to stick it to the little guy to make them happy.

[cracks the whip]

YOU MUST WORK HARDER...I want to retire while I am young so I can enjoy it!

Triple the price

[Anonymous Coward]

And give me current stuff.

Re:Triple the price

[Richy_T]

Gah, until the payment/production model changes, it's not worth even starting watching something until there's at least a couple of seasons complete. And even then, you're not safe (Stargate Universe). Ideally, if a show were turning a profit, it would continue getting made but it's always other considerations that come into play, even such stupid things as a newly promoted exec wanting to make their mark.

It's still better than cable . . .

[Jimbo God of Unix]

And if they actually follow through on improving their library, it will be worth a buck or two extra per month. I'll give them a few months to improve things. If they don't improve, then it will be time to look for alternatives.

Fuck Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the citizens will revolt if the Comcast/TWC merger is approved. Then we can get our Country back.... nah.

FIFY

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

"Video streaming service Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month to help the company pay ransom to the ISP monopolies with stranglehold on the last mile of cable built by the rate payers over theyear on public rights of way, protected by the public utilities commissions, who wantonly flout truth-in-labeling laws by selling X Mbps service and balk at providing it.

FIFY

Re:FIFY

[Charliemopps]

Netflix made their own bed. There are plenty of content providers that actually worked with the ISPs to reduce their load. Netflix intentionally did things to drive up their bandwidth usage. A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...) would have eliminated this problem years ago and the ISPs would have dropped it. But Netflix told the ISPs do go screw themselves and decided to just have all their customers hammer the ISPs at once. Google doesn't do this, Microsoft doesn't do it... No one but netflix acts like this. And this is just one of the things they did to screw the ISPs. They also switch network providers at random... again, anyone else in the industry has agreements with the ISPs to notify them and work with them so they can sign contracts with the appropriate network providers. But not netflix. The ISP may have a 10gig trunk with AT&T because they get 10gig of traffic from netflix via AT&T. But then on some random monday Netflix switches to Sprint (or whomever) and now the ISP has to scramble to get a 10gig trunk with sprint and are still stuck in their contract with AT&T. In the normal world the content provider would have notified the ISP well in advance so as not to inconvenience their users with poor performance. But not netflix.

Well now Netflix has to pay. I would really prefer net neutrality but this is definitely netflixes fault. The last mile of your internet connection is by far the most expensive part of the infrastructure. ISPs that aren't in city centers are losing money hand over fist because of netflix. I don't blame them at all.

Re:FIFY

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

What Netflix does not matter. Comcast sold their customers 6 Mbps "unlimited download" service. They just have to provide it. Or label it right, like the way mobile companies do. For example, T-mbile says "unlimited data means unlimited data at 128 kbps, the first 2GB will be at 6 Mbps". Change the label or change the price. Just don't sell the customer "unlimited" service and then expect to be paid by content providers.

Re:FIFY

[geminidomino]

. A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...) would have eliminated this problem years ago and the ISPs would have dropped it

[citation needed]

Everything I've read says the opposite: Netflix has ISP-level caches available, which would be even better for the ISPs' bandwidth numbers for every video where #views > 1 (local caching at the user end means it still gets downloaded per-user, just at offpeak times) and were shown the door when they offered it.

I posit that the actual problem is that there doesn't seem to be any legal concept of "conflict of interest" in the US anymore.

Re:FIFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Especially when those segments were funded by grants from us, the taxpayers and consumers of said content. We've already paid twice for it, and Netflix paid to get it onto the internet, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon among others should all have their infrastructure pushed to common carrier, and then say that X percent of their earning in perpetuity go towards upgrading / maintaining those lines as new technologies come up.

No more milking a substandard service for everything they can before spending a pittance to incrementally upgrade a circuit with substandard equipment from a bigger city where it was retired because it was outdated.

Re:FIFY

[Anonymous Coward]

A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...)

What we don't know is how that would have messed up their deals with the content owners. And Netflix does offer to provide free caching appliances to ISPs. (free hardware and remote management, but the ISP would need to provide the power, housing, network ports, and IP addresses)

Re:FIFY

[Richy_T]

The ISPs work for the end-user. Content providers provide the content and need to contract with their provider to provide the bandwidth they need.

So the ISPs should be dealing with the end-users. If they want to have tiered options, fair enough but don't promise unlimited bandwidth and then cry when people watch Netflx all day.

Now, Netflix does offer to install systems that will cache content locally at ISPs, saving them *massively* on upstream bandwidth costs and improving the customer experience but companies like Comcast have a conflict of interest with their own content provision services. Netflix is a direct threat to their cable TV operations and are to be given no quarter.

Re:FIFY

[alen]

netflix used to pay for CDN services, but stopped last year

go google "netflix data center" and you will get lots of nice not click bait nonsense, but real tech info. netflix did this to themselves

Re:FIFY

[Charliemopps]

You have a choice. A T1 will give you guaranteed 1.5MB service 24/7 which is what you seem to think DSL/Cable should provide you. The cheapest I've ever seen a T1 go for was $200/month (and that's insanely cheap and only given to companies that order dozens or more) So if you want to pay $200 a month for 1.5mb/sec go right ahead. You wont be streaming HD content over that though.

However, if you do not want guaranteed speeds but a lower price, that's what DSL and Cable is for. You have a max speed, but if everyone jumps on at the same time it's going to slow down. That's how the tech works. No ISP on earth will give a residential customer with a single line guaranteed 15mb/sec 24/7 for less than a couple of grand a month. You seem to be complaining about their advertising. Go right ahead, but the idea that advertising is misleading and untruthful isn't a new concept. Does your car get the MPG the tag claimed? I sure it would if you only drove it in June and stayed under 20mph. Lobby your congressman for some "Truth in advertising" laws. People have been asking for that since the founding of the country so don't hold your breath.

With regards to Neflix's joke "Cache" servers...
First read point #1 of their guidelines:

General Requirements

        The ISP network must be located in or connected to the same peering locations as the Netflix network (AS2906).

Then click on the link to see where their peering locations are:
https://www.netflix.com/openco...

To save you time... there are none. It's complete bullshit. They don't even provide the equipment anymore because no-one would except their guidelines. If you know anything about enterprise networking, the legal ramifications of agreeing to their terms, etc... you'd pretty quickly realize the entire thing is a load of crap setup for PR. No ISP would agree to the terms even if they still offered the service. Especially when netflix could take any one of the hundreds of open source media caching code, put it into their software and be done with it. They're already using MS silverlight for christs sake. It would be so simple for them to change. The effect on their customers local ISP issues would be immediate and dramatic.

Re:FIFY

[Richy_T]

I used the wrong word. I'm more talking about the data caps. The actual bandwidth should, of course, just be whatever has been sold to the customer.

The point is, Comcast, Verizon et al should not be complaining about Netflix.

Re:FIFY

[danlip]

who wantonly flout truth-in-labeling laws by selling X Mbps service and balk at providing it.

Actually Comcast promises me "up to" 20 Mbps, and true to their word they've never given me more than that.

Go for a walk...

[CohibaVancouver]

If you think Netflix is too expensive then get off the couch and go outside for a walk instead.

Re:Go for a walk...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, aren't you Mr. Cool?

*cough*Comcast!*cough*

[doggo]

Well, they gotta pay for that deal with Comcast to stop throttling their streaming service somehow.

Re:*cough*Comcast!*cough*

[Richy_T]

Given that I moved to Comcast to improve my Netflix experience, they are in serious danger of losing me as a customer unless they sort this shit out themselves.

who cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't mind paying $20-$40 a month if they had more popular old and new tv shows and movies released at once but I think the increase has to do with paying verizon and comcast's double dipping schemes. What netflix would do is shift movies and tv shows from other regions to the u.s, it has nothing to do with licensing, netflix like so many other corporations always likes to screw the u.s consumer because they can. They can run netflix html5 on chrome and other linux devices but they can't run it on the linux desktop, bullshit, and i doubt it has to anything to do with the content owners. A corporation will always be a corporation fucking over the u.s consumer.

Re:who cares.

[Richy_T]

I believe it's more about the control they have over the data pathway.

Actions speak louder than prices

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous price hike would have made more sense if they had announced it as "allowing more content for current subscribers" rather than "a latte or two difference".

As this has not historically been a priority, it will take time before I can decide that they will actually act in agreement with my interests. Namely, will they produce more "House of Cards"-like dramas, or will they actually branch out and find uniquely satisfying content that appeals to a broad set of tastes.

New Customers

[tsqr]

Many posters seem to have missed the part of the story that said the rate increase applies to new customers only. I suppose that some existing Netflix subscribers may quit as a result of this based on general principles or a feeling that existing subscribers will eventually feel the bite, but this is not the same sort of general price increase that caused people to drop the service in droves last time around. Personally, I don't much care either way; I like the service, and $2.00 a month is 'way below the noise floor.

Re:New Customers

[SJHillman]

I wonder how many current customers will quit over this, then realize two months later it was only for new customers. And then have to sign back up at the higher rate.

Re:New Customers

[Anonymous Coward]

They deserve it for not know how to read.

Vote With Your Weenur

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your weenur, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?

testing the waters

[shadowrat]

Wow! there's a surprising number of comments along the lines of: "eh, i'd pay a couple more bucks a month.." I expected a more negative response from this cynical audience. (even though, that's pretty much echoing my sentiments)

They aren't even saying they are going to raise the cost for existing subscribers, but now they know that we would probably just go ahead and pay it. I'm thinking this is mostly just to get a feel for what consumers would be willing to pay without freaking out.

Re:testing the waters

[Talderas]

It's to make binge subscribers pay a little bit more.

Re:testing the waters

[symbolset]

We cut out our cable TV subscription years ago and went straight Netflix, Redbox and streaming. We have saved thousands of dollars. More importantly, my youngest children can't stand TV. The very notion that the commercials ruin the show and they can't watch what they want when they want is utterly incomprehensible to them. When I hooked up OTA digital to watch the NFL playoffs they made fun of me for watching so many ads.

Vote With Your Weenur

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your weenur, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?
 

Re: Telcos Milk that cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The Consumer/Customer pays for everything and this price increase is one proof.

Now, who should "we" be angry with? The TelCos who charge NetFlix to use their "pipes" to ship content to their customers or NetFlix who bought "special" service from the greedy bastards? (Opps, I guess you know how I feel about this.)

Canadian Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Canada, I don't think we get anywhere near as much content as the US. As an existing Netflix customer I'd pay an extra buck or two a month to get access to the US content.

Re:Canadian Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Canada, I don't think we get anywhere near as much content as the US. As an existing Netflix customer I'd pay an extra buck or two a month to get access to the US content.

Sorry to say but that might not happen due to the insane way in which content providers license access to their product. We should have seen it coming with the introduction of "Region Coding" for DVDs.

In the world of the Internet it is even easier to employ/deploy "quasi-geographical barriers" for DRM....and even easier to find ways to...well, you know.

Investors ruin companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Investors only care about the quick buck, how to milk the shares before selling off to ruin / kill a company.

The stock market today is busted, period.

Big investors should shut the fuck up and let the company they believed in so much, to do things as they plan, rather than butting in and demanding they do stupid shit for a quick profit.

you think?

[CauseBy]

I don't know. Netflix was $8 then $10. If it goes to $12/month then that will be about six dollars for every movie I watch. At that price I'd rather just buy a little extra weed and play WordFeud.

And in fact I already made that choice and dropped Netflix six or eight months ago. Their streaming selection had dwindled to the point where I couldn't even find any science documentaries anymore. What am I going to do then? Watch a superhero movie? No thanks. There are torrents for that. I had Netflix for three or four years but it just stopped delivering value.

Re:you think?

[symbolset]

I am already paying $12 for the Netflix 4 stream plan. It would be cheap at twice the price, as much as we use it.

News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, the price of some other product just went up 7%, and yet another product's price went up 12%. For techies, that's really important, because ... well, because ... um. You know.

After a 'generous waiting period'

[Anonymous Coward]

They've said it would be phased in for existing customers after a 'generous waiting period.' Personally, even if it was instant, I don't mind a price increase from $8 to $10 or so - especially if it means more shows. If people leave over this that's there prerogative, but I wont pretend I'm not judging, especially when the other legal option is still 5 to 6 times more expensive. Heck, even going the illegal route: streaming from netflix is still immensely more convenient than torrenting shows to watch.

That said, I don't think this was the way to go. A tiered payment system would have been better. I'd gladly pay for a premium service that had more recent shows and such. But then, selling streaming tv is hardly my area of expertise.

Re:fuck beta

[CauseBy]

They also announced that prices will increase for existing customers "soon". You can even suss that out of the article linked here:

Gould said the company is approaching 50 million global subscribers, and a $1-2 price increase would raise $600 million to $1.2 billion.

50M subscribers x12 months x$1 is $600M
50M subscribers x12 months x$2 is $1.2B

Other articles made this implication clear by quoting the rest of Netflix's statement.

Re:fuck beta

[CauseBy]

Well, last time Netflix raised prices that was followed immediately by a drastic (drastic!) reduction in shows available for streaming. So I don't think there is any good reason to connect higher prices with greater selection -- the evidence suggests the opposite correlation.

Another Comcast fee.

[SebNukem]

Because you just can't give enough to Comcast.

Fine with me

[StripedCow]

I regard journalists, even those at Fox News, as higher than actors and hollywood middle-men, like netflix.
At least journalists are trying to tell *real* stories, twisted or not.

The sooner they render themselves obsolete the better.

This is totally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of your awful ISPs in the US demanding money from netflix because they refuse to upgrade their network, for which they were paid by the government to do, isn't it.

It's still a bargain

[erp_consultant]

I guess I'm grandfathered in at the current rate - for now. If the increase for new customers is not met with much resistance I suspect it will be rolled out to everyone at some point. But for me, it's worth the cost. When I flip on cable I don't see a whole lot worth watching. Outside of sports and maybe the evening news they don't have much to offer me.

With Netflix I can almost always find something good. I love that I can watch an entire TV series whenever I want without commercials. I can pause it if someone comes to the door or the phone rings. Sure, I can DVR shows from cable and watch them later but even then I have to skip over so many commercials it takes away from my enjoyment. It's not uncommon to see 5 or 6 commercials in a row. A typical 1 hour show might contain a little over 40 minutes of actual programming. Probably 25-33 % is advertising. That's a lot of wasted time.

So I'm going to stay with Netflix. The combination of quality programming with the flexibility and time savings add up to a winner to me.

cable raises $1 o $2 EVERY month!

[peter303]

10% a year increases pretty common in cable

Re:cable raises $1 o $2 EVERY month!

[Darinbob]

Cable companies generally have no competition that they really care about. They assume that they can raise the prices and customers have no where to go and so will follow along (and maybe 1% drops but that's ok because they're getting 9% more money). Whereas Netflix really is in a competitive business where there are viable alternatives, and a customer base well known for entirely ditching their content providers wholesale.

"more value than cable"

[Anonymous Coward]

even at raising the rates for new customers by $1-2, it's still got more value than cable or sattelite TV by leaps and bounds.

That's like saying Cable TV isn't so bad, because it's better than Hitler.

Meanwhile, in the real world, I look at what I could get for the cost of a Netflix bill, vs what I can get for the cost of a [censored, first rule of [censored, first rule of [censored, first rule of [censored, first rule of [censored, first rule of [censored, first rule of STACK OVERFLOW

Shit, looks like I can't talk about it. We really need a better name for the first rule, so that I can .. oh wait, that's the whole point of the first rule, isn't it?

I guess what I'm saying, though, is that while Netflix is the cheapest thing out there, even slightly cheaper than you-know-what, it's not nearly as good as you-know-what. Pirates have access to more content, the bitrates are better (not limited by realtime conditions; streaming is just plain shitty tech), and it just plain works better. It's 2014 and there still isn't a reverse-engineered Netflix client yet, so that Netflix can be integrated with the rest of our content; that's insane, not to mention inconvenient.

Expect the following:

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer: "A buck or two? That seems reasonable."

Board: "Ah! Clearly we're well beneath the breaking point of what the market will bear. Now that we have addicted the media viewing populace with our cheap drugs and gotten everybody into the habit of looking no further for substitutes, we shall now move on to Phase 2: Jack up the price every six months until the customer base BLEEDS!"

"HA HA HA HA HA!"

"Phase 3, in case you're wondering, will be to create bundle 'deals' and anti-competitive media lock-ins so nobody else can distribute the same media as us, reduce service until people our customer base is pulling their hair out in fury for their $69 monthly fee! Ha ha ha!"

"Why? Because we're evil, and it's fun to hurt people and rip them off. Suckers. Look at them all. Stupid fuckers! We abuse them and they still can't stop using our services. Ha Ha Ha!"

is this really news?

[Khashishi]

It ranks up there with 2 for 1 sale on sponges at HEB.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even remotely close to reality. Television costs more because of sports and profits. Infrastructure is paid for on it's own, more than once in some cases. I actually get a cheaper rate with television than without. Subsidizing sports viewers is the single greatest cost driver in upward costs for television. Infrastructure they get paid for from the government, from the television subscribers, and the internet subscribers. Stop making excuses you know nothing about. The infrastructure is paid for.

Stock price of Netflix up 7.3%

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Netflix report a 24% year-over-year(YOY), increase in its 1QFY14 revenues to $1.27 billion and also beat the analyst expectations by See more http://goo.gl/TaLD4i

I prefer honesty than their old methods...

[Wescotte]

Several years back Netflix scammed me into paying more for their service. The rising costs of fuel just made sense they had to do it but I was upset with the tactic they used and wish they were just honest about it. Their service was still way cheaper than renting locally and they had started to add more value with the streaming content. I'm sure somebody crunched the numbers and made a decision that deception was probably result in retaining more costumers but it still doesn't sit well with me.

About five years ago now they started putting up ads to upgrade your plan for a really low rate. If I remember correctly it was under $1 to upgrade my 4-disc plan to 5-disc. It turns out the rate change listed was the cost for the only remainder of the billing period and the actual cost of the upgrade was closer to $10. However, this information wasn't given to you until AFTER you finalized the upgrade. I didn't want to pay that much for just one disc so I downgraded back to my 4-disc plan but the current 4-disc rate was more expensive (around $5 more) than what I was paying currently paying. I contacted them about this and was told I could not get my old rate back.

I didn't press the issue and maybe I could have gotten them to cave if I threatened to cancel since I had been a subscriber for nearly 10 years at this point. However, I was also guilty of kinda scamming them too... Their mail service was significantly slower when it first started and it wasn't uncommon to send a disc back and have to wait more than four days to have it marked received in order for your next queue item to ship taking another 3+ days to finally get the disc. I learned you could just click the "sent back already" button (any time after they marked a disc as shipped) which would cause the next movie in the queue to ship. At first I would do it just when it was taking unusually long but I admit a few times I didn't want to wait and clicked it the same day they shipped discs allowing me to have 8 discs out on my 4 disc plan. It took them a year to prevent you from taking advantage of this little trick. In the end I called it even and downgraded to a 2-disc plan and am still a Netflix customer and their service is still valuable to me. I can justify paying a little more for and increased streaming library and original content.

i hope we get more stuff right away

[Anonymous Coward]

for tv, that means, the anywhere from the time it is broadcast to a day or 2 later. for movies, that means, the same day as it is released on home video.
i doubt it though, too many dipshits paying right away, filling the trough, instead of waiting it out, so the companies get exactly what it is worth.

RAISE prices?

[mattack2]

Profit that beats expectations and you RAISE prices?

Why not LOWER prices, or at least vow you won't raise prices for X years? That seems like it would create more positive views in customers' minds.

The Answer.

[hoborg1]

Torrents are always on "right now", they are "current", and they are "free"*. *+the cost of internet service

in line with Spotify pricing?

[Finite9]

I pay 79 SEK/mnth for Netflix and 99 SEK/mnth for Spotify. I get way more value out of Netflix I feel, because I spend more time on Netflix than I do on Spotify. If they increase by 2 dollars, it brings it up to the same price as Spotify, which I still find reasonable. They probably also figured that Spotify had no reason to charge more for their service as they are similar models.

Cheap bastards

[WilliamTrexler]

Just get it all...Netflix + internet cost= true cost...

netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

tu paye pour netflx et ton cÃble tu paye 10 x plus qui encule qui ses Ãa la question

netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

tu paye pour netflx et ton cÃble tu paye 10 x plus qui encule qui ses Ãa la question