Slashdot Mirror


73% of Subscribers Would Download Netflix Content, Says Survey (allflicks.net)

An anonymous reader writes: A report surfaced a couple weeks ago suggesting Netflix is soon going to let users download videos for offline playback. AllFlicks decided to poll 1,000 stakeholders to see what they think of the bold new idea. In their survey, they asked respondents to tell them how important offline viewing was to them. Nearly two thirds of Netflix subscribers said offline support was either "Important" or "Very Important" to them. About a quarter of all respondents chose the most enthusiastic option, "Very Important." Just plain "Important" was the most popular answer, at 39%, and "Not Important" netted a significant minority at 34%. They followed up by asking subscribers if they think they will download Netflix videos if offline viewing becomes possible. The respondents agreed overwhelmingly that they would download Netflix videos if it became possible. A whopping 73% said they would, while only 16% were confident that they would not. In an open-ended question, AllFlicks asked when would they use the feature. Respondents said they'd need offline support when traveling (in particular, air and car travel), camping, and working out in the gym. They did also mention public transit and train commutes. In addition to offline playback, Recode reports that Comcast will allow Netflix onto its X1 platform.

94 comments

  1. Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like 100%.
    Stop making a distinction between streaming and downloading. We all know you can't stream if you can't download. Stop confusing the less nerdy folks, they're the ones making laws.

    1. Re:Riiiiight by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Streaming = the movie is not stored on the device, requires an Internet connection to play.
      Downloading = the movie is stored on the device, does not require an Internet connection to play.

    2. Re: Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also a difference between "can" and "practical for the masses".

    3. Re: Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet here I am with streams I captured years ago. Just because Netflix doesn't offer saving yet doesn't mean I didn't save it. It was stored on my computer, I just made it permanent.

    4. Re: Riiiiight by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      We both know that "streaming and downloading" both mean the data goes through your modem, but what happens to the data afterward is the difference between the two words here.

      What you did is basically the same as renting a DVD and ripping it. You paid for a rental but made a permanent copy. That's not what you paid for.

    5. Re:Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They're the ones making laws so stop trying to confuse them. Laws aren't about technological nitpicking.

      It's simple, really: streaming means renting and downloading means purchasing.

    6. Re: Riiiiight by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Also the difference between "can" and "can legally".

    7. Re: Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens? It gets stored in your RAM. Where it's pretty easy to store it to disk.
      And, no, I didn't pay. It wasn't an option as the streams I'm interested in are free.

    8. Re: Riiiiight by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You didn't pay Netflix for a permanent copy. That doesn't mean that you didn't pay someone else for one.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re: Riiiiight by xvan · · Score: 2

      Unenforceable laws are bad for a country.

      1) Adds noise to the pool of laws citizens should care about.
      2) Makes citizens distrust the state.
      3) Makes citizens used to "jump the law".
      4) Makes the state look weak because it can't enforce it's own rules.

      That's true for stuff with important to society implications: gambling, drug consumption, abortion, guns regulations, traffic laws.

      Should be more so for stuff that society as whole doesn't give a shit about (like what I do on my network with my computers).

    10. Re: Riiiiight by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      True, but just because you paid Walmart doesn't mean you paid Netflix. Maybe you paid for a standard def. copy, but you aren't entitled to an HD copy. Your DVD that you require a DVD player for is different from the stream that provides the convenience of the app on your TV. The regular movie is different from the director's cut, etc., etc....

      Of course, it's not like you didn't pay for it in some form. But I don't know if there will ever be a standard mechanism for allowing ownership (licensing) of one version of something to justify no-price or reduced-price copying from some other source.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    11. Re:Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon Prime have done this for a while. I subscribe to both, but can only watch Amazon content in my 45 minute each way train commute.

    12. Re: Riiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in Europe (or in some of its countries at least), when you rent a DVD, you are entitled to make a permanent copy of it (private a copy), as long as it's for your personal use (no distribution).

      That's why we pay an extra tax on hard drives and blank DVD by the way (the infamous "private copy tax"). At least in France and Belgium, I'm not sure about the others but I had in mind this was a EU-level regulation.

      Isn't it the same (or something similar) in the US?

    13. Re: Riiiiight by Wootery · · Score: 1

      This seems to be true of Spain, curiously.

      It's not true of the UK though.

    14. Re:Riiiiight by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Streaming = the movie is not stored on the device, requires an Internet connection to play. Downloading = the movie is stored on the device, does not require an Internet connection to play.

      No internet connection you say?

      Well, I'm glad YOU are confident that some bullshit cloud-enabled codec won't be "required" to play back licensed content like this.

      I'm certainly not.

    15. Re:Riiiiight by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      As is usual in stupid arguments on the Internet about the meaning of words, I'm right and you're wrong. That's just how it is, always. You are probably thinking the same thing, as if you are the keeper of the language, instead of me! (Ok, do we all understand how stupid this flamewar is? Good. Now, let's have the flamewar.)

      What you use to define "downloading" many of us call "saving" (or possibly "recording" if the data arrives by means other than IP, such as an OTA TV antenna, camera/microphone, etc). Downloading is what happens in both scenarios. In one scenario, it is "saved" to local media, and in another scenario, it isn't. That second one (where you elect to use the data immediately and don't save it), we call streaming (if the data is AV), but it's viewed as a special case within downloading, not a separate and distinct thing from downloading.

      There are a lot of reasons that computer-oriented people use this terminology, but it basically comes down to the fact that we use various programs to get things, where that program doesn't care what happens to the data after it is transported. curl and wget are curl and wget regardless of if you save the data for many years, or just save it to a ramdisk for just a few seconds prior to deleting it, or if you pipe curl right into some other program's stdin eithout ever writing to a file at all. In all these use cases, curl downloaded the data.

      That you anti-computer media people would barge into computer peoples' domain and think you can change the meaning of words, has many ha-- oops, you already took "hacker." Well, then: NEVER AGAIN!!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  2. "bold" "new" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon already lets you do this.

  3. Alleviate bandwidth concerns by iamwhoiamtoday · · Score: 1

    Couldn't this help to reduce overall consumed bandwidth? I mean, set your local device / player to download the media overnight (or during the day, non-peak hours) and then watch during peak hours.

    Sure, the same amount of bandwidth would be used, but it would make balancing the network usage a lot easier.

    In theory, there could even be a setting along the lines of "low priority bandwidth consumption during x hours" or "media must be downloaded by y time". Even if 2-3 episodes in advance are cached, that could help.

    1. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Couldn't this help to reduce overall consumed bandwidth?
      >Sure, the same amount of bandwidth would be used

      You are one confused monkey.

    2. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly could! My DSL is barely capable of streaming during non-peak hours - but during peak hours (after work, before bed), it's completely unusable.

      So I just pirate my content - it's a lot easier than waiting for the industry to figure out what I want and need...

    3. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by NiteMair · · Score: 2

      Well, the first statement was correct if you want to re-watch a video over and over - by streaming it, you're using more bandwidth than downloading it once to watch it offline.

      But... the second statement was correct if you want to watch it once...

    4. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Netflix has proven that the main reason people pirate isn't about money, it is about convenience. We want media our way. I haven't pirated anything in forever since getting Netflix. Pirating is easy, but then I have it on one machine, and I don't want to copy everything to every non-networked machine. Netflix is simply easier to use for most people, the variety is quite good, and the price is reasonable. This downloading might be an extra $$ feature, but if it costs 2 bucks more a month (same cost to them, really), people will use it, particularly those on the road who tire of mediocre internet access in the average hotel.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would think it would alleviate bandwidth for those of us who fall asleep halfway through the movie/episode, and watch the second half the next day.

      Seriously, I can't be the only one.

      (I would be interested to see the statistics of movies/episodes replayed within 24 hours. Not saying it's huge, but probably not negligible.)

    6. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      I think you are right that it could help ease network congestion. Leaving torrents/games/anything to download overnight is popular, as in the late hours there is less fight for resources where the network is oversold, and because you have your content downloaded for the next day.

      I also think you are right that it will save bandwidth consumed. If the video device has sufficient storage, you would be able to save things that you might watch multiple times. For example, a TV series you and your partner/friend/roommate both watch. Or consider the kid that wants to watch Frozen for the 10th time in a row.

    7. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For television series I am enjoying CraveTV on my smartphone but i could easily access the service on my computer connected to a 22-inch HDMI monitor.

    8. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by jitterman · · Score: 1

      ...the variety is quite good...

      Perhaps for your interests it is good enough. Mine aren't superior to yours, but they must be different, because I search for a lot of things (many highly critically regarded films that I haven't seen) and find that they aren't on Netflix, so yep, I pirate them.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    9. Re: Alleviate bandwidth concerns by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      I agree especially for people with kids who watch the same series over n over n over n over. They could in theory make the files only valid for 30 days before no longer working. Unless you do a sync with Netflix (to make sure you're still an active customer)

    10. Re: Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the files be valid for X days, where X is the number of days remaining on your already-paid-for monthly subscription?

    11. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Couldn't this help to reduce overall consumed [PEAK] bandwidth [CAPACITY]?
      >Sure, the same amount of bandwidth would be used

      Essentially, this COULD reduce the demand for peak capacity by moving the peak demand into other periods of the day. The same idea for road traffic - instead of building a 5 lane each way highway, we could somehow get everyone to change their starting time at work to spread the load. Upshot, same number of people per day, but a lower peak demand across the entire day.

      I suspect it's minor though, compared to those wanting to download "the next episode" over WiFi at home so they can watch it on their phone on their commute in instead of using cellular data, or on a plane, or whatever.

    12. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also helps if bandwidth is lower or spotty. Netflix dynamically adjust quality depending upon the download speed. So if you could pre-download all of it then you could get the highest quality picture even if you're on basic DSL. Or if you like, choose to manually download medium quality (if Netflix adds this option) and so reduce overall bandwidth.

    13. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Couldn't this help to reduce overall consumed bandwidth?

      Reduce overall bandwidth by downloading during quiet times when there's less possibility of collisions? Yes, that seems plausible.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    14. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Couldn't this help to reduce overall consumed bandwidth?

      My netflix usage is already well into the re-watching phase of subscriber-ship, but I still wouldnt want to store any of it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I fall asleep to the A Team when I have trouble falling asleep. Mr. T just puts me right out.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    16. Re:Alleviate bandwidth concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity the fool who can't stay awake through the A-Team!

  4. astonishing new technology: downloading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see what they think of the bold new idea

    ... for definitions of "new" which include "the way internet video was in from the beginning, before artificial restrictions made it more difficult to store the entire video as it is fetched over the network."

  5. "Not Important"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait till you're stuck on a plane with a kid who wants to watch their netflix...

    Airline internet ranges from 1) nonexistent, 2) very expensive, and 3) not capable of video streaming.

    I always bring movies with me when I travel, but I generally just pirate them before my trip to make it easier.

    1. Re:"Not Important"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have a kid, you have much bigger problems than slow internet connections on a plane.

  6. Wait a sec by invictusvoyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Means you got a tap with running water but you don't have a bucket. Streaming IS Downloading !! you just need the right tools to save on disk.

    1. Re:Wait a sec by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Streaming = the movie is not stored on the device, requires an Internet connection to play. Downloading = the movie is stored on the device, does not require an Internet connection to play.

      Sorry , that one was for this one. ..

    2. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streaming IS Downloading !! you just need the right tools to save on disk.

      You're a facking dumb cunt twat idiot. Streaming, by definition, means that the video is not stored on your device. For example, if you don't have a hard drive at all, you can still stream — but you can't download. Download, by definition, means that first the entire video is downloaded, in its entirety, to your hard drive, and then it is played.

      Streaming is not downloading. However, yes, if you have streaming, you can snag (download) a copy while streaming. But they are very, very different things, and you are a dumb person if you think they are the same.

    3. Re: Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the dumbest piece of shit ever.
      Nothing is going to show up on your computer or "device" without first being stored in RAM.

    4. Re: Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, onlt the second dumbest piece of shit ever.

      The lowest latency comes when you can pump the content straight from the Intertubes to the media output without having to buffer it first. In other words, since you're the dumbest piece of shit ever and probably didn't understand what that means, it means, no stopovers in RAM. No temporary files that could be made permanent, nothing. If the MPAA had its way, the data wouldn't be useful until the very last moment before it became on-screen/in-speakers on top of that.

      If you're going to insult and abuse people, know what you're talking about. It won't make you any less of a piece of shit, but you might at least not make it obvious to the whole world what a dumb piece of shit you are.

    5. Re: Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow it took your dumbass 2 hours to come up with that shit.
      So, what is this magic that bypasses RAM? There isn't any. Absolutely everything that happens on a computer goes through RAM.
      Quit talking out your ass, faggot.

    6. Re: Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to insult and abuse people, know what you're talking about. It won't make you any less of a piece of shit, but you might at least not make it obvious to the whole world what a dumb piece of shit you are.

      That's you, yourself. Starting to think this whole thread is the same twat "discussing" with himself, given the infantile level of every single post. Sigh.

    7. Re:Wait a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streaming is absolutely downloading.

      Every time you receive a piece of data from a remote server, you have to download it. It doesn't matter what you do with it. Whether you save it to a hard drive, pipe it to /dev/null, or just browse it in your browser and throw it away, you had to download that data in order to view it.

      You honestly sound like my grandmother trying to explain technology to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

  7. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It certainly could! My DSL is barely capable of streaming during non-peak hours - but during peak hours (after work, before bed), it's completely unusable.

    So I just pirate my content - it's a lot easier than waiting for the industry to figure out what I want and need...

    dsl is a fixed rate connection, theres no "peak hours" but the problem is the shit 6 megabit speed limit

    1. Re:bs by NiteMair · · Score: 1

      When AT&T oversells their local infrastructure, there are definitely "peak hours"...

      Bonus when they decide upgrading and maintaining it is pointless, and simply stop signing up new customers in the area.

    2. Re:bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 megabit? That's fast for DSL.
      Try 0.75 on a line that could do 3 but they won't provision for more than 1.5.

      Fortunately, the area that has that also has a WISP that does wireless to fiber backhaul.

    3. Re:bs by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I left AT&T U-Verse because of the caps but besides blocking IP6, this was definitely a problem where I am. Maximum throughput during the evenings was below the 3 Mbit/second of their slowest plan and usually below 1 Mbit/second. The actual error free link speed was like 27 Mbits/second.

    4. Re:bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DSL is fixed rate to the DSLAM, then it's shared. A common provisioning for a DSLAM is 100Mb, and when they support 48+ customers, you can run into issues.

  8. If Done Correctly... by twmcneil · · Score: 2

    I could use this a lot. I watch Netflix sometimes when camping using my phone as a hot spot. Gotta watch the data real close. If I could d/l the content I want to watch, say Marco Polo Season 2 like last weekend, I would consume more Netflix content.

    But if has to be done correctly. It would have to allow playback on a device that is different from the device that d/l the content.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    1. Re:If Done Correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I watch Netflix sometimes when camping

      Camping. I think you're doing it wrong.

      But what do I know, my parents used to take us to a campground that had an arcade.

    2. Re:If Done Correctly... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      But we all know that you really want to just watch movies at work!

    3. Re: If Done Correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to watch, say Marco Polo Season 2 like last weekend

      Now there's your problem.

    4. Re:If Done Correctly... by phorm · · Score: 1

      It would have to allow playback on a device that is different from the device that d/l the content.

      Not a chance that's going to happen. It will almost assuredly be a DRM'ed version of whatever tied to the device it was loaded on.

    5. Re:If Done Correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the number of screens each plan has. My family has a two screen account for $9.99/month. If we were allowed to download, how would they enforce that restriction?

      Some ideas...
      1. Restrict regular streaming until download window (say 24 hours) is up, or if the content is "released" by confirmed removal.
      2. Permit a certain number of hours, say eight hours, to be downloaded per seven day period. Limits abuse.
      3. Add-on prices. In addition to the standard Basic, Standard, and Premium plans, offer like...
      3a. $1.99 for 8 hours/week downloads
      3b. $3.99 for 20 hours/week downloads
      4. Simply count the device in which it received said downloads as a "screen". Probably 72 hour viewing windows at which point it wouldn't be viewable anymore and the screen is "released" back.

      The best way would be to calculate average viewing times and figure out things appropriate for restrictions of add-on prices in the above ideas.

    6. Re:If Done Correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRM'd, requiring playback via a proprietary app is not the same thing necessarily as device locking - I can envisage a future where each instance of the playback app has a key, and each video downloaded is DRM'd in such a way as to only be unlockable with that key. So someone can install the app on every device they own with their key, and playback their own videos, but not someone else's videos that that person has shared on bittorrent. If the device is required to be online at installation time (but not necessarily at any time thereafter) it could be done in such a way that the user doesn't know their own key, just their account login, so couldn't share their key over the internet along with their copy of the video allowing people on the other end to download it and watch it. Bonus would be that netflix could download the bittorrented copies, extract the key and tell who had originally shared them, and penalize them/report to the police.
      Not a foolproof idea, but probably no less foolish than the one currently implemented (which is clearly not unbreakable given that, according to other comments here, it is borken and current netflix content is available on bittorrent).

    7. Re:If Done Correctly... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Likely this would be an additional service with an additional fee. This feature would be a negative when they negotiate their next deals with content providers.

    8. Re:If Done Correctly... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It's not like Netflix is different than the other 100% of the cases. If they decide to tell those customers "fuck you" then those customers will say "ok, fuck you."

      Either way, people will (and currently already do) play the video on whatever device that they want, DRM or not. DRM just means that they won't be paying Netflix for it, since Netflix has rejected the offer of money.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    9. Re:If Done Correctly... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Except that this is an additional offering beyond what they already provide (which is a live-stream-only service), and roughly ~30m people seem to be pretty good with that. I highly doubt many would be dropping Netflix just because the DRM requires them to use the same device for both downloading and playback, as that's still functionality above-and-beyond what they can do now.

    10. Re:If Done Correctly... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      You're right; I don't think they'll lose many existing customers over this. I'm saying that this probably isn't enough for them to gain customers either.

      I don't subscribe to Netflix yet. If they start selling files that I can play, then there's a really good chance that I will, because on paper their service looks like a great deal. That's basically what I have been waiting for (and by "waiting" I mean that I've found alternative means to scratch the itch, but these alternatives have a certain downsides, ranging from legal risk to not being able to patronize the arts that I enjoy).

      But if they start selling files that I can't play, then their offer of "fuck you" will get a similar-sounding reply.

      I guess that's the big question: is Netflix considering this because they want more customers? Or are they looking for ways to keep from losing customers to services like Amazon?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  9. Hotels by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hotels never have good enough bandwidth to watch Netflix. This could help!

    1. Re:Hotels by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Hotels never have good enough bandwidth to watch Netflix. This could help!

      I've been to hotels where I think this was intentional. Sure, the hotel advertised "Free WiFi" and you could even have 5 devices attached to that WiFi at any one point in time. But they cleverly put on the log in page the ability to pay another $5/day to upgrade from "Free" 1Mbps (yes, 1Mbps) to a whopping 10+Mbps or faster.

      It was a Holiday Inn, too.

    2. Re:Hotels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why I have an LTE capable mobile with unlimited speeds and data and I pay no more than EUR 29.00 per month for that fun. You Americans have fucked yourselves so hard in the ass with your anti-regulation attitude (maybe not you personally, but the majority still) that now you have to put up with so much shit I can't believe it. Yes, it's indeed telco regulation that allows me to have this subscription for so unbelievably cheap.

      I also can't believe I see the words "DSL" (pretty much 100% sure the people using this acronym mean ADSL) mentioned here on Slashdot so often. I mean, we got rid of that shit almost a decade ago. Zero telcos here have ADSL in their service offering anymore. The US used to be riding on the edge of newest technology, but in the last couple of decades you have started lagging behind so bad.

    3. Re:Hotels by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The US used to be riding on the edge of newest technology, but in the last couple of decades you have started lagging behind so bad.

      More than deregulation, it's just not actually expecting the telcos to follow regulations that already exist. For example, we gave them $250M to build out that DSL network so that the last mile would be covered, and they spent it on executive bonuses. Those executives should be in prison now, but that's not what happened.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Hotels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's one aspect of course: the judicial system. Here in Europe plea bargains, for example, don't exist in the majority of EU countries. And in those that there is some kind of plea bargain mechanism, it only applies to a very limited set crimes. The fact is, practically all cases are handled in courts by a judge and the prosecutors are only shuffling around most of the bureaucracy around the case.

      The strange thing is that in Europe there are very, very high punishments for economic crimes whereas for violence the punishments are quite low in comparison to their severity. In the US this is absolutely vice versa (except if you fuck with IRS, of course).

    5. Re:Hotels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US: 33/km2 (LTE coverage ~85%)

      Sweden: 21/km2 (LTE coverage ~90%)
      Finland: 16/km2 (LTE coverage ~80%)
      Germany: 229/km2 (LTE coverage ~70%)

      And as a bonus, Japan: 337/km2 (LTE coverage ~95%)

      Here's just a few examples. In all of the countries mentioned, except the US, you can get dirt cheap unlimited LTE mobile plans, no speed or data caps. As you see, population density doesn't really support your argument there.

      There was even a story from the US about how landlords can dictate what telcos are available to tenants to subscribe to. That would be outright illegal here. Landlords *can* make deals with telcos for cheaper or otherwise special subscriptions, but they have to be optional to all tenants and the telcos or landlords can not limit which telcos are allowed to operate on the property.

      Granted there are good in both the EU and US and there are bad in both, too. But the fact is, that when it comes to telcos, the US is absolutely fucked up and anti-competitive on that part. I'm sure most of the readers here would agree with that.

      PS. I'm writing this from the countryside on a 1/1Gbit uncapped line that I pay 50 EUR per month for.

    6. Re:Hotels by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      That sounds expensive. I pay $30 per mo for uncapped - maybe not with the same speed, but whatever.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  10. Amazon by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Also considering the fact that Amazon has allowed this for at least two years with Prime Video, I don't see how it is considered "bild", if anything it is Netflix bowing to competitive pressure and playing catchup.

  11. Not Really Bold or New by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Netflix is late to the game with this. Amazon Prime Video has allowed this for almost a year. The Starz App allows it. The more the merrier.

    1. Re:Not Really Bold or New by timftbf · · Score: 1

      This. I currently have Amazon Prime and not Netflix largely for this reason. There are shows on Netflix I want to watch, but much of my media time is on my commute, where I don't have reliable bandwidth.

  12. Self destruct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The offline content will likely require an internet connection to authenticate before every playback, or some other mechanism to deactivate whenever Netflix feels like it. They randomly pull content all the time from their streaming catalog.

    This is why torrents are a better option. Nobody's going to delete that show you just started watching.

    1. Re:Self destruct by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      They don't "randomly" delete content from their catalog. It's the licenses that expire, but Netlifx doesn't give us any easy-to-access ways of finding out when the titles will expire.

  13. Great news for those of us with connections too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slow to stream. Even with my dial-up connection, I can still download a gigabyte movie in only about four days.

  14. I would if this meant better audio/video quality by madbrain · · Score: 2

    Netflix so-called HD videos have a very low bit rate compared to Blu-ray.
    Only 4-5 Mbps for Netflix vs 15-40 Mbps for Blu-ray.

    Even though Netflix uses more modern compression algorithms, with that much difference in bit rate, the Netflix video looks significantly worse than Blu-ray, especially on a 106" projection screen in my home theater.

    The audio also leaves much to be desired.

    The difference will only get worse with the Ultra HD Blu-ray standard, which has 82 to 128 Mbit/s bit rate.

    --
    -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
  15. Welcome to 20th century? by wwalker · · Score: 2

    73% of Subscribers Would Download Netflix Content, Says Survey

    And 100% of torrent users already do.

    1. Re:Welcome to 20th century? by Bristol_92 · · Score: 1

      Ha! And its number will grow at an exponential rate when Netflix blocks VPNs.

  16. This would have been great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my old house service would just stop periodically for no reason I could discern.

    This made streaming terrible. If I could download before hand, this would be great.

    Sadly, I mostly use my Roku, which I am pretty sure can't actually store an entire episode of Orange.

    1. Re:This would have been great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plex can, and Roku has a Plex app

  17. DVD's? Hello? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    People have had access to "offline content" for years. They're called "DVD's".

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  18. Re:DVD's? Hello? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Never to forget that the sneaker net is also far more bandwidth efficient. It takes only minutes to transfer over a whole terrabyte of content. As thumb drive capacity increases so the exchange of content over sneaker net will increase.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  19. 3 Answers Randomly Attributed by retroworks · · Score: 1

    In an online poll of existing clients, given a choice between "Yes", "Yes", and "No", roughly 2/3 of respondents answered "yes". Upper end (74% slightly above margin of error) may be attributable to people who don't subscribe (and cannot be polled) because it was important for them to access Netflix offline when they chose not to subscribe.

    --
    Gently reply
  20. Re:I would if this meant better audio/video qualit by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    Netflix so-called HD videos have a very low bit rate compared to Blu-ray.
    Only 4-5 Mbps for Netflix vs 15-40 Mbps for Blu-ray.

    Even though Netflix uses more modern compression algorithms, with that much difference in bit rate, the Netflix video looks significantly worse than Blu-ray, especially on a 106" projection screen in my home theater.

    The audio also leaves much to be desired.

    The difference will only get worse with the Ultra HD Blu-ray standard, which has 82 to 128 Mbit/s bit rate.

    What more modern compression algorithms? Blu-Ray and Netflix use the same h.264 compression algorithm - Blu-Ray uses the high profile that runs at a high bit rate (typically 25Mbps average, but Blu-Ray can peak at 100Mbps). Maybe Netflix has better codecs that can do more with every bit, but unlikely.

    In fact, Netflix is more like the "Digital Copy" download you can get - which can be aywhere from 2-8GB for the movie. And I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix acquires their video content direct in this way as the studios can tweak their encoders to better allocate the bits.

    Audio is a big thing - on Blu-Ray they have lossless codecs that can run around 5Mbps with 7.1 surround ssound. Netflix has been using Dolby Digital+ (a slightly tweaked Dolby Digital format that either gives you better quality for the same bitrate, or the same quality at a lower bitrate). The only unfortunate thing is the DD+ bitrate is so low that older receivers that support DD+ may not be able to lock onto it. (It runs slower than DVD's 640kbps)

    As for 4K, Netflix requires 25Mbps, and I think Netflix is also using the same HEVC codec that UHD Blu-Ray does. Though the main reason for UHD Blu-Ray is not 4K resolution (most movies are still presented in 2K format! Few are 4K) but HDR.

    HEVC is about twice as efficient as h.264 - as in the same quality at half the bitrate. Blu-Ray used that coupled with BDXL style discs (33GB/layer) to achieve a quadrupling of pixels - using HEVC to halve the bitrate, and then a new disc format to double the disc space from 50 to 100GB, thus allowing 4K to be stored at the same quality.

  21. My internet usage will drop significantly by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

    My internet usage will drop significantly when the 80+ hours/w of Rescue Bots and iCarly my kids watch is stored locally on my device...

    --
    120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  22. Re:I would if this meant better audio/video qualit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compression algorithms make considerable difference. A Blu-ray is designed with the lowest common denominator in mind as it has to play on all devices. Netflix only has to play on a Netflix player, something they maintain directly. still it is slightly less than Blu-ray but does not make the outputs significantly different. Ultra HD uses 25+Mpbs for Netflix.

  23. Amazon video does this why not Netflix by Danathar · · Score: 1

    I ride the D.C. Metro on a daily basis for at least 20 minutes at a time. LTE/3G availability occurs generally when you stop, and barely works if at all in between stops. If I could download..or Hell even CACHE 20 minutes of a show that would help a LOT. I'm not sure why Netflix will not allow it. I'm wondering if it would take having to re-write all their legal contracts with content providers.

  24. Re:DVD's? Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neat! Where in my iPad do I put this so called "dee-vee-dee"?

  25. Extending this Can Help Bandwidth Complaints by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    I had long ago thought that Netflix should do something to allow off-hours downloading to allow people to watch these shows during their normal evening hours. This would help ease the complaints that ISP's often voiced (and took action against) around the network being overused during prime time viewing hours. If a person could queue up a few movies or shows which they wanted to watch the next day, the system could download them overnight. This would also help improve the experience for people with slower internet connections in that the show would not experience delays during playback or suffer from quality degradation as the system compensates for lower bandwidth availability etc.

    I assumed the major limitation for this would be around what licensing would allow Netflix to do. There would also be hardware changes required (for storage) but that could be addressed in future hardware refreshes for devices such as Apple TV etc.

  26. Propaganda. by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    The report of this survey sound very much like advertising for Netflix. I remember a time when companies would quietly take a survey and then use the results to direct their company. I wouldn't even hear the boring details of the survey until the product came out with a proper news release.

  27. So Canada should get it in about 2036. by alazor · · Score: 1

    I need this with the state of rural broadband in Canada being as poor as it is. With Netflix's track record of introducing services in the US first and a shittier version everywhere else whenever they get around to it, I'm not holding my breath.

    --

    -
    Systems Administrators: We read the manual so you don't have to.
  28. What about DRM by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    Get rid of that as well, and you'll see the count of torrented movies drop significantly.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."