Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[Allforce]

edit: forget it, I'm not getting into the stupidity on display here.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Allforce

edit: forget it, I'm not getting into the stupidity on display here.

My post was completely civil and addressed your statements clearly and concisely. Calling it "stupidity on display" is an entirely undeserved and rude reaction. If I misunderstood your original statement, I'm more than willing to consider your clarification and apologize.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Anthony, you are the most anti-internet person on here. Why do you even own a computer?

I have an internet connection to enjoy the internet, I have several computers because I enjoy being on it and work with them. Now that I don't spend my time agreeing with moronic posts just because some idiot feels like writing some BS on a forum, that is because I am not an idiot. Write something intelligent and I will agree with you, write something accurate and I won't need to post why it is wrong.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Allforce

It's demonstrating how astronomically popular Netflix is.

no it does not, it demopsntrates how astronomically bandwidth intensive it is. we know how popular it is, Netflix has the membership numbers in their quarterly report. If people are interested.

To put it a different way it is like assuming a lot of people in a town drive Ferraries and few a Civic because people spent 1M on Ferraries (5 people bought Ferraries @ 200k$ each) but only 0.9M on civics (60 people bought civics @15k$ )

And their "bills" don't go up for streaming, what kind of nonsense thinking is that? You pay your ISP for service, they charge YOU and not content providers.

no, you have an internet connection and Netflix has an internet connection as well, the same way that a larger plan (i.e. a 50Mbps or 100Mbps) is more expensive for you (let’s say over a 10 mbps) it is for Netflix.

And even then it costs the ISP nothing to transmit more and more data (as much as they'd like you to believe otherwise), the lines are already in place. It's just a matter of the ISPs throttling more or less data and charging customers for it, as shady as that is.

you obviously know nothing about networks. Obviously there are extra costs to ISPs. The amount of electricity needed by the router and stuff depends on how much they are used (i.er. traffic on the link) secondly if a trunk is near capacity there are in theory two options in order to fix the issue (at near capacity you get slow down) either you add more cabling or you switch out to better performing equipment (get more BW out of the same cable) either way there is great cost associated with it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Are you really suggesting that Netflix doesn't incur more costs as more people stream? They absolutely do. There's a whole network infrastructure required to serve those streaming movies to customers and there are plenty of costs associated with scaling up that infrastructure to support more people streaming. That's true for Netflix itself as well as for ISPs that see a spike in bandwidth due to Netflix users.

more customers is not a bad thing, that also means more revenue. The issue here is that Netflix BW requirents are growing (like slick said) while their user base is shrinking and that is the issue. That is why slick is trying to focus the discussion on the BW increase and pretending it is good while hiding that the # of users is decreasing.

There are fundamental bandwidth limits with those lines that are in place and supporting more bandwidth costs money for upgrades. I'm a little surprised anyone would think otherwise.

yeah, but the internet is full of people that have no idea what they are talking about and pass their navel gazing off as facts.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Slick, some could say the same about some people on here owning a Bluray player? They spend more time defending Netflix than talking about the best way to watch movies. You are the most biased person on here for pro-streaming, so you cannot really have a go at Anthony.

Can't have Tweedledee without Tweedledum chiming in.




I have an XBOX, Roku 2and HD-DVD player and whatever comes next, I'll have that because I am not tied to one way to watch entertainment. I have no allegiance to Blu-ray. Streaming quality is better than DVD and I have access to tens of thousands of movies and TV series. And I am not the only one that feels that way. So you and your buddy, the other anti-streaming advocate can get lost, I don't care what you think, its always, always biased. And since I have you both on ignore, you two just talk to yourselves about the horrors of streaming media, I'm going back to watch Amazon Prime in HD.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Are you really suggesting that Netflix doesn't incur more costs as more people stream? They absolutely do. There's a whole network infrastructure required to serve those streaming movies to customers and there are plenty of costs associated with scaling up that infrastructure to support more people streaming. That's true for Netflix itself as well as for ISPs that see a spike in bandwidth due to Netflix users.


There are fundamental bandwidth limits with those lines that are in place and supporting more bandwidth costs money for upgrades. I'm a little surprised anyone would think otherwise.


Bandwidth is a limited resource. I'm not saying there aren't shady billing practices employed by ISPs, but in general, charging people more for using more of a limited resource is just good business.

You are thinking of bandwidth cost as it relates to retail customers with bandwidth caps. They use Amazon's cloud service and internet access anyway. And bandwidth isn't as limited as you think it is. If anything its underutilized and overpriced for many.

Netflix moved most of its operations to Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) cloud-based infrastructure, after its data centres fell over in 2008 and exceeded capacity last fall with 37x 2010 growth in requests. Now it is even planning to move its remaining billing and payment systems over.

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419...years-to-come/

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

You are thinking of bandwidth cost as it relates to retail customers with bandwidth caps. They use Amazon's cloud service and internet access anyway. And bandwidth isn't as limited as you think it is. If anything its underutilized and overpriced for many.

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419...years-to-come/

obviously it would be too much to ask but use your brain for once


Netflix moved most of its operations to Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) cloud-bbased infrastructure, after its data centres fell over in 2008 and exceeded capacity last fall with 37x 2010 growth in requests.

do you think Amazon is doing this for free? it costs Netflix money and asking for more BW means more money and if the exceeded capacity in the fall that means they need more capacity to meet the demand from less customers (since they lost nearly a million customers in the fall) . Now if it was real demand (more users) that would also mean more income but it is just more BW demand and so just more cost.

the article you linked to and the quote you chose show what I and others have been saying is spot on but with your thick blinders you can't even understand something that simple.

[raygendreau]

At $63 and change, Netflix should still be avoided by investors.

http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/sto...ersonalfinance

[raygendreau]

Replace the CEO and CFO before it is too late to save the company.
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...193434768.html

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Replace the CEO and CFO before it is too late to save the company.
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...193434768.html

Doesn't matter what happens to them, they got so many other companies into the business, many alternatives now exist. I find myself watching EpixHD, Crackle, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime more than NetFlix these days.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Doesn't matter what happens to them...

Sure it does. When the biggest company in a certain field collapses, it always matters.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

...they got so many other companies into the business, many alternatives now exist.

The "many alternatives" are not free. So to have access to everything that is available on OD, one would have to pay quite a lot for these alternatives.

And this, of course, in addition to upcoming usage fees.

Cable operators are expected to implement incremental fees to subscribers who exceed monthly limits on the amount of data accessed from the Internet, including video streams from subscription video-on-demand services such as Netflix and Hulu Plus, beginning next year, an analyst said.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/str...s-coming-25749

Pro-B

[slick1ru2]

Crackle is free and Amazon Prime's library was added on to another service, for free, that I was buying from Amazon...free second day shipping. And Hulu does have a free alternative.


http://www.businessinsider.com/netfl...t-away-2011-11

...But with competitors like Amazon willing to give away the same content that Netflix is charging for, as a loss leader for their other products and services, Netflix is now scrambling by trying to get exclusive content to keep customers. The problem is that long-term, this approach by Netflix can't last because they have no way to compete against free...

And I don't believe in everything "an analyst" says. Some cable companies use no cap as a marketing tool, like Verizon. And when it starts to get ridiculous, consumers have the FCC and their politicians to help in the matter. You get 500,000 to sign a petition, like just happened in Canada, and you get results. http://www.thestar.com/article/10895...-truly-compete The independent ISPs are no longer under any cap or consumption based plan but instead fees are based on access speed, and actual costs with a reasonable profit vs the going retail rate. 25mpbs for $25 was given as an example, no cap.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Crackle is free and Amazon Prime's library was added on to another service, for free, that I was buying from Amazon...free second day shipping. And Hulu does have a free alternative.

You still have to pay for Prime, and with the buffet-type service you won't have A-grade content available for streaming - which is also a major restriction for Netflix. Bottom line, the type of content variety one can get via OD will remain unmatched by streaming alternatives.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

And I don't believe in everything "an analyst" says.

That is fine. I don't believe in "free" either. One way or another the playing field will be leveled, and at the end of the day the "free" portion of the "alternatives" won't be free.

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Some cable companies use no cap as a marketing tool, like Verizon. And when it starts to get ridiculous, consumers have the FCC and their politicians to help in the matter. You get 500,000 to sign a petition, like just happened in Canada, and you get results. http://www.thestar.com/article/10895...-truly-compete The independent ISPs are no longer under any cap or consumption based plan but instead fees are based on access speed, and actual costs with a reasonable profit vs the going retail rate. 25mpbs for $25 was given as an example, no cap.

Fair enough. We shall agree to disagree. I do believe that caps are upcoming and that the content for streaming will become more and more expensive.

Pro-B

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I do believe that caps are upcoming and that the content for streaming will become more and more expensive.

Pro-B

Of course! It's called inflation, it happens to every product for sale on the planet. So your assumption is a safe one.

[slick1ru2]

I bought Prime for one thing though, free second day shipping with no minimum purchase and release day delivery, not to get streaming access. Now they have added a lending library for the Kindle to Prime. And the price hasn't changed...in years. So attaching it as a loss leader to another service, yeah, its considered to be a freebee. I can ask my wife, the corporate accountant, if something like that is counted on the books as a loss too. Look, its like when you buy a Blu-ray on Amazon and they give you free streaming access to that movie or a credit to watch a PPV movie. You got that access as a perk for buying the movie from them instead of a competitor who is offering it for the same price.

Caps aren't the real issue, its the speed. The increased cost to the backbone providers is in the size of the pipeline needed for faster throughput, not the amount of data transferred. You increase the speed, the capacity for more data increases along with it. The Canadians realized this. The FCC's Broadband Plan says it will step in and regulate caps if they start to effect commerce. Well if businesses that stream are threatened by caps, that seems to meet the criteria.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Well if businesses that stream are threatened by caps, that seems to meet the criteria.

They are not "threatened" - they just have to pay "appropriately".

Surely you do not believe that when the Post Office increases rates certain business are threatened, do you?

The businesses would be "threatened" if they were denied the ability to have access to the infrastructure they need to operate.

You can be efficient and use "Overnight" mail, or you could save and use "media mail". Simple.

Pro-B

[chetripley80]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Crackle is free and Amazon Prime's library was added on to another service, for free, that I was buying from Amazon...free second day shipping. And Hulu does have a free alternative.

Crackle's horrible. The PQ looks bad even on my iPad screen. Watching it on my PS3 hurts my eyes. Their selection is extremely weak as well. Hulu (the free version) can only be played on your computer - everything else requires Hulu Plus (which has plenty of its own issues). I am tempted to check out Amazon Prime's service though. The only thing that's stopping me from getting it is the inability to use it on the PS3.

I absolutely adore HBOGo. Once again, I wish there was a way to stream it onto my television. And I hope corporate greed doesn't ruin it any time soon.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

They are not "threatened" - they just have to pay "appropriately".

Surely you do not believe that when the Post Office increases rates certain business are threatened, do you?

The businesses would be "threatened" if they were denied the ability to have access to the infrastructure they need to operate. Simple.

Pro-B

Some ISPs will disconnect users for going over caps, like Comcast. That threatens business.

Originally Posted by chetripley80

Crackle's horrible. The PQ looks bad even on my iPad screen. Watching it on my PS3 hurts my eyes. Their selection is extremely weak as well. Hulu (the free version) can only be played on your computer - everything else requires Hulu Plus (which has plenty of its own issues). I am tempted to check out Amazon Prime's service though. The only thing that's stopping me from getting it is the inability to use it on the PS3.

I absolutely adore HBOGo. Once again, I wish there was a way to stream it onto my television. And I hope corporate greed doesn't ruin it any time soon.

You are watching Crackle on the PS3's crappy browser. I watch that and HBOGo on the 1080p Roku 2 and they are fine. You get access to Amazon Prime via the Roku 2 also. They have SyFy and A&E apps coming this winter. Hoping they have The Glades on the A&E app.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Some ISPs will disconnect users for going over caps, like Comcast. That threatens business.

This is why when an official capping policy is introduced, and appropriate pay rates introduced, businesses won't feel "threatened".

No one will refuse to take your (extra) money.