Netflix Owns 61% Of Digital Movie Market Which Means It's Time For Hollywood And ISPs To Try And Kill It New data from NPD notes just how significant Netflix has become to the broadband streaming world in a relatively small amount of time. According to NPD, Netflix now accounts for six out of every ten digital movies streamed. Netflix's market share of digital movies -- either downloaded or streamed -- reached 61% by the end of February, followed by Comcast at 8%, and a three-way tie for third place at 4% among DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, and Apple. "Sales of DVDs and Blu-ray Discs still drive most home-video revenue, but VOD and other digital options are now beginning to make inroads with consumers," says NPD. "Overwhelmingly digital movie buyers do not believe physical discs are out of fashion, but their digital transactions were motivated by the immediate access and ease of acquisition provided by streaming and downloading digital video files." Netflix is single-handedly changing the broadband video market by slowly but steadily weaning traditional DVD renters directly on to their streaming platform, now embedded in oodles of televisions, Blu-Ray players, mobile devices and gaming consoles. Last October, data from network management hardware vendor Sandvine indicated that Netflix streaming video now accounts for more than 20 percent of downstream traffic during peak times in the United States. Netflix has become a fairly significant threat to traditional legacy TV business models, offering consumers access to a large volume of digital content at a cheap price with no ads. That, of course, means that companies threatened by Netflix's evolutionary approach to video will soon be cooking up new and ingenious ways -- to kill it. Hollywood has been increasingly whining about Netflix's growing power, terrified of Netflix becoming to film what Apple is to music (in no small part due to the entertainment industry's inability to adapt to broadband). As such, Hollywood wants to make Netflix a discount junk shop as opposed to a viable video alternative. They've tried their best by forcing Netflix to delay all new releases by thirty days but that hasn't slowed Netflix's growth, so studio executives are considering expanding this kind of constrictive licensing further in a misguided effort to protect DVD revenues. Netflix is also making powerful enemies among incumbent broadband companies. Recently Netflix has been speaking out more intensely about the threat metered billing poses to online content, rather correctly noting that ISPs have a strong incentive to cap and meter users in order to counter potential lost TV revenue, and that the broadband per byte pricing models being introduced are in no way tied to economic reality. As such, you can expect increased attacks by the think tank/fauxcademic hired noise machines employed by the likes of Bell, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Capturing the lion's share of the digital film market, passing 20 million users and making enemies of two of the most government-pampered sectors in the world is fairly impressive work in such a short period of time. Less than two years ago Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was telling people he didn't see much interest in a broadband streaming only rental system, and now the company dominates a distribution avenue -- and has some of the most powerful executives in North America sweating bullets.
|
 | | Inexpensive and no ads... Of course they are winning...
Too bad most ISPs are trying to squeeze consumers from every angle... | |
|  |  | | Re: Inexpensive and no ads... Squeeze is putting it diplomatically, I think I'd use gouge. Regardless, you're right. This is what consumers want,which means we won't get it. Funny how competition in a different form gets crushed with the help of the people crying for innovation. -- "Thanks for the dance... and cut yourself a slice'a throat! " - Curly (HOI POLLOI, 1935) | |
|  |  | | ISP's will do all they can to squeeze us now.We must all write to our elected yet corrupt reps for help we know we will never get | |
|  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Re: Inexpensive and no ads... I don't think we need them to pass regulations regarding what we think is fair or isn't fair. What we need is for them to determine how to spawn a competitive environment where everyone has half-a-dozen choices. I believe competition would keep prices reasonable with fewer restrictions. What we have now is an oligopoly (at best) that's well organized from a political perspective. | |
|  |  |  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Inexpensive and no ads... said by rradina:I don't think we need them to pass regulations regarding what we think is fair or isn't fair. What we need is for them to determine how to spawn a competitive environment where everyone has half-a-dozen choices. don't see the irony here? | |
|  |  |  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Re: Inexpensive and no ads... Not sure I follow your point. My point was to ask our government to promote competition rather than crying to them about low caps and high overages. That's asking for regulation rather than doing something like taking spectrum back from those that are hoarding it. Heck, refund their money and then resell it so someone who will offer competition. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
| That's really unfair to paint every ISP with that broad of a brush.
I own and run a wireless ISP in a very rural area, and until someone owns and/or runs one themselves, they can keep mouthing off and letting everyone know how shallow their intellect actually is.
Now for the ugly truth: Bandwidth is not a right. It's simply a commodity that you pay for, like gasoline, food, or anything else. All too often, folks get this sideways idea that we ISP's "owe them" something. Well, let me burst your bubble: We don't.
That said, I actually tell my customers about Netflix and encourage them to use it - I love the technology, and I've engineered my network (and my pricing model) to handle it. But at the same time, I don't foster an environment of "you get it all for pennies." That kind of thinking is unrealistic and would never support a healthy business model.
Technology changes. We ISP's have to change with it. There was no need to meter/cap when the biggest thing to download was a picture, or a file. But that's all changed now. And the network has to change with it, or it won't scale to perform (getting tired of slowdowns & high latency every night? Bet you are). This costs money. Now we're back to the fact that ISP's don't owe you anything, and they're not charities. Is any of this making any sense?
Trust me; I don't have enough time on my hands to try and SCREW with people. Or gouge them. Or any other term I hear tossed around in here. You're not that important to me. I have better things to do with my time. Like run a business that will stay healthy and profitable so I can continue to provide a quality service to my users.
I MUST charge my users a price that will pay my bills and let me profit - if I can't profit, there's no point in doing all the hard work. I'm not a charity, I'm trying to survive in this economy, just like McDonalds, Walmart, Texaco, and everyone else. | |
|  |  |  rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO | Re: Inexpensive and no ads... When the biggest thing to download was a picture we also had 56k POTS modems. Heck, my first high speed Internet connection was 512Kbps/128Kbps. That was in 2000. Today my iPhone4 on AT&T 3G has been known to hit 6Mbps down and 1.6Mbps up. Not everywhere, not all the time but it almost ALWAYS beats the heck out of my first HSI connection.
I understand the charity part. I agree that businesses are in business to make money. However, in an era where things just constantly get faster and cheaper, it's tough to sell me on the idea that things are suddenly different and video is the proverbial straw that has finally broken the camel's back. I believe it's a manufactured crisis because video is the last frontier. If we blow up the old delivery model like we did with audio, there will be no need for broadcast television, DVDs, movie theaters, HBO, etc. Sure, this model will exist for a number of years yet but once the baby boomers pass away, broadcast TV, radio and all forms of print media will be dead. The younger generation is connected and that's how they want their audio and video entertainment, information and education delivered.
When I was a kid I had a small B&W TV in my room. I have three kids, 15, 12 and 7. The two older kids have computers with TV Tuner cards. They record their favorite shows with Windows Media Center. They never watch live TV. If stuff they wanted to watch was available on-demand, they wouldn't bother with the DVR or the TV tuner card. They'd just stream it.
This is the future and there's lots of folks that don't like it. There's lots more who don't want to be relegated to a dumb pipe.
I think the AT&T CEO (whatever his name is/was) said it all when he was upset that Google was getting to use his pipes for free. He wanted them to pay for using his pipes. He didn't care that theoretically his customers were already paying for his pipes, he wanted to be paid again and again and again.
Regarding constantly needing to upgrade the network -- then raise your prices. However, I don't think that means a $50 HSI plan has to be $100 or $150 or that you need to charge $5/GB over a certain amount. | |
|
 | | Ads... Those ads are what pay for those movies and television shows... especially the television shows. | |
|  |  | | Re: Ads... And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Ads... That $80+ is ALSO for the cable company that pays for the channels and maintains their network. Ads are the big cash cow for television series though. | |
|  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by 45612019:And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? the money from the commericals goes to the networks producing the shows. The cable companies get ZILCH of that money. Your monthly subscriptions pays so the cable company can be allows to offer you those networks. For example abut $6 of your bill goes fopr ESPN and ESPN 2 and you cable company has no chocie but to take ESPN 2 if they want to offer ESPN. Sure your cable company could refuse to pay that $6 and pass the savings on to you but then at least half their cusotmers would leave for satellite or FioS or U-verse then your cable company would probably go out of business. | |
|  |  |  |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Ads... said by BF69:said by 45612019:And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? the money from the commericals goes to the networks producing the shows. The cable companies get ZILCH of that money. Your monthly subscriptions pays so the cable company can be allows to offer you those networks. For example abut $6 of your bill goes fopr ESPN and ESPN 2 and you cable company has no chocie but to take ESPN 2 if they want to offer ESPN. Sure your cable company could refuse to pay that $6 and pass the savings on to you but then at least half their cusotmers would leave for satellite or FioS or U-verse then your cable company would probably go out of business. and due to who owns ESPN and ESPN 2, they have to be on a fairly basic package if the video provider wants to carry other channels owned by the Disney Group. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |  |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: Ads... said by Kearnstd:said by BF69:said by 45612019:And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? the money from the commericals goes to the networks producing the shows. The cable companies get ZILCH of that money. Your monthly subscriptions pays so the cable company can be allows to offer you those networks. For example abut $6 of your bill goes fopr ESPN and ESPN 2 and you cable company has no chocie but to take ESPN 2 if they want to offer ESPN. Sure your cable company could refuse to pay that $6 and pass the savings on to you but then at least half their cusotmers would leave for satellite or FioS or U-verse then your cable company would probably go out of business. and due to who owns ESPN and ESPN 2, they have to be on a fairly basic package if the video provider wants to carry other channels owned by the Disney Group. Yeah and......? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by BF69:said by 45612019:And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? the money from the commericals goes to the networks producing the shows. The cable companies get ZILCH of that money. Your monthly subscriptions pays so the cable company can be allows to offer you those networks. For example abut $6 of your bill goes fopr ESPN and ESPN 2 and you cable company has no chocie but to take ESPN 2 if they want to offer ESPN. Sure your cable company could refuse to pay that $6 and pass the savings on to you but then at least half their cusotmers would leave for satellite or FioS or U-verse then your cable company would probably go out of business. Cable channels are double-dipping. They get money from the cable companies for every person they have subscribed to cable TV. Then they get even more money from advertisements.
The big "free" networks like ABC, NBC and CBS that produce the most expensive shows only get money from advertising.
I think the cable channels could survive commercial free just from the money they get from people paying for cable service. The majority of them do not produce expensive content. You look at a basic cable package and it's mostly documentary and "reality" shows instead of scripted, action-packed shows. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Ads... The big 'free' networks get retransmission fee's too. See LIN Media, recently in the news over a squabble w/ D*SH (Charlie) ... enough sub's complained to high hell about missing out on the NCAA Tourney among other things--they made amends and the blackout was only for a couple of days.
»www.buffalonews.com/business/loc···7367.ece | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by BF69:said by 45612019:And that obscene $80+ fee every single subscriber pays for cable TV every month is all for nothing, right? the money from the commericals goes to the networks producing the shows. The cable companies get ZILCH of that money. Your monthly subscriptions pays so the cable company can be allows to offer you those networks. For example abut $6 of your bill goes fopr ESPN and ESPN 2 and you cable company has no chocie but to take ESPN 2 if they want to offer ESPN. Sure your cable company could refuse to pay that $6 and pass the savings on to you but then at least half their cusotmers would leave for satellite or FioS or U-verse then your cable company would probably go out of business. Not true at all. Most cable companies insert ads and make money. | |
|
 |  WiseOldNerdDe gustibus non est disputandumPremium join:2001-11-25 Phoenix, AZ | TV yes---MOVIES NO! | |
|  |  | | Netflix should put ads and work a deal with big wiggs. --
| |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Ads... ads would be the end of netflix sub for me. I hate hulu for the ads, so much so that I have firefox extensions to skip them. I think ads on netflix would be a detractor, and since I already pay $10 per month, I think ads would be unnecessary for their continued success. | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Ads... Just wait until Netflix needs to renegotiate major content deals. You won't be seeing $10/mth without commercials much longer. Either the newer content will disappear, or you'll pay more...monthly sub rate and/or advertisements. Throw in some caps and metered billing from ISPs and Netflix will not be the money saver that it is now for many. | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Much of a cable bill however is licensing expense which goes back to the networks. | |
|
 | | Netflix Isn't the Problem Look, Netflix isn't losing money, and their investors seem quite content. People are voting with their dollars and choosing Netflix, should we really be surprised? When it comes to technology companies, I don't think any company is as universally admired as Netflix. I've never heard a single complaint about them. Ever.
Netflix is largely competing with the premium movie channels, moreso than the cable networks. It's the HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax of the world that are going to need to adjust their pricing models or go to entirely original programming, dropping movies. Why is any rational consumer going to pay more for linear channels with limited offerings, few HD titles (Even World-of-More Comcast systems in MD have just HBO, Starz, Cinemax, Showtime, Encore in HD), and limited on-demand selections? In addition, video enthusiasts will point out that some of these premium channels reject the original aspect ratios, causing picture loss even with HD signals. The response for these companies instead of protecting themselves against Netflix should be to find a better way to compete. That's the free market at work, right? The fall is inevitable. Netflix is acquiring their content legally, and putting up barriers to that is not changing anything for the MPAA. DVD sales are stagnant to declining still, and customers are willing to wait.
Disney, Bravo, MSG among others started as premium channels. Maybe it's time to change the model for the premium networks to survive. Granted, as a fan of many HBO and Showtime shows, I think this could be a problem for the type of show they produce as well as the writing quality, but perhaps that isn't feasible in today's marketplace. The response we're seeing with UBB doesn't do anything but serve to anger consumers.
If the ISP's and the MPAA conspire to kill Netflix, this will not build them goodwill. Customers will revolt and won't come running back to inflated prices for these premium services or to line up to buy the DVD's. | |
|  |  shimonmorPremium join:2000-12-30 Sedro Woolley, WA | Re: Netflix Isn't the Problem said by osravens:Customers will revolt and won't come running back to inflated prices for these premium services or to line up to buy the DVD's. I doubt we will hear one "baaa" out of the sheep. | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| Netflix has other issues coming up Such as how it's going to continue to license its streaming content.
When Netflix began to offer streaming movies as part of its online rental plan back in 2008, most people didn't seem to care much. In the intervening three years, however, streaming popularity exploded -- thanks to the proliferation of set-top boxes, multimedia phones and video game systems that could be used to view the content from the comfort of a couch (or pretty much anywhere with a smartphone) without waiting for a disc to arrive in the mail. As many as 5 million subscribers now stream their content instead of using the more traditional mail-order service.
When Netflix made their streaming deals with the studios back in 2008-2009, they were all made for a three-year period. The first wave of those partnerships expires later this year, and it's safe to say that Netflix will not be getting a sweetheart deal this time around. Studios like Starz want "pricing parity" in a new contract, which means Netflix will be paying what the pay-TV networks are charged to air the same titles. To put it in perspective, Netflix got the Starz streaming deal for $30 million. Epstein explains this was 1/20th of what someone like HBO pays. When this math is factored into all of the Netflix studio deals, it means the company is looking at paying over half a billion dollars more per year for the right to stream movies. »blog.moviefone.com/2011/03/15/ne···ntracts/ | |
|  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: Netflix has other issues coming up the more content Netflix gets the more subscibers it will get. Netlfix will have to charge more and most people are willing to pay a little more for more content. Also eventually Netflix will offer content owners more money than they can refuse. | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Netflix has other issues coming up said by BF69:the more content Netflix gets the more subscibers it will get. Netlfix will have to charge more And I think they will lose subscribers when their prices double. I know they will lose me. -- Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave »www.speedtest.net/wave/1b3ef29fa84ff7ce | |
|  |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: Netflix has other issues coming up said by Linklist:said by BF69:the more content Netflix gets the more subscibers it will get. Netlfix will have to charge more And I think they will lose subscribers when their prices double. I know they will lose me. Even if it means twice the content? | |
|  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·NBTel now Aliant
| Re: Netflix has other issues coming up said by BF69:said by Linklist:said by BF69:the more content Netflix gets the more subscibers it will get. Netlfix will have to charge more And I think they will lose subscribers when their prices double. I know they will lose me. Even if it means twice the content? IMO, doubling the price wouldn't translate to doubling the content. I'm skeptical that it would end up that way. They would find a way to gouge us. | |
|  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Netflix will need to increase rates to pay for renegotiated content deals, not for additional content. Long standing consumer complaints of many other content issues and ISPs will be no different for Netflix. "Hey, my rates continue to increase, but I'm getting less and less of service. WTH???" | |
|
 |  |  |  Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX | Yeah, i don't think i'd pay 20 bucks a month for Netflix either.
The reason Netflix can be cheaper than the alternatives, and will likely remain cheaper, is the fact that they bank on users already paying for an ISP. They can reach anyone with decent internet access, which will translate to a much broader audience than ever possible before. (as soon as copywrong laws change, the whole world) This of course wouldn't be possible with out moore's law, which makes it possible to have faster connections for the same amount of money you already pay, and in some cases even less.
The other reason why i think it will possibly remain at this price, is because it's playing on a truly open market. Entrepreneurs can very easily compete with them, far more easily than our current, very limited choices of content providers allow. Amazon is already shaking things up, and so is Onlive.
We really need to look no further than the current state of the music scene. Services like Spotify are popping up faster than sptoify itself has even made it's U.S. debut.
If you would've asked anyone 20 years ago, if they thought that 10 dollars a month would get them unlimited music, regardless of how new, and how easy they'd be able to access it (you can pretty much carry a "world library" on your car) I don't think anyone would've said it would ever be possible, and yet. Here we are, with services like Rdio, Spotify, Rhapsody, MOG, etc.
So yesterday's music pirates were right all along: We don't have to pay thousands of dollars to listen to anything we like. Sure, it's not free. But it's so much of a better experience than spending lots of time searching for pirated music, that most people gladly pay for it, not to mention non tech savvy people that would never even think of where to look for the pirated music.
Now, It's video's turn. And then we just have to wonder what comes afterwards when we are in the gigabit/sec era. which will come a lot faster than some people think, or are even prepared for.
On the topic of copywrong. If Netflix starts to be the content owner, all of a sudden all they need to do for a world wide launch of their content is hire those anime fansub groups that have subs out faster than the blink of an eye, and they can have a simultaneous world wide release of their shows. | |
|
 |  AlcoholPremium join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Netflix rumored to spend $100 million or more outbidding cable n »www.engadget.com/2011/03/15/netf···cable-n/
new David Fincher drama starring Kevin Spacey called House of Cards. The post goes on to suggest that the deal is still being negotiated but Netflix will be on the hook for two season which could cost it more than $100 million. -- I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock. | |
|
 | | Caps will help hurt netflix AT&T is getting ready to do their part by capping | |
|  |  Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX | Re: Caps will help hurt netflix I'm getting increasingly convinced that the products offered on the Internet are going to be so much better than their walled garden services, that all they are trying to do is negotiate terms of defeat.
But there's no point. They might delay the inevitable for more years than we'd like, but their current way of doing business is going to die a lot sooner than they think. | |
|
 MerinXCrunching for CuresPremium join:2011-02-03 kudos:1 1 edit | The net in netflix is here! Physical media is a thing of the past. It is like playing a game of a disk instead of your hard drive. We are moving to a disc-less world which is good considering the amount of waste in packaging and transport alone. Heck i would not be shocked if the next consoles are run from a cloud over IP from say microsofts HQ where they can control all the hardware and software. This would save vast amounts of costs they would not have to waste merely building an install base, not to mention the sheer amount of time a console sits unused. Innovations like these are what will be stifled not just netflix growth.
Its time for content creators to embrace the netflix model or face the fact that people will just take the content via streaming BT etc and you will make less potential profits. The netflix styled IPVOD on demand model is the only way to compete with free.... Nobody wants to sign up for fail catalogs on multiple services this is why all the crappy music services from each crappy label failed and itunes won. Instead of bogarting content like comcast will likely do in favor of its own inferior VOD service like hulu plus(pft ads when your paying nice forward thinking in net2.0 age)
UBB isn't about network congestion, it's about netflix prevention. Also making ISPs the middle man for providing what major retailers no longer waste space on since steam/online retail and such have grown so popular. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 | | I'm not Canadian but
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Mg6pq33Zc
It's rather sad when businesses think of new ways to restrict customer choice instead of making their services more attractive. | |
|  |  | | Re: I'm not Canadian but I couldn't stop laughing! | |
|
 momus_98 join:2002-09-10 Pflugerville, TX kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Lawsuit I smell an anti-trust/collusion lawsuit in the future; either on the part of Netflix v. movie studios (Sherman Act and Clayton Act) and/or action by the Federal Trade Commission.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd suspect what the movie studios are doing is bordering on, if not outright, illegal. | |
|  |  djcrazy join:2009-08-05 Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Comcast
| Re: Lawsuit said by momus_98:I smell an anti-trust/collusion lawsuit in the future; either on the part of Netflix v. movie studios (Sherman Act and Clayton Act) and/or action by the Federal Trade Commission.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd suspect what the movie studios are doing is bordering on, if not outright, illegal. They will get away with it because Hollywood has bought all the politicians. Unfortunately, there will be no lawsuits. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Don't worry. AT&T has the plan for ISP domination Make it too expensive to use their service(Netflix)--- even if consumers don't want AT&T's payTV or other options, they'll have to pay them anyway if they choose Netflix via bandwidth "charges".
Caps+Overages+UBB/Pay-by-byte is the backend hammer blow that will seal Netflix's doom. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  TMMerlinThe Devil made me do it join:2003-06-19 Oxford, MI Reviews:
·EarthLink
·AT&T U-Verse
| NetFlix Streaming " my secret cost fixing weapon" Let the dumb studios and AT&T U-verse and cable to thier cost increases. The more I use NetFlix Streaming .. the more cost control I have !
Put caps on my DSL line and I will cut services from AT&T and focus on streaming from NetFlix. I can save $42/mo just by cutting premium channels and another $25 by dumping VOIP and just use my cellphone.
If they squeeze me .. then I squeeze them right back !! -- Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy but they become legend. | |
|  | | this is going to get interesting so you have hollywood and many isp's trying to kill netflix for different reasons. i can't imagine netflix surviving this in the end. everyone enjoy it while lasts. good things all must come to an end eventually | |
|  |  | | Re: this is going to get interesting not necessarily | |
|  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Netflix is already at the point they will survive no matter what. What will be interesting is to see politicians get involved with this issue here in the U.S. If it's anything like what happened in Canada, ISPs shouldn't count on simply winning and killing Netflix. | |
|  |  |  El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium join:2008-04-28 Etobicoke, ON kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| Re: this is going to get interesting said by morbo:If it's anything like what happened in Canada, ISPs shouldn't count on simply winning and killing Netflix. FWIW I'm happy about politicians making noise too. I'm just not convinced that they're going to carry this though. I'm hoping they will, but the only thing that's going to guarantee they keep it up, is pressure from the public. -- The trouble with nude dancing is that not everything stops when the music does. | |
|
 |  | | Netflix won't survive because as they try and grow, costs are going to skyrocket.
And the stockmarket won't like Netflix losing profit while costs increase.
The movie companie's won't devalue what they already sell to HBO and broadcasters by letting netflix be a new middle guy that hardly pays them anything. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: this is going to get interesting Netflix's demise has been predicted since 1997. Every time they get hammered they respond...today they announced an original content deal for a highly coveted remake of House of Cards, outbidding HBO in the process. I would love to see them sell the TV rights to HBO, lol. | |
|
 antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP join:2001-03-25 United State kudos:4 | Not from me. ;) I am still waiting for non-subscription payments! :P | |
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ | The words of the prophet are written on the outhouse wall. quote: This is worse than when Bell had a monopoly on phone service.
| |
|  JohnInSJPremium join:2003-09-22 San Jose, CA | Hollywood and ISPs should be thanking Netflix At least people using netflix are paying for content, instead of just stealing it. -- My place : »www.schettino.us | |
|
 | |
|
|