  newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
2 recommendations | I'm not sure I WANT Netflix cozying up to cable companies You lie down with dogs you fall in with thieves
You're gonna catch something but you do as you please
You're scratchin' an itch that nothing can ease
You lie down with dogs you get up with fleas
- Alan Parsons Project | |
|
 |  djrobxPremium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2 | Re: I'm not sure I WANT Netflix cozying up to cable companies Well put! | |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI | Horse and Buggy The horse and buggy group is used to selling $10,000 horses and refuses to work with car companies because cars only sell for $8,000. | |
|
 rcnmanJason NealisPremium,VIP
join:2003-05-02
Herndon, VA
kudos:11
2 recommendations | EH? This guy is obviously lost / dazed and confused.. We've been asking for 3 years..
They have a few more roadblocks they need to overcome before they can allow MSO's to add the application and have it co-exist with MSO On-Demand...
--
Jason Nealis,
V.P. Engineering and Operations | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: EH? The problem is that Netflix has a direct model. MSO work through the channel model. Margins need to be at least 40 points to pay for marketing, development, and reasonable profit. Maybe Netflix kicks in some pricing discount, but the way things are is that Netflix would cost $15 a month through cable and who is going to pay for that when they can get it direct for half price.
That is why (from the opposite side) HBOGo doesn't go direct either. It would destroy their channel model, and HBO is also bundled in packages and different prices on different operators. If they go direct, then they will need to set a uniform price. Price it one cent more than the lowest channel cost, and now you have a problem. | |
|
| | | | Re: EH? Netflix could keep their same pricing and bill direct to the customers just allow the MSOs to install a VOD app that Netflix creates for the box. NF could also sell the services at a discount to the MSOs who would agree to sell at X per month. | |
|
| | But... what? Isn't Netflix something you seek to save money over cable? | |
|
| | | Re: But... what? For VOD yes, if it is available.
However, until Netflix or whomever is able to offer full current catalogs whether that be movies or shows they will never be something other than a supplementation to "cable".
Just like I will always look to them for something I want to watch first and then Amazon. If those apps were available on the "cable" STB I would go there first, then to the cable VOD if I have decided I want to pay the extra price to be lazy.
Many times I have decided that I am going to get a VOD from my "cable provider" and eat the cost but then while browsing the movies I decide it simply isnt worth it. So I either wait to watch it or get off my lazy butt and go rent it. That happens regardless of Netflix or another like company so........ | |
|
| | It wouldn't end well Something like this wouldn't end well, especially for consumers. Even if Netflix secured a good deal the first time, subsequent contracts would get loaded up with items designed to penalize those Netflix subs who don't also sub to cable. For example, cable subs would get earlier access to hit movies, cable companies might demand a cut of the fees charged to non-subs who use their Internet services, cable subs would get a better selection of content, especially TV shows, etc.
This would be a deal with the devil. | |
|
| | Why? What's the point of paying for cable at exorbitant rates, and also paying Netflix? I thought the whole point of people getting Netflix was to tell the cable company to take a hike with their expensive on demand offerings? If you already pay for cable, why get Netflix at all? | |
|
| | | Re: Why? Not sure if this is a serious question or if you really can't think for yourself.
I am going to go with that later and will provide 2 answers for you.
1.) Netflix and Amazon video (in which I subscribe to along with uVerse), do not have "live" or real current content generally.
2.) Amazon also has much better prices when it comes to VOD. However, being it does not have all current content, some may be willing to pay more to get it from cable. | |
|
| | | | Re: Why? Only sports could possibly require being live, and not being a sports fan, I'm not exactly concerned about it. I barely noticed anything during the hockey strike. In fact, it wouldn't bother me at all if they stopped broadcasting all sports. Maybe people might wake up and realize what their governments are doing. TV is only relevant if you allow it to be. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Why? I would disagree. Live could also be current episodes of popular TV shows that people want to see as they air. | |
|
| | | |  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Why? said by Skippy25:Live could also be current episodes of popular TV shows that people want to see as they air. People still watch live TV? Even those (suckers) I know who pay for cable still end up letting the DVR handle things, so they can fast forward through the commercials.
But I think the original topic was, why would anyone want to pay for Cable AND Netflix. And I would wonder the same thing. Netflix is a great alternative for those who don't want to pay for cable, but for those willing to waste the money, cable VOD would cover everything Netflix offers. | |
|
| | | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why? said by Camelot One:said by Skippy25:Live could also be current episodes of popular TV shows that people want to see as they air. People still watch live TV? Even those (suckers) I know who pay for cable still end up letting the DVR handle things, so they can fast forward through the commercials. Ok first not everyone uses a DVR. I never have never will. When my cable company wants to offer it for free then sure I might take one. not sure I'd use it at any rate. Also to use a DVR for things other than broadcast networks means one has to have cable. so your point that you don't need able because you can DVR something doesn't even make sense. | |
|
| | | | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Why? said by BF69:said by Camelot One:said by Skippy25:Live could also be current episodes of popular TV shows that people want to see as they air. People still watch live TV? Even those (suckers) I know who pay for cable still end up letting the DVR handle things, so they can fast forward through the commercials. Ok first not everyone uses a DVR. I never have never will. When my cable company wants to offer it for free then sure I might take one. not sure I'd use it at any rate. Also to use a DVR for things other than broadcast networks means one has to have cable. so your point that you don't need able because you can DVR something doesn't even make sense. I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Anti-DVR?
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred | |
|
| | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why? said by Camelot One:I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Anti-DVR?
You said you don't need cable since you can use a DVR which except for broadcast pretty much requires cable. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Why? I said no such thing. I said none of the cable users I know watch live tv anymore, they use the dvr so they can skip commercials. | |
|
| | | | | | | I have cable, Netflix and Hulu Plus. Somethings on cable you just can't get with the other two. Especially without waiting for months or years on end to even have it on there. | |
|
| | |  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA | Not even sports needs to be watched live. I think Sports is the best thing to watch delayed since there is so much time wasted with either nothing going on or commercials being shown. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Why? LOL, as long as you can avoid getting news about it.
I believe the last survey I read about a month or 2 ago said a 3 hour baseball game has like 7 mins of actual "action" and football had just over that.
Hockey on the other hand is a sport I would want to watch from start to finish. | |
|
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: Why? said by Skippy25:LOL, as long as you can avoid getting news about it.
I believe the last survey I read about a month or 2 ago said a 3 hour baseball game has like 7 mins of actual "action" and football had just over that.
Hockey on the other hand is a sport I would want to watch from start to finish.
People that think the "action" part of a game is the only part of the game miss a lot of the point. not that MLB in particular can't use some speeding up. Basketball has "action" all the time. I find it incredibly boring. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Why? Baseball's biggest problem is nonsense at-bat timeouts and pitchers holding onto the ball forever. One shouldn't need to adjust oneself fifty times in the batter's box or hold onto the ball for thirty seconds per pitch.
Fixing those two things would be huge. I don't want them to tweak the game itself -- one of baseball's biggest selling points IMHO is the lack of a clock to run out -- just play it the way it was meant to be played.
P.S., Concur on basketball, never understood it. I do enjoy ice hockey though, second favorite sport in fact, and that's an action game. | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Bundle-in-a-Box Netflix could possibly get bundling to work only if they managed to get their app embedded into a cable company's set-top boxes. This way my cable bully could charge me $29.95 each month for every cable box in my home, because of all the feature-rich options. | |
|
|  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: Bundle-in-a-Box Netflix is embedded into current generation Tivos, and they charge a bit less than $29.95.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Bundle-in-a-Box Yes, the point being that the cable companies don't make money on a Tivo. You have to add the Tivo subscription to the mix as well. Cable does not want to lose the revenues they make on equipment rentals. It's a cash cow for them. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Bundle-in-a-Box TiVo is well worth the extra $5/mo over the cable company's crappy DVR. They aren't even in the same category. | |
|
| | Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... Yea, I think if I would say fuck'em too if they bitched that I didn't build out just for their bottom line and then they started to cry about me not bundling their product.
""We would love to reduce the friction to the end consumer, and to be available via the existing device in the home, which is the set-top box," said Wells."
Bullshit. It's all about getting your app into as many devices as possible to increase the chances that you will gain more customers.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | Re: Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... What the hell are you talking about them building out for Netflix's bottom line?
Netflix is doing just fine with the current poor broadband structure in place. Sure it could improve and thus Netflix and lots of other 3rd party companies would be able to deliver a better service, but that is universal to the entire internet and not just one company.
Sure if the crap ISPs were to deliver better service to under served areas that would probably increase Netflix's bottomline, but it would do that for pretty much any 3rd party providers of services so again it is universal to the entire internet and not just one company.
Least you forget, the consumers pay for their connection and Netflix pays for theirs. It is 100% the ISPs responsibility to make sure the 2 are able to service one another. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation | Re: Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... "What the hell are you talking about them building out for Netflix's bottom line?"
How often do we see their bullshit ISP rankings story on the front page of this very website? It's their way of trying to shame ISPs into building out faster networks so they can benefit. If I bad mouth you and then a week later expect for you to do me a favor how quickly would you do that favor?
"Least you forget, the consumers pay for their connection and Netflix pays for theirs. It is 100% the ISPs responsibility to make sure the 2 are able to service one another."
No, the ISP has a responsibility to service their customers, not Netfilx. Netflix want's ISPs to build out their networks and their expense for Netflix's benefit.
By the way I'm not advocating that ISPs should not build out and expand their networks.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... First off, their ranking can be viewed many ways and shaming ISPs is just one of them. May I ask why would any ISP be shamed if they were providing adequate services?
Second, if an ISP is not providing an adequate network to their consumers for them to be able to use Netflix (or any service for that matter) to their liking then it is the ISP's problem. All of them, including Netflix, simply serve bits at the request of the ISPs consumers. The ISP has a choice, they either shutup and deliver the bits and ignore their consumers or they improve their network so their consumers are satisfied with their experience. You see it as Netflix wanting the ISPs to build out, I see it as the consumers of the ISP wanting them to build out to make their experience better. Ultimate it is never at the ISP's expense. It is always at the consumers expense so I think what you really mean is that it is at the shareholders profit expense and that is what the ISPs really dont like.
Lastly, tell me how any of this would be any different than programmers wanting MS to improve their coding to their benefit or HP wanting Intel to improve their processors to HP's benefit or me wanting the place I play hockey at to improve their facilities to my benefit? Your right, there is no difference because in the end the consumer pays for everything as cost get passed on. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... The ranking is bullshit because it only measures what the end user subscribes to and not what they could subscribe to. This unfairly and incorrectly skews the results.
I would also like to know how in the world Google debuts at the #1 spot with almost no customers. How is it that EPB in Chattanooga who has almost 50k subscribers who had 50Mb and 3k who had 100+ at the time of the last ranking not even make the list?
"Lastly, tell me how any of this would be any different than programmers wanting MS to improve their coding to their benefit"
MS pretty much does what the hell they want. Programmers can scream all they want but MS is going to do what is best for MS and their customers.
"HP wanting Intel to improve their processors to HP's benefit"
They are not doing this for free..
"me wanting the place I play hockey at to improve their facilities to my benefit?"
You are their customer. So they would improve their facilities for their customers but they are not going to do it just to benefit a brand of skates.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Booooo Hoooooo Netflix... said by battleop:The ranking is bullshit because it only measures what the end user subscribes to and not what they could subscribe to. This unfairly and incorrectly skews the results.
They're not bullshit at all. Actually it is not measuring either. It is an average speed of the streams provided to the customer base of the ISP. The average combines both SD and HD content. IMO the numbers would make more sense if the SD and HD content were separated. There are a variety of conditions which influence the numbers such as the types of devices customers are using to view Netflix which results in different stream speeds based on the screen resolution (.e.g. SD, 720p, 1080p, 1080p SuperHD), the speed of their connection, the quality of the ISPs network in the last mile / backhaul and core, their transit or peering connectivity depending on how traffic is reaching the Netflix servers, etc.
said by battleop:"me wanting the place I play hockey at to improve their facilities to my benefit?"
You are their customer. So they would improve their facilities for their customers but they are not going to do it just to benefit a brand of skates.
Except most of the time it doesn't work like that. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 recommendation | Our ISP's deserve every bit of that shaming, and more. | |
|
| | | |
•••• |
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by battleop:No, the ISP has a responsibility to service their customers, not Netfilx. Netflix want's ISPs to build out their networks and their expense for Netflix's benefit.
And the ISPs in general are doing a poor job at it. No, the customers of the ISPs want this and they're using Netflix as a service via their connections. You have a pretty twisted perspective. | |
|
|
| | | Re: Concussion maybe? Netflix just wants to complain is all. Nothing new there and what is sad is 99% of the members on this board believe Netflix regardless of what the truth is. | |
|
|
|
