[Tim Possible]

Originally Posted by Paul

The funny thing is, I don't disagree with this... I just don't know that I want to budget the extra $60/yr. So I'm not quite as happy. Such is life --- it's the way the world works.

Originally Posted by Art

People keep saying things like "It's one less latte a month", but for those of us who don't drink $4 coffee...

I know that I am blessed, but $60 over a year really means nothing to me. Am I part of the big bad American problem?

Not meaning to be a jerk there or anything, just wondering about myself. I spend way more than that on other hobbies, so it doesn't seem like much to me.

[Art]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Bear

I know that I am blessed, but $60 over a year really means nothing to me. Am I part of the big bad American problem?

Not meaning to be a jerk there or anything, just wondering about myself. I spend way more than that on other hobbies, so it doesn't seem like much to me.

$60 over the course of a year truly isn't that much money. But when it represents a 25-60% increase, that changes things. Like I said, if any of my other bills suddenly increased by that amount with a poor explanation, I would be very upset.

[Tim Possible]

Originally Posted by Chocolate Bear

$60 over the course of a year truly isn't that much money. But when it represents a 25-60% increase, that changes things. Like I said, if any of my other bills suddenly increased by that amount with a poor explanation, I would be very upset.

I can understand that. I guess I separate all of my bills by how much they are, and with them one on one. If my insurance(roughly $200 a month) went up 25+% I would be all over them.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Bear

I know that I am blessed, but $60 over a year really means nothing to me. Am I part of the big bad American problem?

Not meaning to be a jerk there or anything, just wondering about myself. I spend way more than that on other hobbies, so it doesn't seem like much to me.

It really isn't a huge sum of money, but, as a college student, there are probably things that are more important to me, because my income is fairly small at this point in life. In a few years, it'll be different, but hey, I'm one of those customers Netflix openly talked about as being not as profitable, and that doesn't really bother me *shrug*.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Cable is $50+ per month.

Netflix streaming is $9 per month.

I can be a year behind. It's ok. As long as I get it eventually.

If netflix can keep the content (even dated) and the price-point, I'm likely to stay (unless a better competetor shows up).

Hulu lost me when they switched to a premium service that was overpriced for the content available (also: where are my android, wii, and ps3 clients? for Hulu). Perhaps Amazon. Perhaps Google.

The problem is that the cable companies know this and feel threatened that they are going to see massive exoduses from cable service to Netflix only, and rightly so. And since most of them are ISP's they're doing things like this latest move with holding back content, and imposing caps, to combat it. And this IS what the caps are for. Only "2%" of users use 250GB's or more per month... and "95%" of internet traffic is from HULU and Netflix (both numbers found in an "independent" study funded by Comcast and Charter). Not only that but a few simple infrastructure overhauls would not only increase the national average speed from something like 6Mbps to 30, which would make "congestion" by these "2%" of users negligible.

They don't want to offer internet at competitive speeds to the world, because they can use their "limited" and "overburdened" infrastructure as a way to justify the caps to battle Netflix and Hulu. Verizon and Google's ISPs are both offering (or are about to offer) much higher speeds and neither one of them are television giants... I wonder why that is.

Generally speaking, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I think 99.99% of that stuff is bunk, but make no mistake, Charter and Comcast are threatened by Netflix and Hulu and they are fighting back, but in a very passive aggressive manner.

[Art]

Originally Posted by Ax

The problem is that the cable companies know this and feel threatened that they are going to see massive exoduses from cable service to Netflix only, and rightly so. And since most of them are ISP's they're doing things like this latest move with holding back content, and imposing caps, to combat it. And this IS what the caps are for. Only "2%" of users use 250GB's or more per month... and "95%" of internet traffic is from HULU and Netflix (both numbers found in an "independent" study funded by Comcast and Charter). Not only that but a few simple infrastructure overhauls would not only increase the national average speed from something like 6Mbps to 30, which would make "congestion" by these "2%" of users negligible.

They don't want to offer internet at competitive speeds to the world, because they can use their "limited" and "overburdened" infrastructure as a way to justify the caps to battle Netflix and Hulu. Verizon and Google's ISPs are both offering (or are about to offer) much higher speeds and neither one of them are television giants... I wonder why that is.

Generally speaking, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I think 99.99% of that stuff is bunk, but make no mistake, Charter and Comcast are threatened by Netflix and Hulu and they are fighting back, but in a very passive aggressive manner.

Comcast isn't holding anything back. They are pretty aggressive about it. It is pretty plain to see that they are ready for war.

[redbaron]

Originally Posted by WafflesAndSyrup

Good luck with that. Netflix isn't Hulu, and it appears that they don't want to go that route. Hulu gives you the latest episodes from most of the big networks the day after they air, but that comes at a price: Advertisements and Hulu Plus (plus advertisements, lol). Netflix apparently decided to stick with the whole "nostalgic shows and the latest movies" offering. It's sad that the increase is mainly being used to renew licensing for older seasons, though. Another reason why I hate the large media companies in this country, but that's for another thread...

I'm not sure about the others that you had in your multi-quote, but i wasn't referring to current season television, I was referring to the lack of current movies, and the lack of a lot of titles really.

The DVD's you can get from netflix that you won't be able to stream for months still? yeah.

It's one thing to raise the rates incrementally to cover increases in cost, it's another thing to drastically increase the rates, without even bothering to increase the level of service. I'm definitely done with netflix at this point.

[ICallHimTurtle]

You're right Normajean, Netflix is not doing "bad." But they are definitely losing more business than they planned, evidenced by the fact that they refuse to comment on the situation until the next quarterly budgetary meeting.

If I were a stockholder, that'd make me nervous.