Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix Plans To Raise Prices By "$1 or $2 a Month"

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the testing-testing dept.

Businesses 202

New submitter Burphytez (3625571) writes with this excerpt of a Reuters story, as carried by the Chicago Tribune: "Video streaming service Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month to help the company buy more movies and TV shows and improve service for its 48 million global subscribers. Investors welcomed the announcement by Netflix, which had suffered from a consumer exodus and stock plunge after it announced an unpopular price increase in July 2011. The company's shares jumped 6.7 percent in after-hours trading to $371.97, after the company released plans for a price hike and posted a rise in first-quarter profit that beat Wall Street expectations."

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Milk that cow! (5, Insightful)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814313)

I guess they found a way to cover the costs of their deal with Comcast.

Re:Milk that cow! (5, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46814495)

Doesn't really matter anyway, even at raising the rates for new customers by $1-2, it's still got more value than cable or sattelite TV by leaps and bounds. That's pretty scary isn't it? Especially with all of the crap programming and reality TV garbage that they have on these days. I sadly remember when things like History, NatGO, Discovery and TLC had something worthwhile on them. The last time I watched them when I was in the US(last year) it was wall-to-wall reality TV programming. Good riddance to them.

Re:Milk that cow! (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814587)

The really curious part is the fact that Netflix is so much cheaper than cable *in spite of not having commercials*. The fact that you pay for cable TV only to be bombarded with commercials is a slap in the face that most people are too willing to accept.

Re:Milk that cow! (1, Insightful)

Stéphane V (3594053) | about 5 months ago | (#46815433)

Netflix pays for data management and don't pay for infrastructure throughout the US or where they give service. On the other hand the provides that gives cable or cable service, they have to pay for the physical infrastructure and the data management. In other words. your cable provider pays for everything...thats why its not cheaper with them instead of netflix

Re:Milk that cow! (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46814893)

Correct. I was paying about $100/mo for DirecTV many years ago. NetFlix could raise their rate to $40/mo, and it would still be worthwhile to me. I use the service almost every day, so it'll still be a bargain at $10.

Re:Milk that cow! (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#46815255)

Yeah but all the shit adds up. Netflix $12. Amazon prime streaming $99/yr. Hulu. iTunes rentals. Nytimes. The amount of money I spend on entertainment content remains roughly the same.

Re:Milk that cow! (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46815309)

Maybe it's time to consider reducing what you pay other people for entertainment and start finding alternatives or making your own? If you have that much leisure time that you actually use all of those services, you might be better served learning a skill or hobby. It'd be cheaper.

Re:Milk that cow! (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | about 5 months ago | (#46815283)

Agreed - I was paying a $200 cable/internet/phone/HBO bill a few months ago and my wife and I decided to cut costs. We got rid of cable, the whole-house DVR, and the phone and now just have the internet and Hulu and Netflix. Add in 3 chromecasts and converting my NAS to a plex server, and that dropped our monthly bill to $75, and we still get all of our shows except my wife's Bravo and my sports, which I've found various shady ways of watching on my own with no problem. It's been great, and I'd gladly pay $10 a month to keep watching their original series and movies.

I figure the only way to change the way we watch TV is for people to keep cutting the cord and forcing the broadcasters to adapt.

you think? (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 5 months ago | (#46814963)

I don't know. Netflix was $8 then $10. If it goes to $12/month then that will be about six dollars for every movie I watch. At that price I'd rather just buy a little extra weed and play WordFeud.

And in fact I already made that choice and dropped Netflix six or eight months ago. Their streaming selection had dwindled to the point where I couldn't even find any science documentaries anymore. What am I going to do then? Watch a superhero movie? No thanks. There are torrents for that. I had Netflix for three or four years but it just stopped delivering value.

Re:Milk that cow! (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 5 months ago | (#46814975)

I really look forward to more Grade B movies that they always describe as "Not to be confused with the Blockbuster..."

Maybe the new arrivals list will turn over more than once every six months now too!

Re:Milk that cow! (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 5 months ago | (#46815413)

You are absolutely correct. Those channels you mentioned were my favorites, then the bullfeathers set in. Reality TV? The Loser Channel et al now suck so hard that golfball is sliding down the garden hose.

I am tired of midgets and bad relationship programs.
I am tired of Discovery playing crap like Swamp People, which are glorified poachers. The scene is shifting, but when enough people cut cable, it will be a win-win for all consumers. Celebrity crap? Kuntdashians? Worthless waste of electrons.

Re:Milk that cow! (5, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46814573)

more like the content costs

if you look at their financials 3/4 of revenues goes to pay for content. networking costs are maybe 1/10 of revenues

Re: Telcos Milk that cow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814711)

Exactly. The Consumer/Customer pays for everything and this price increase is one proof.

Now, who should "we" be angry with? The TelCos who charge NetFlix to use their "pipes" to ship content to their customers or NetFlix who bought "special" service from the greedy bastards? (Opps, I guess you know how I feel about this.)

Re:Milk that cow! (5, Interesting)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46814859)

The media reports on the deal with Comcast turned out to be complete bullshit.
A friend did some research on this:


There are three companies involved:
Netflix (Content provider)
Cogent (Transit provider)
Comcast (Internet service provider)


It was Cogent, not Comcast that was the bottle neck.

Here’s how the industry works. These companies negotiate with each other to use each other’s services.

So, Netflix agrees to pay A for Cogent to provide B amount of bandwidth. Cogent agrees to pay C to Comcast for D amount of bandwidth.

What happened is that Cogent ran out of bandwidth. Under normal industry standards, Cogent is expected to pay E for F additional bandwidth. In what appears to be some pretty underhanded and sneaky business practices, Cogent demanded that Comcast provide the additional bandwidth for free and tried to make it look like it was Comcast’s fault.

Basically, Cogent was getting money from Netflix to provide a service that it couldn’t provide.

The Comcast-Netflix deal is basically, that Netflix decided to replace Cogent and hire a new vendor. Comcast is a large company and offers multiple services. Netflix could have gone with any vendor they wanted. They choose to go with Comcast apparently because Comcast was offering them a better deal than anyone else. I don’t know if that means they are charging less than Cogent or perhaps there’s some technical advantage (such as better performance or more reliability) with hiring the same vendor for two different services.

So, the reason why Netflix is paying Comcast is because Comcast is now providing a new service (transit provider).

Also, this money is not a brand new fee that Netflix has to pay someone. This is the money (A) that they were going to give to Cogent.

Again, Netflix could have used any transit provider they wanted. They choose Comcast because apparently, they offered the best deal.

Re:Milk that cow! (1)

jchawk (127686) | about 5 months ago | (#46815313)

You're close but there is some additional details you missed.

Normally large providers of bandwidth will peer with one another. Meaning I'll give you 1 gigabit of bandwidth and you do the same for me. The assumption is that traffic will be flowing at a near equal rate between both providers. As usage goes up you continue to increase the peer.

The problem is Cogent is notorious for being a low cost bandwidth provider so they end up being a bigger sender then receiver of data. Cogent tried to throw a hissy fit demanding that Comcast, Verizon and others increase the peering agreement even though Cogent was lopsided. Comcast and others said no -- pay for the bandwidth you are using with us because you're lopsided. This is an industry standard practice.

Cogent's CEO and Upper management decided they would blame everyone else, drag in the public and try to make this a PR nightmare in order to get these companies to cave to their unreasonable demands.

Good on Netflix and the rest of the industry for standing up and saying no to Cogent's bullshit.

Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (2, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 5 months ago | (#46814323)

While as a consumer I'll bemoan paying more, the reality is, to deliver quality content they need to find the price sweet spot. It's still way below the cost of cable TV, so I don't think it will hurt them in the long run.

Yes, it seems like it will mainly benefit shareholders, but with the lack of ads and low price, even after the increase, who can really complain?

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (3, Informative)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46814501)

While as a consumer I'll bemoan paying more, the reality is, to deliver quality content they need to find the price sweet spot. It's still way below the cost of cable TV, so I don't think it will hurt them in the long run.

Yes, it seems like it will mainly benefit shareholders, but with the lack of ads and low price, even after the increase, who can really complain?

From TFS, "Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month..."

Unless my reading comprehension is on the blink, as a current customer, you shouldn't see a rate increase. Yet.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (4, Interesting)

Talderas (1212466) | about 5 months ago | (#46814833)

Yep. Their goal is to encourage long term subscriptions and not binge subscribing. They have a "problem" where people will subscribe for one to two month, binge watch content, and then unsubscribe for about six to eight months.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#46814503)

However, for most people Netflix is not something you get instead of cable. It's something you get in addition to cable. If the extra $1 or $2 brings us stuff that just aired last night, and live sports, then it will be a replacement for cable.

Personally, I'd still keep the service, even if it cost $2 more. But they better start to get more content if they are going to raise prices.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 5 months ago | (#46814717)

Basic cable runs about $40-$50 a month with no extras Netflix $7.99 + $30-$40 Internet. Most people can say well I'm going to have Internet for work or cause I game, but it really depends on the situation {cable and Internet prices of course vary}.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (2)

Guybrush_T (980074) | about 5 months ago | (#46814909)

I'm amused to see that in the US, having an internet access is still optional :-). Are the US considered an under-developed country ?

That said, I'm sure your comment only makes sense to a very small portion of the population ; which will make cable companies useless in the short term.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 5 months ago | (#46815271)

which will make cable companies useless in the short term.

Where I live cutting the cord isn't really cutting the cord. I canceled my tv subscription but if I want reliable Internet at a good price and speed I have to keep cable Internet. Satellite Internet is a joke {I can't get on the Internet to check the weather because of the weather}, the dsl is expensive {$3.49/mbps vs cable $1.33/mbps for their mid-tier accounts} and the dsl service in the area isn't that great either.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815419)

The US is a VERY conservative country; Americans hate change. This may sound paradoxical, from a country well-known for its innovations, but it is the truth. The knee-jerk reaction of the American society to change is to stop it, giving up reluctantly and only after lots of soul searching. A possible root cause is that Americans are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that the US is the best country in the world (which it is, in some areas, but it certainly isn't in many others) and that their constitution is nothing short of holy writ, perfect, eternal and God-given.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | about 5 months ago | (#46815329)

You don't get anything with basic cable these days. Most sports channels and the decent cable channels require a premium subscription. I looked at DirectTV, Dish, and Verizon before cutting the cord completely. There was no way I could keep my wife and my favorite channels like ESPN 2, NBC Sports, Bravo, etc. without spending a minimum of $70 just for the cable alone, not including boxes and remotes which they charge extra for.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814513)

I've had Netflix for three or four years now and it's definitely worth the price. I don't think I'd seriously consider cancelling it until it reached at least $20/mo. However, if it gets much higher, they might want to consider having multiple tiers of streaming. My parents stream less than 12 hours a month, so some kind of time-limited lower tier would be needed to keep them as happy customers. Implementation would be a little tricky, but I think if you did something like allowing them to finish whatever movie/episode they're currently watching when that limit is reached would keep most people happy.

Re:Not Necessarily A Bad Thing (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 5 months ago | (#46814633)

It's called sustainable business. They have increasing costs as they try to search for quality; they're not at a point where they have the value to lobby down the content cost, which is complex and requires having so much content rolling through that they can argue that they're a major income source for new content (i.e. they have so much new content that if your new content is not on Netflix then you are going to miss out on profit opportunities). As the services fragment (Hulu, Amazon Prime,etc.), it will become "we need to be a part of the digital distribution model in full, or else we're missing important profitability".

....profit (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 5 months ago | (#46814327)

1. Provide reruns as streamable video.
2. Raise price of rerun to new customers
3 ????
4 Profit.

Re:....profit (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46814603)

2. Announce forthcoming price rise applicable to new customers as of a future date
3. Watch those people who were previously on the fence about it sign up to avoid the price hike
4. ???? ...and so on.

Repeat July 2011 (-1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#46814337)

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike ... and I'll be in the first wave myself.

They are always way behind on everything that comes out, if the price goes up much, it will cost as much as a basic cable subscription, which has access to pretty much all new major content releases, where as netflix is at least 2-4 years behind on everything I want to watch.

The ONLY thing that keeps me paying now is that there are NO commercials, and commercials are exactly why I dropped my Hulu Plus subscription, anything of any popularity has as many commercial breaks as broadcast TV, and my WMC DVR has no problem letting me skip commercials, hulu on the other hand thinks forcing me to watch some shit commercial about something I have no interest in is a good thing. I know of no one who still pays for hulu due to the ever increasing commercial count.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 5 months ago | (#46814407)

I'm not sure there's going to be an exodus due to this. Who's the competitor offering the old price? What's better for access to these movies/shows? Why won't the viewer notice the new-to-Netflix options coming?

Re:Repeat July 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814447)

>Who's the competitor offering the old price?

Amazon Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814543)

I just got a Prime trial subscription, mostly for streaming movies. I find the interface to be more confusing than Netflix, and the closed captioning isn't as easy to read. I've also had issues in which Full Screen will switch it to my primary monitor, so I have to use the Pop-Out viewer. Also, the price of Prime just went up recently as well which may be one of the reasons Netflix is more comfortable with raising their rates too.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46814937)

I have Prime for the shipping, but the streaming is pretty terrible. You can start watching a series on Prime, then after a few episodes to get you hooked, they'll want something like $3 an episode in addition to the Prime membership. With Netflix, there's never an attempt to add fees for particular shows or movies.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 5 months ago | (#46815383)

Yup - noticed that too. Or they don't have every episode of a given series available to stream. I had to make a choice and decided to keep Netflix and ditch Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#46815359)

And the price of Prime didn't just go up a little, it went up a lot.

Then there's inflation to account for too. I'm sure Netflix' cost has gone up over the past few years.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 5 months ago | (#46814705)

Compared to Netflix. Amazon Prime is a joke.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 5 months ago | (#46814915)

Why would there be an exodus, current subscribers are not having their prices changed, only new subscribers. This is a move to counter binge subscribers in order to smooth out their revenue. In fact, if Netflix wanted to be brilliant about it, the would offer their Xth month free with a $1-2 reduction in your subscription cost. Basically, you're "paying forward" the extra $1-2 towards a month subscription that you only get if you stay subscribed long enough. That would essentially provide the exact same lower costs for long term subscribers.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#46814413)

I don't think you could compare Netflix to 'basic' cable. For me basic cable is unwatchable - you have excessive amount of commercials and no on demand service. Sure, you can get all of this out of cable, but at that point you are no longer on 'basic'.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (2)

tsqr (808554) | about 5 months ago | (#46814441)

I'll be in the first wave myself.

If you're going to quit, you must be an existing customer, which means you won't see a rate increase. Are you going to quit as a statement of principle?

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#46814687)

Are you going to quit as a statement of principle?

Yes, because this won't remain 'just for new customers' for very long at all.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 5 months ago | (#46814953)

So why leave when there is no price rise or change for them which will just look like noise to Netflix instead of leaving with other subscribers when the price goes up for everyone and making it clear to them that they lost business because of that change?

After a 'generous waiting period' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815027)

They've said it would be phased in for existing customers after a 'generous waiting period.' Personally, even if it was instant, I don't mind a price increase from $8 to $10 or so - especially if it means more shows. If people leave over this that's there prerogative, but I wont pretend I'm not judging, especially when the other legal option is still 5 to 6 times more expensive. Heck, even going the illegal route: streaming from netflix is still immensely more convenient than torrenting shows to watch.

That said, I don't think this was the way to go. A tiered payment system would have been better. I'd gladly pay for a premium service that had more recent shows and such. But then, selling streaming tv is hardly my area of expertise.

Re:fuck beta (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 5 months ago | (#46815043)

They also announced that prices will increase for existing customers "soon". You can even suss that out of the article linked here:

Gould said the company is approaching 50 million global subscribers, and a $1-2 price increase would raise $600 million to $1.2 billion.

50M subscribers x12 months x$1 is $600M
50M subscribers x12 months x$2 is $1.2B

Other articles made this implication clear by quoting the rest of Netflix's statement.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 5 months ago | (#46814445)

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike

First off, it's "they're".

Secondly, I'm not going anywhere because there's simply not anywhere else I can rent DVD's. My stupid fellow citizens quit going to our local video stores, so now there's exactly *one* way to rent DVD's, and that's Netflix.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 months ago | (#46814475)

You're forgetting Redbox. Plus, there's Amazon's own video-on-demand service.

There's nothing stupid about abandoning local video stores. What kind of moron would pay $5 to rent a movie, plus ridiculous late fees? With Netflix at $8/month for all-you-can-view online, or maybe double that for online + 1 DVD checkout, it's a no-brainer. Or you can go to Redbox.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 5 months ago | (#46814547)

Redbox has a smattering of mouth breather blockbusters. It's no substitute for Netflix any more than a 7-11 is a substitute for a grocery store.

Video-on-demand on Netflix isn't much more comprehensive than a Redbox vending machine.

That was my point. There's no substitute for Netflix DVD rental.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814641)

Redbox has a smattering of mouth breather blockbusters. It's no substitute for Netflix any more than a 7-11 is a substitute for a grocery store.

Video-on-demand on Netflix isn't much more comprehensive than a Redbox vending machine.

That was my point. There's no substitute for Netflix DVD rental.

True; I use Redbox to get movies for my 12-14 year old kids when we're on a road trip. This weekend, there was Frozen, which is actually pretty good, and then the only other thing we could find which was passable was Despicable Me. The great unwashed out there are really watching crap.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (0)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46814925)

You mean you don't like Generic Superhero Movie 2?? I thought it was even better than the original!!

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#46814707)

If you think there is only one way to watch 'rented' movies, then you are really pretty stupid. Amazon Prime cost less and is far more useful as it includes more than just movies.

As for the spelling mistake ... you must lead a really sad life.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46814969)

Why would you want to rent awful 480p DVDs when you can stream 1080p? DVDs have been obsolete for years now. Your fellow citizens weren't stupid to stop going to video stores, they moved on. You were left behind, and now oddly call the more advanced people "stupid."

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46814559)

Then the investors are stupid, because their about to see another exodus due to an unpopular price hike ... and I'll be in the first wave myself.

Did you read anything past the title? You know, like the first sentence of the summary. The way I read it, only new customers will see the rate increase. So unless you aren't currently a customer you won't be affected.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46814617)

it's not supposed to be for recent releases. not at that price point

$8 - $10 a month you get an awesome deal on catalog content that's also on demand

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46814773)

No one is leaving Netflix over a fucking $2 price hike.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46814911)

You think? I'm not, but that's a $24/yr increase. Look at the shit Amazon took over a $20/yr hike on Prime.

Re:Repeat July 2011 (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46814987)

Some lunatics will. People lose their minds over trivial changes, and make bad decisions all the time.

Fine logic (3, Insightful)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 5 months ago | (#46814343)

Investors welcomed the announcement by Netflix, which had suffered from a consumer exodus and stock plunge after it announced an unpopular price increase in July 2011.

Well, the first price increase cost us customers so the stock plunged. What will make the stock soar? A price increase!

Re:Fine logic (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814561)

In other news, Netflix's accounting department has been outsourced to the MPAA.

Re:Fine logic (1)

dunezone (899268) | about 5 months ago | (#46814811)

Well, the first price increase cost us customers so the stock plunged. What will make the stock soar? A price increase!

The company has outgrown its current monthly fee. The only way for Netflix to continue growing and offer a better experience is to increase its monthly fee. Its one thing to bring in new members but they need to protect their retention rate. Netflix lately has been suffering from a quality issue where they lack new content and to a lot of us older members are starting to get annoyed by it. The good thing for Netflix is that a decent alternative doesn't exist yet but the bad thing is if the service starts to suffer and an alternative comes around people can easily jump ship.

Re:Fine logic (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#46815407)

The price plunged to around $90 (and lower) but has since played well above $400. The previous change was a dumb move but the low price was well undervalued (and I was lucky enough to take advantage of that). I think they've immunized themselves against such a fairly small increase causing them any problems this time.

More content! (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46814379)

I don't mind paying and extra buck or two, if you can improve the content. I'm getting a little tired of movies dropping out of my queue, not to mention multiples seasons of TV shows (some of my TV shows have went from having every season available to just a few in the last year). I'm glad you got House and Cards and all, but what you really need to focus on is your meat-and-potatoes movie and TV show content.

Re:More content! (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#46815417)

Hemlock Grove was not too bad an effort either. I think they're probably going the right way in producing their own content.

Wonder if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814381)

Come let us come let us come,
let us come let us come let.
Tus come let us come,
let us come!


 

Vote With Your Wallet (2)

semilemon (1024757) | about 5 months ago | (#46814425)

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your wallet, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?

Re:Vote With Your Wallet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814625)

I've watched one movie in a month.. so not much I guess. Netflix basically has been getting free money. Now I might just turn it off.

Vote With Your Weenur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814695)

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your weenur, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?
 

Re:fuck beta (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 5 months ago | (#46815069)

Well, last time Netflix raised prices that was followed immediately by a drastic (drastic!) reduction in shows available for streaming. So I don't think there is any good reason to connect higher prices with greater selection -- the evidence suggests the opposite correlation.

Verizon FiOS (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#46814431)

I'm a Verizon customer, and Netflix streaming has become less useful to me since the whole monopoly shakedown business happend.

I'm willing to pay a few dollars more per month to Netflix, if it returns streaming to its previous glory on Verizon.

Bonus points if they use the money to buy a law that makes being a Verizon executive a capital offense.

Re:Verizon FiOS (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 5 months ago | (#46814459)

I'd subscribe to Netflix if they could pull that off, and I'm not a Verizon customer.

Re:Verizon FiOS (1)

AnontheDestroyer (3500983) | about 5 months ago | (#46814721)

Fuck that. I'll pay Netflix for Netflix, the ISP should be providing the brandwidth that you're paying for to all sites. Would you pay more to Verizon if they ACTUALLY provided what they say they're giving you?

I'd pay more for Netflix just to see more content.

Re:Verizon FiOS (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 5 months ago | (#46815127)

It's just like how you might buy 110V AC current from the Power company, except that during heavy usage hours that drops to 55V and during peak it sometimes even drops below 20V, stutters or even stalls out for long periods of time.

Re:Verizon FiOS (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46815049)

Yes but that money should be charged directly to you by Verizon. They lied to you, claiming X speed, when they deliberately degraded it. They should be charged with fraud.

Where's the money going? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814467)

Netflix is cheap, don't get me wrong -- however, is it money needed for more content, or money needed to ward off extortion from Comcast? After all, it doesn't matter how much content you have if you can't deliver it to your audience.

Also, any chance of paying for what I want to watch at reasonable prices? The ultimate conclusion of "price hike for more content" is $80/mo so I can get Disney content for my kids and a whole swath of shows I don't care about -- hmm, sounds like current cable. Or is the whole "a la carte" thing a just a dream?

Reported Increased Profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814473)

Why not use those increased profits to provide better service and buy more movies and TV shows?

Oh right, those profits belong to our wealthy investors. So we have to stick it to the little guy to make them happy.

Re:Reported Increased Profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815243)

Why not use those increased profits to provide better service and buy more movies and TV shows?

Oh right, those profits belong to our wealthy investors. So we have to stick it to the little guy to make them happy.

[cracks the whip]

YOU MUST WORK HARDER...I want to retire while I am young so I can enjoy it!

Triple the price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814479)

And give me current stuff.

It's still better than cable . . . (0)

Jimbo God of Unix (221452) | about 5 months ago | (#46814497)

And if they actually follow through on improving their library, it will be worth a buck or two extra per month. I'll give them a few months to improve things. If they don't improve, then it will be time to look for alternatives.

Fuck Comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814509)

Maybe the citizens will revolt if the Comcast/TWC merger is approved. Then we can get our Country back.... nah.

FIFY (5, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 months ago | (#46814515)

"Video streaming service Netflix Inc said it intends to raise the monthly subscription price for new customers by $1 or $2 a month to help the company pay ransom to the ISP monopolies with stranglehold on the last mile of cable built by the rate payers over theyear on public rights of way, protected by the public utilities commissions, who wantonly flout truth-in-labeling laws by selling X Mbps service and balk at providing it.

FIFY

Re:FIFY (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46814813)

Netflix made their own bed. There are plenty of content providers that actually worked with the ISPs to reduce their load. Netflix intentionally did things to drive up their bandwidth usage. A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...) would have eliminated this problem years ago and the ISPs would have dropped it. But Netflix told the ISPs do go screw themselves and decided to just have all their customers hammer the ISPs at once. Google doesn't do this, Microsoft doesn't do it... No one but netflix acts like this. And this is just one of the things they did to screw the ISPs. They also switch network providers at random... again, anyone else in the industry has agreements with the ISPs to notify them and work with them so they can sign contracts with the appropriate network providers. But not netflix. The ISP may have a 10gig trunk with AT&T because they get 10gig of traffic from netflix via AT&T. But then on some random monday Netflix switches to Sprint (or whomever) and now the ISP has to scramble to get a 10gig trunk with sprint and are still stuck in their contract with AT&T. In the normal world the content provider would have notified the ISP well in advance so as not to inconvenience their users with poor performance. But not netflix.

Well now Netflix has to pay. I would really prefer net neutrality but this is definitely netflixes fault. The last mile of your internet connection is by far the most expensive part of the infrastructure. ISPs that aren't in city centers are losing money hand over fist because of netflix. I don't blame them at all.

Re:FIFY (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 5 months ago | (#46814881)

What Netflix does not matter. Comcast sold their customers 6 Mbps "unlimited download" service. They just have to provide it. Or label it right, like the way mobile companies do. For example, T-mbile says "unlimited data means unlimited data at 128 kbps, the first 2GB will be at 6 Mbps". Change the label or change the price. Just don't sell the customer "unlimited" service and then expect to be paid by content providers.

Re:FIFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814991)

Exactly. Especially when those segments were funded by grants from us, the taxpayers and consumers of said content. We've already paid twice for it, and Netflix paid to get it onto the internet, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon among others should all have their infrastructure pushed to common carrier, and then say that X percent of their earning in perpetuity go towards upgrading / maintaining those lines as new technologies come up.

No more milking a substandard service for everything they can before spending a pittance to incrementally upgrade a circuit with substandard equipment from a bigger city where it was retired because it was outdated.

Re:FIFY (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46814959)

. A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...) would have eliminated this problem years ago and the ISPs would have dropped it

[citation needed]

Everything I've read says the opposite: Netflix has ISP-level caches available, which would be even better for the ISPs' bandwidth numbers for every video where #views > 1 (local caching at the user end means it still gets downloaded per-user, just at offpeak times) and were shown the door when they offered it.

I posit that the actual problem is that there doesn't seem to be any legal concept of "conflict of interest" in the US anymore.

Re:FIFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815051)

A very simple change to their service: Allowing users to cache movies locally to be watched later (i.e. I want to watch my movie tonight so I set it up before I go to work...)

What we don't know is how that would have messed up their deals with the content owners. And Netflix does offer to provide free caching appliances to ISPs. (free hardware and remote management, but the ISP would need to provide the power, housing, network ports, and IP addresses)

Go for a walk... (0)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 5 months ago | (#46814555)

If you think Netflix is too expensive then get off the couch and go outside for a walk instead.

Re:Go for a walk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815003)

Well, aren't you Mr. Cool?

*cough*Comcast!*cough* (1)

doggo (34827) | about 5 months ago | (#46814581)

Well, they gotta pay for that deal with Comcast to stop throttling their streaming service somehow.

who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814585)

I wouldn't mind paying $20-$40 a month if they had more popular old and new tv shows and movies released at once but I think the increase has to do with paying verizon and comcast's double dipping schemes. What netflix would do is shift movies and tv shows from other regions to the u.s, it has nothing to do with licensing, netflix like so many other corporations always likes to screw the u.s consumer because they can. They can run netflix html5 on chrome and other linux devices but they can't run it on the linux desktop, bullshit, and i doubt it has to anything to do with the content owners. A corporation will always be a corporation fucking over the u.s consumer.

Actions speak louder than prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814591)

The previous price hike would have made more sense if they had announced it as "allowing more content for current subscribers" rather than "a latte or two difference".

As this has not historically been a priority, it will take time before I can decide that they will actually act in agreement with my interests. Namely, will they produce more "House of Cards"-like dramas, or will they actually branch out and find uniquely satisfying content that appeals to a broad set of tastes.

New Customers (1)

tsqr (808554) | about 5 months ago | (#46814601)

Many posters seem to have missed the part of the story that said the rate increase applies to new customers only. I suppose that some existing Netflix subscribers may quit as a result of this based on general principles or a feeling that existing subscribers will eventually feel the bite, but this is not the same sort of general price increase that caused people to drop the service in droves last time around. Personally, I don't much care either way; I like the service, and $2.00 a month is 'way below the noise floor.

Re:New Customers (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 5 months ago | (#46814767)

I wonder how many current customers will quit over this, then realize two months later it was only for new customers. And then have to sign back up at the higher rate.

Vote With Your Weenur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814639)

I don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Netflix talks about raising its prices by a couple of dollars per month. I've been a subscriber for several years, and even with the limited selection available in Canada, the lack of advertising and unlimited on demand nature makes it worth way more than the equivalent cost of a few days of cable/satellite.

Sometimes you have to vote with your weenur, even if that means overpaying a little bit for a product/service that you see the potential in and want to succeed. The content producers will follow the money (eventually). If you're not willing to pay an additional $24 per year, then how badly do you really want to see more content on Netflix?

testing the waters (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 5 months ago | (#46814647)

Wow! there's a surprising number of comments along the lines of: "eh, i'd pay a couple more bucks a month.." I expected a more negative response from this cynical audience. (even though, that's pretty much echoing my sentiments)

They aren't even saying they are going to raise the cost for existing subscribers, but now they know that we would probably just go ahead and pay it. I'm thinking this is mostly just to get a feel for what consumers would be willing to pay without freaking out.

Canadian Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814883)

Here in Canada, I don't think we get anywhere near as much content as the US. As an existing Netflix customer I'd pay an extra buck or two a month to get access to the US content.

Re:Canadian Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815321)

Here in Canada, I don't think we get anywhere near as much content as the US. As an existing Netflix customer I'd pay an extra buck or two a month to get access to the US content.

Sorry to say but that might not happen due to the insane way in which content providers license access to their product. We should have seen it coming with the introduction of "Region Coding" for DVDs.

In the world of the Internet it is even easier to employ/deploy "quasi-geographical barriers" for DRM....and even easier to find ways to...well, you know.

Investors ruin companies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46814935)

Investors only care about the quick buck, how to milk the shares before selling off to ruin / kill a company.

The stock market today is busted, period.

Big investors should shut the fuck up and let the company they believed in so much, to do things as they plan, rather than butting in and demanding they do stupid shit for a quick profit.

News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815005)

In other news, the price of some other product just went up 7%, and yet another product's price went up 12%. For techies, that's really important, because ... well, because ... um. You know.

Another Comcast fee. (1)

SebNukem (188921) | about 5 months ago | (#46815083)

Because you just can't give enough to Comcast.

Fine with me (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 5 months ago | (#46815303)

I regard journalists, even those at Fox News, as higher than actors and hollywood middle-men, like netflix.
At least journalists are trying to tell *real* stories, twisted or not.

The sooner they render themselves obsolete the better.

This is totally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46815337)

Because of your awful ISPs in the US demanding money from netflix because they refuse to upgrade their network, for which they were paid by the government to do, isn't it.

It's still a bargain (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 5 months ago | (#46815339)

I guess I'm grandfathered in at the current rate - for now. If the increase for new customers is not met with much resistance I suspect it will be rolled out to everyone at some point. But for me, it's worth the cost. When I flip on cable I don't see a whole lot worth watching. Outside of sports and maybe the evening news they don't have much to offer me.

With Netflix I can almost always find something good. I love that I can watch an entire TV series whenever I want without commercials. I can pause it if someone comes to the door or the phone rings. Sure, I can DVR shows from cable and watch them later but even then I have to skip over so many commercials it takes away from my enjoyment. It's not uncommon to see 5 or 6 commercials in a row. A typical 1 hour show might contain a little over 40 minutes of actual programming. Probably 25-33 % is advertising. That's a lot of wasted time.

So I'm going to stay with Netflix. The combination of quality programming with the flexibility and time savings add up to a winner to me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>