mauiman wrote:

"I mean...it's [Netflix Streaming] $8/month. I know people who spend more than that for coffee and a pastry at Starbucks every morning. Let's stop acting as if these price hikes are going to be sending us all to the poor house, shall we?"
But MY cost for streaming and ONE DVD almost doubled. It's like the frog in the boiling water. Double the cost of Netflix isn't going to drive anyone to the poorhouse, but tax increases, the De-valuation of your dollar, increased cost of gasoline, heating oil, garbage pick up, utilities, BANKING FEES, higher airline prices, etc probably will. And they are designed to do just that.

Recession is another word you could have used since it does send people to the poor house along with the other situations that you mentioned. (Reads: Pay cut, forced days off, etc) Then Netflix is a service that you can throttle unlike other living costs that you need to keep living/working.

But there is a systemic issue where people thinks they are entitled to all services for the same price through their up-bringing but it is similar to rural USA areas where they cannot "afford" dental services as they buy their daily, double dose of soda (will pay for the dental work). Well, you need to figure out what services you need instead of being hand-held throughout life and being entitled to everything.

I will keep politics/blame game out of this since it will get one-sided fast but I do work every day to bring Federal money into medical underserved areas.

I was quite shocked at the whole reaction and mass exodus of Netflix subscribers when the prices changed. When they told me they'd double my price for having that 1 DVD out at a time, the one DVD I never ever used, I just went to streaming-only and continued to use the service as I had been using it. Since then I've doubled my own monthly costs by subscribing to Hulu Plus as well, but that's one method of getting content that you may not find on Amazon's streaming that may have been on their DVDs. But I also get HD quality and a selection of other things Amazon might not have had on DVD OR streaming, so I'll live.

I'd argue that anyone for whom an extra 8 dollars a month (or loss of a single DVD a month) was a dramatic lifestyle, they probably shouldn't be using services that are costly for entertainment in the first place. When I didn't have the money for streaming services or cable, I stuck to network/over-the-air TV and painfully slow but doable dialup and YouTube. Even with the transition to digital you can still get over the air TV with the converter boxes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some snob who advocates anyone who can't afford something never being entertained and always working (I am definitely not the 1%), but you've got to learn where the cuts need to be made, and to learn not to blame the providers of the things you have to cut.

Just want to say NokNok is and will be awesome.Pooh on the negative people who want to control other people and start trouble.I still have Netflix but it mostly gets used with the grandkids now.The price increase was not the main problem,it was the piling on of the increase,thhe Quickster announcement,the loss of some content,increased outages,and the (mistaken) enforcement of 1 stream per household.Things have calmed down now that there is no more Quickster,streaming is 2 streams at least and the company acted like it cared if the customers were concerned.

But MY cost for streaming and ONE DVD almost doubled. It's like the frog in the boiling water. Double the cost of Netflix isn't going to drive anyone to the poorhouse, but tax increases, the De-valuation of your dollar, increased cost of gasoline, heating oil, garbage pick up, utilities, BANKING FEES, higher airline prices, etc probably will. And they are designed to do just that.

It did, and it didn't. I had Netflix before streaming - then they threw in streaming for free, then the changed their plans and my price doubled. The way I look at it is that everyone was getting streaming for free - and now they aren't.

Netflix is still a great deal - their wishy-washy ness appearance needs to be fixed - but I do believe they will grow stronger. And I always find unusual and interesting things on Netflix that I wouldn't have seen elsewhere. We watched a norwegian movie called "Troll Hunter" that was neat - now what is the likelihood we would have seen that at Amazon or Redbox? Big movies? That is what my DVD sub is for - old movies/tv series/eccletic films is what the streaming is for.

Between that and OTA, and hulu, we were able to cancel satellite and pocket $100 a month. Hulu needs more cable content to make it worth the price in my opinion (even if it is 4-6weeks delayed)... Netflix is doing that right now, adding old mythbusters, how it works, etc... which makes the catalog stronger for us cord cutters and more of a value.

Because I don't have cable and don't plan on getting it, Netflix is a super-value to me. I watch way more TV shows than I do movies. It's just much easier for me to find 22 or even 44 minutes at a time than it is 90 or 120 -- especially with a 4 year old. Because I don't have cable, I get to catch up with cable shows a season late (which is fine by me). Without paying for cable -- at $8/mo, I get to watch Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Pawn Stars, Battlestar Galactica, The Walking Dead, etc.

I had the 1 disc plan and dropped it because I usually sat on discs for weeks at a time. The price change just forced me to get rid of something I didn't really use anyway.

If there is a new release movie I REALLY want to see, I'll just rent it from Amazon.

Troll Hunter is on Amazon.

mommom wrote:

Troll Hunter is on Amazon.

Well, lots of things are repeated on Netflix and Amazon Prime, but you get what I am saying...

Well people can get their Hanes in a wad if they want.But Netflix streaming is still a heck of a better deal than the movie packages you get from cable.I think most will return in the future when they realize how good of a deal it is! JMHO!

overtimeman wrote:

Well people can get their Hanes in a wad if they want.But Netflix streaming is still a heck of a better deal than the movie packages you get from cable.I think most will return in the future when they realize how good of a deal it is! JMHO!

I don't think people are getting their underwear in a wad, I just think they are stating their opinion about the changes Netflix made and alternatives if they aren’t happy.

Mark12547 wrote:

However, only 2% of the Netflix disc titles are available in blu-ray.

Man, I must be getting 98% of that 2%. Almost every title currently in my queue(29 of 31) is available in blue-ray.

One thing the dustup did for me was make me research more options to go with my Netflix viewing.I even learned how to add URL's to Windows media center to open sites to watch movies and shows that were not an original part of the WMC lineup.Don't get me wrong,the grandkids could not survive without Netfix.But I could,because I am willing to work at it a bit.My DH would just get cable if I was not around to do it for him.For most people the ease of Netflix is a good reason to stick with it.It is certainly worth $8 per month.I was extremely irritated by the 1 stream thing that they did the first weekend in Sept.2 streams works fine with the grandkids here.Sometimes they watch Netflix on their DSI's while watching it on the tv at the same time! Really bad when 2 boys are watching the same show on 2 different DSI's .

In the future someone is going to have to push the envelope on what is ok to stream.I'm hopiing its Roku,due to the history of the CEO. I mean,why not allow streaming of OTA broadcast tv as long as the commercials are kept intact?

mommom wrote:

In the future someone is going to have to push the envelope on what is ok to stream.I'm hopiing its Roku,due to the history of the CEO. I mean,why not allow streaming of OTA broadcast tv as long as the commercials are kept intact?

Because broadcast stations don't own the copyright to the shows they air - they're just distributors. Even the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) generally don't own the rights - they're owned by the production companies usually, and often the networks have a share as well. Sometimes even individuals involved in the show have some of the rights. This is the same mechanism that makes getting streaming rights difficult, and why Netflix, partially owned by the networks whose shows are being aired, can't always get the rights to stream shows, or stream them to all devices.

It's not an "envelope-pushing" thing as much as it's a "illegal to distribute content you don't own" issue.

crassh76 wrote:

mikebdoss wrote:

mauiman wrote:

"I mean...it's [Netflix Streaming] $8/month. I know people who spend more than that for coffee and a pastry at Starbucks every morning. Let's stop acting as if these price hikes are going to be sending us all to the poor house, shall we?"
But MY cost for streaming and ONE DVD almost doubled. It's like the frog in the boiling water. Double the cost of Netflix isn't going to drive anyone to the poorhouse, but tax increases, the De-valuation of your dollar, increased cost of gasoline, heating oil, garbage pick up, utilities, BANKING FEES, higher airline prices, etc probably will. And they are designed to do just that.
Keep defending them though.

Netflix is an entertainment luxury. If you can't afford it (and can't afford the price increases), drop out or find another company doing it better/cheaper. It's not a utility or necessity.

Mike, I think he understands that. He did state that double the cost of Netflix isn't going to drive anyone to the poorhouse. I dropped Netflix all together. It's not that I can't afford it by any means. I live in a beautiful gated community in Florida so I'm not hurting. I feel Netflix lost it's value once the prices went up or when they split the cost for streaming and DVDs, however you would like to look at it. It has been about a month now and I don't miss it. There is PLENTY for me to watch on my Roku without it. I do have to admit that my H.O.A fees do include basic cable though so I am not a cord cutter. I do use a private channel that costs just under $2 more a month than Netflix does (and it is not the forbidden channel) and it offers so much more and current stuff for the money.

Of course I understand it. And I too can afford it. I live on Maui's south shore in a nearly million dollar home steps from the beach. That's not the point.
The point is as long as they nickle and dime you to death, folks seem to be OK with it. Add up all the taxes, licenses and fee's you pay on a yearly basis and you'd be surprised to find what a massive chunk of your income it is. Another $10.00 a month for Netflix won't kill most of us, but assume everything in your life went up $10.00/mo. Food has doubled on many items. paying $2.00 for a tomato vs $1.00 won't kill anyone either. But paying double for your entire food bill will kill millions. In this economy, it's a bad idea to jack up prices.

mauiman wrote:

The point is as long as they nickle and dime you to death, folks seem to be OK with it. Add up all the taxes, licenses and fee's you pay on a yearly basis and you'd be surprised to find what a massive chunk of your income it is. Another $10.00 a month for Netflix won't kill most of us, but assume everything in your life went up $10.00/mo. Food has doubled on many items. paying $2.00 for a tomato vs $1.00 won't kill anyone either. But paying double for your entire food bill will kill millions. In this economy, it's a bad idea to jack up prices.

prices generally go up when the fixed and variable costs associated with the production/performance of a service/good also rise. Businesses don't raise prices just for the fun of it. Unlike paying taxes, the cost of licenses/fees, etc. we consumers have the choice to not pay for luxurious things like Netflix if you object to their pricing, so if one feels "nickel and dimed to death", they really only have themselves to blame for it on that. Additionally, with all the things you compare the NF price hike to, it looks like you have many other things to be upset about that are actually *important* rather than the cost of a dvd by mail service, don't you?

"""Because broadcast stations don't own the copyright to the shows they air - they're just distributors. Even the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) generally don't own the rights - they're owned by the production companies usually, and often the networks have a share as well. Sometimes even individuals involved in the show have some of the rights. This is the same mechanism that makes getting streaming rights difficult, and why Netflix, partially owned by the networks whose shows are being aired, can't always get the rights to stream shows, or stream them to all devices.

It's not an "envelope-pushing" thing as much as it's a "illegal to distribute content you don't own" issue."""

I don't think I explained what I meant well,or you did not understand.First "Because broadcast stations don't own the copyright to the shows they air - they're just distributors"""" it's a "illegal to distribute content you don't own" issue.""" So the broadcast stations don't own the content,yet they get to broadcast it.Of course thats because they pay to do so,and in turn advertising dollars make it worthwhile for them to do so.I did not say that a device like Roku should develop a channel and stream content they do not own.Obviously Roku does not own anything that is streamed already,licensing allows the channels to do so.What I am hoping for is that someone will manage to navigate through the issues and develop a method of licensing the rights to stream the OTA content in the same way that local broadcasters get to do it.I am not advocating anything illegal.I just find it hard to believe that it will be impossible to ever find a legal way to do it.I hope that makes my point more clear,as it seemed you thought I was saying something I was not.Maybe some entertainment lawyer/entrepreneur will figure it out someday.