Ok, WI = watch instantly makes more sense.

I don't have any of the devices you listed above and had to Google half of them because I didn't know what they were. I'm behind the times on TV setups because I watch all of my movies on my computer and have no interest in watching any TV series.

Regulating your PC outputting to your TV is pretty much impossible without an outside party taking the initiative (Microsoft in this case with Silverlight) and it probably wouldn't take long for people to figure out a way to bypass it.

My cable provider offers various on demand movie packages for $4.95 a month (Starz play being one of them). I think we can both agree that the markup on this is higher than it would be on Netflix since the cable provider has a lot more to deal with.

Why should the users pay more if someone else figured out a more efficient way to provide the content? It's still a "boohoo, I'm making less than I used to/want to" story from TW.

Not too long ago something like this actually happened.

My cable provider (cablevision) dropped Fox and UPN for a bit because those stations demanded more money for their service. My provider said no so the service was dropped. About a week or so later they were back on and the cost to us did not go up.

I'm guessing Fox and UPN both realized they were being dbags and finally agreed that x profit is > no profit.

The same can be said here. You really think Starz play or any other content provider is going to turn down potential profit from Netflix because TW is forced to pay more due to a more inefficient setup and higher costs?

It's not Starz's fault that TW has more overhead than Netflix. The only thing we have to worry about is all broadband services banning access to Netflix.

This guy has the best gif avatar ever hahahah

The Riches

I stumbled onto the pilot (had never even heard of the show) and watched it last night. Pretty damn good. Anyone know if the rest of the series is as good as the pilot?

Knowing the details of this particular negotiation, your guess would be incorrect.

And to clarify - the content owners were demanding more money for their content - not to get into crazy detail on it - but basically, before this negotiation, the Fox Network/Studios got $0 from Cablevision to distribute FOX programming on the FOX Network. So I hardly think it's fair to call FOX "douchebags". Especially when Cablevision was charging the consumer on average something like $1/sub/month for FOX Network - think it's only fair FOX get some of that money.

And your Cablevision bill will go up. I'm fairly sure Dolan said publicly that if retrans fees to stations (new payments for Cablevision) continue to happen, they will pass the cost on to the consumer (Time Warner Cable has definitely said this).

I think you are very confused here - I tried to make it clear above. I'm not sure what you're sayign to be honest.

So Bewkes is talking from 2 POV - the first is as a distributor (in direct competition with Netflix) - the second is as a producer of content that earns license fees by making deals with distributors.

Starz is one of many content producers/providers that will force Netflix to pay more money for their content. Therefore, since every content producer will ask for more money from Netflix, it only stands to reason that Netflix's cost structure will go up, and that your consumer prices will go up. That is the only point I'm making w/r/t Netflix's business model.

You don't have to worry about this. Google "net neutrality". The ISPs may make it more difficult for Netflix to be distributed on their pipes by charging them more than a comparable service, but they will never be able to unilaterally block Netflix from doing business.

-Al

Can they legally block Netflix? I am sure that goes against some comsumer and internet and business codes

The prophet or Un prophete, is on instant watch and is amazing.

Wesr - no way dude, they can not legally block Netflix at all. And in all likelihood no ISP will ever be able to block Netflix.

To Shoelaces' point - if TW (as an ISP) had their way - they would block competing online video services like Netflix with the goal of advancing their own online video service. But they can't. Because the FCC which regulates the media industry wouldn't allow for it (media is one of the most regulated industries in the country).

That's generally speaking though - net neutrality and the "devils in the details" rule book is still being developed.

-Al

I don't think I'm confused here...

TW and Netflix are both distributors. Both services get content from other sources.

The only difference is TW also creates HBO content (right?). TW is still paying Starz and other content creators for their media just like Netflix is too. You could say cablevision is in direct competition with Netflix too.

There's really nothing to be confused about.

If Starz leases their content for 25 cents/m but Netflix determined an optimal profit/user happy level is charging 50 cents/m but TW cannot obtain that same profit/happy level without charging $1/m then what does this have to do with Starz?

Starz is profiting the same amount for both companies.

If Netflix can offer a better product due to less overhead then they have every right to be more successful.

As for the cablevision thing, I'm only going by what they posted on the Fox/UPN channels during the outage. I didn't investigate it fully because it's not my job (and personally I didn't care). Of course CV is going to make them sound like the bad guys.

Netflix should offer their own internet service. Get free watch instantly when you get their internet

Net neutrality doesn't protect against indirect threats AFAIK.

OOL has been nice enough to not cap our bandwidth yet but I know other ISPs have some form of monthly bandwidth cap put into place and the price when going over the cap is quite expensive.

All it takes is for them to cap your monthly usage and your Netflix days are going to be buried. You'll purposely not watch movies (having an inferior product) because you will be afraid of going over your monthly cap. Meanwhile if you decided to get the service from your cable provider (for more cost than Netflix) you won't have to worry about the cap because it's part of your cable TV package.

The customer loses in both cases and has to pay more for an inferior service.

Atleast the ISP's dont have a monopoly. If they start capping usage other companies will come along and won't cap.

Shoe Lace - cool, we are on the same page. There is a little more to this (mainly that Netflix offers a different service than Cablevision, obviously because you don't get live programming notably no sports on Netflix), but your overall point definitely stands.

BTW to give you an example (to your point) of how late to the game Time Warner and its peers have been: Comcast is debuting a combo set top box / Internet streaming box relatively soon.

Considering Netflix has been in the game, creating partnerships with boxes to deliver Internet streaming to your TV for years now - it's really weak that the cable guys (who are of course also ISPs, so are already piping Internet into your home) are only getting in the streaming content game now.

-Al

[ ] Understands how the internerwebs work.

Absolutely (and a point I alluded to above w/r/t increased costs for Netflix users).

And this is a good post to refer to the differences between the distributors and the content producers.

Content producers like net neutrality because it allows for more competition among distributors - more people competitively bidding for their TV content, the better to keep market rates up.

Obviously the incumbent multi-channel distributors (Time Warner etc) view Netflix and other online only distributors as a huge threat because they can theoretically afford to pay content producers the same rate Time warner does, but also underprice Time Warner on the consumer side while still making the same or more profit, because Netflix has much lower fixed costs.

-Al

I am totally on board with this d00d.

BTW - probably a good place to put this - but today it was announced that most likely, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC will pass Net Neutrality rules for the first time:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-f...et-neutrality/

So there you go. Pretty broad with some obvious loopholes (and I'm sure there will be many, many court cases around these guidelines in the future): but a start.

-Al

How do I not understand how the internet works? Any company with enough money can create an ISP.

Do you realize how much money and time is required to "create an ISP"?

It took my cable provider 6 years to get broadband access to my town while they had broadband enabled 15 minutes away and I live in NY.

There's physical wires running from their offices to your curb.

It doesn't take months or years to fully wire up a nation. It takes generations. Personally I think it could be sped up a lot but so far there is no real reason to rush.

Wireless internet is still a joke and way too undependable for 100% main stream usage.

I actually loved this show when it was on. It's worth it to watch the whole series although it's kind of disappointing that season 2 ends in a cliffhanger.

lol I had exactly this in mind. Amazing segment.

I watched episode one and didn't dislike it but felt no need to continue with it. I think it felt like it would have to become too far fetched to seem like something that is possible in real life. I'm kind of a stickler about that.

Please let me know if they somehow covered my fears in a reasonable manner

It's not a show that is designed to be realistic (The Wire). It's designed to shock you a little bit and to show crazy American Gypsies getting into and out of uncomfortable situations (The Shield). It obviously wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I enjoyed Eddie Izzard's performance as the patriarch of the family.

As an aside I watched the Tosh review of Human Centipede and now feel I have watched Human Centipede.

I'm assuming you're talking about The Riches. That show didn't really do it for me. My gf blasted through the 2 seasons. It's not a bad show, but it didn't really pique my interest. Some people I've talked to really enjoyed it but it wasn't for me.

I watched a little over half of Cocaine Cowboys and that was really interesting. I know it's been mentioned but I thought I'd +1 it. Also watched the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. Not very interesting overall as far as content, but an interesting insight into a world most don't see.

One last documentary I want to mention is the episode of the PBS series Independent Lens called Origami: Between the Folds. If you are like me you might have seen this on the schedule for your local PBS station this past fall and thought "WTF could be interesting enough about folding paper napkins at crappy Chinese restaurants in to Swans to fill an hour?"

Well thanks to the other great documentaries I have checked out recently and the fact that I have enjoyed most of the Independent Lens episode's I've seen I deciided to give this one a shot.

I have never been more drawn into or amazed by an activity I had no interest in [previously by a film.

At 1st I was just amazed by the detail some of the artists were able to create by folding just a single sheet of paper, So much so I took a few screen cap pics from the film with this post in mind, then I was impressed with the depth of thought that has to go into creating a figure which needs several hundred folds to be done perfectly, any one of which can destroy an otherwise perfect creation if one mistake is made.

Ok I feel like it is getting to the point where it will take you guys more time to read this than watch the film. So I will just STFU and hope you like it as much as I did.