Print 86 comment(s) - last by PitViper007.. on Sep 16 at 3:31 PM

  (Source: Columbia Pictures)
Certain plans will no longer allow families (who share accounts) to watch more than one instant stream at the same time

Back in July, Netflix announced that it was changing its subscription plans and prices. Instead of a DVD rental-by-mail and video streaming bundle for $9.99 per month, the two were split up in their own plans for $7.99 per month each. To continue receiving both services, it costs $15.98. These changes went into effect September 1, 2011. Customers were anything but happy with this move.

Clearly, the past couple of months have been rocky for the movie/television subscription service heavyweight. Now, it's taking things a step further by making it so that there can 
only be one streaming video feed per account reports Stop the Cap

According to Netflix, certain plans will no longer allow families (who share accounts) to watch more than one instant stream at the same time. To do this, they'll have to sign up for an additional Unlimited streaming account for $7.99 per month or just increase the number of DVDs sent in their subscription plan. In other words, you should only watch the number of simultaneous streams as the number of DVDs in your plan.

"Some membership plans allow you to watch simultaneously on more than one personal computer or Netflix-ready device at the same time," says Netflix's Terms of Use. "If you are on the 1 disc out at-a-time plan [or stream-only plan], you may watch only one device at a time. If you are on the two discs out at-a-time plan, you may watch up to two devices at the same time. Members on the three disc plan can watch on up to three devices. The maximum is four devices simultaneously, and that is available for members on the four or greater discs out at-a-time plans."

A plan for two streams and two DVDs out at a time is $19.98, while three streams and three DVDs out at a time is $23.98 and four streams with four DVDs out at a time is $29.98.

Those who attempt to watch more streams than they're allowed based on their plan will now receive an error message. The days of the parents watching a movie/TV show downstairs while the kids watch a children's film upstairs on a different stream, and so on and so forth, are done --
unless you're willing to pay more. 

Netflix just offered to pay subscription channel Starz $300 million to renew its contract with the video streaming/DVD rental giant in February, but Starz has decided to hit the road once February 2012 comes around because it wanted a premium price for its content in addition to the monthly subscription fee (which meant raising prices for subscribers) and Netflix refused. 

Updated 9/7/2011 @ 2:47pm EST

Netflix is now reporting that users who have been unable to stream more than one video feed are experience a "system glitch" which the company is now working to resolve. The company contends that users with streaming-only accounts have access to up to two concurrent streams.


Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What about unlimited streaming only?
By FITCamaro on 9/7/2011 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
What is our restriction? Only one device at a time?

While I've never tried to stream on more than one device at a time, I can understand people who have. I'd be pretty pissed if I were them and "unlimited" streaming now meant only on one device at a time and I had to pay another $8 a month to get another device allowed. Now if it was add a dollar when on the unlimited streaming plan for each additional device that'd be reasonable.

Netflix you're potentially digging your own grave here though.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Raiders12 on 9/7/2011 10:06:30 AM , Rating: 3
It's no different than Cox, TimeWarner, Comcast, or DTV charging you additonal box or room charges.
It sucks because I do multiple streams, but what can you do? :(

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2011 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 5
Time to fire up good ol' uTorrent.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By EricMartello on 9/8/2011 4:38:40 AM , Rating: 4
Time to fire up good ol' uTorrent.

For me it was always uTorrent time. Better quality and huge selection, plus the satisfaction of knowing someone in the MPAA is getting pissed off that I downloaded a movie.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By disgusted@thieves on 9/9/2011 8:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
Don't want to pay for it? Might as well steal it then. What is wrong with you?

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By PitViper007 on 9/9/2011 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
He did.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By disgusted@thieves on 9/10/2011 9:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
He did what? Steal a movie from the sounds of it. And sounds like he is proud to be a lousy thief.

By PitViper007 on 9/16/2011 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 2

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By EricMartello on 9/9/2011 11:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sharing is not stealing, bro! The only thieves are the movie studios who refuse to offer a refund or even a free credit if the movie you paid to see was bad...which many of them are. Also, the prices are above what the market dictates they should be.

By disgusted@thieves on 9/10/2011 9:13:05 AM , Rating: 1
Actually it is stealing not sharing bro. If you don't like a movie don't go see another one by that studio / director / actor. If the price is more then then your market dictates, you don't get to see that movie.

To download it from a torrent is stealing. It is not sharing, it is stealing and if you do it you are a thief. Would you walk into a store with your laptop and make a copy of all their DVDs? Of course not, but you seem to think that doing it over the internet makes it magically sharing?

You can give any excuse you want, but it is plain and simple stealing, if you do it, you are nothing but a thief.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By quiksilvr on 9/7/2011 10:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Why isn't it unlimited streaming to one household under the same network?

By Raiders12 on 9/7/2011 10:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because you don't make more $$

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By BZDTemp on 9/7/2011 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe because streaming data costs money.

most likely there will be family offers or something like that but but the move seems fair.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By invidious on 9/7/2011 10:35:25 AM , Rating: 3
So does losing customers.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By MrBlastman on 9/7/2011 11:00:35 AM , Rating: 4
I've been wondering for quite some time when Netflix would wise up on this. It has seemed that there has been a huge disconnect between the fee and the ability to just "share" your account around to multiple people, allowing them all to watch simultaneously.

It costs money, as you point out. Also, if you consider that it isn't just one or two customers doing it, but many, it can quickly add up to big money. It can add up to even _bigger_ money if some of the IP holders charge per viewing.

To me, this seems logical. The price increase, I didn't really care for, but this--well, this should have been a part of their streaming arrangement since the start.

By woofersus on 9/7/2011 1:23:34 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, this is the real reason for the change. Not so much because of multiple family members in the house streaming simultaneously, but because with it being unlimited you can give your username and password out to anybody and they can use it for free. (or pay you a small fee - tell me that's not happening in college dorms)

I do think they should make it a limit of two concurrent and just leave it at that, though, rather than force you to upgrade to higher plans. I understand the benefit for Netflix in additional incentive to upgrade (mind you I don't think seeking profit by doing so is immoral in any way - customers can decide if it's worth it or not and vote with their dollars) but I think they might undermine the value of their streaming only plan, which they're kinda banking on with these recent changes.

By inperfectdarkness on 9/9/2011 10:50:41 PM , Rating: 1
in the past year, i've seen my plan go from unlimited streaming with 1 DVD at a time to NO DVD and an inability to watch on more than 1 device at a time.

oh, and my subscription cost has stayed THE EXACT SAME.

fuck you, netflix. fuck you starz. it's like watching blizzard "cut down on" hacks for diablo2. rather than actually dealing a death-blow to such "illegal" activities, the tactics actually SPUR them.

what's my takeaway here? it would appear that netflix, starz, and the MPAA in general would prefer to have me illegally download their products for my personal consumption--rather than deal with their labyrinthine, overpriced BS.

good thing for torrents and tor. only thing left that the MPAA can REALLY do to f**k the consumer is to slash bandwith caps in half & have the ISP's start tightning the screws on consumers.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By tastyratz on 9/7/2011 11:53:59 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree,
I think they should not allow streaming from more than 1 simultaneous i.p. address indicating you just share the account with a family member or friend. You should be able to watch more than 1 device at once in a household.
I agree they should as a company provision ways to protect multihome account shares, but this is different. Multiple streams cost them money and bandwidth, but their new pricing model will make room for new better competitors to take hold.

Double the price for a second stream? lock it by i.p. then charge another 1.95 and I will call that reasonable. Doubling up is NOT. Netflix is not inventively scaled.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By BZDTemp on 9/7/2011 4:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
IP addresses can be shared by much more than a household like say a dorm, an apartment building... so using IP address is not a good solution.

By tastyratz on 9/7/2011 4:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
yes multiple individuals using the same internet connection would have issues with restriction but the percentage one might encounter with that is likely negligible in comparison. In those instances someone with another account could be allowed to simultaneously stream on the same IP but not another. Restricting to active connections by IP would eliminate almost all sharing of account logins (against tos) which costs them active memberships. I was trying to come up with a more reasonable fair use alternative that covers them 90% of the time. How many people do you really know who share i.p.'s in the usa? (international is a different story)

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Brandon Hill on 9/7/2011 10:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
If you only have unlimited streaming (like we do currently), you'll have to pay more to get concurrent streaming. Either another $7.99 streaming account or one of the higher DVD plans.

We have a PS3 downstairs in the living room and a Wii upstairs in the bedroom solely for Netflix. So I can be downstairs watching a movie and my wife can be upstairs watching a TV show or something else.

That all changes now :(

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By MadMan007 on 9/7/2011 10:17:47 AM , Rating: 6
Yeah, you might have to spend time together!

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Brandon Hill on 9/7/2011 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 5
I'll be damned if I'm gonna watch Teen Mom or Hoarders :)

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By MrBlastman on 9/7/2011 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 3
My wife started watching Teen Mom a few months back. I watched about ten minutes of it, promptly said: "What is this crap?" and told her it was bad for her mind to even peruse it. She then figured out that if she had the show on, it repelled me from the room. Strangely, that lead to her discontinue watching the program.

By adrift02 on 9/7/2011 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, my fiance tells me to go away. I can't stop talking about how dumb the girls are in her shows. *shrug*

By FITCamaro on 9/7/2011 12:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
So be like "WOMAN! I ain't watchin no Teen Mom or Hoarders! Now make me a sam'ich"

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By MrWho on 9/7/2011 10:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
If this one doesn't deserver a 6, nothing does.

And Brandon should give it himself!

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Brandon Hill on 9/7/2011 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 4
I gotta admit, it was a good one... 6 it is :)

By MrWho on 9/7/2011 11:12:36 AM , Rating: 3
My hat is off to you. You're a good sport.

By semiconshawn on 9/7/2011 3:52:38 PM , Rating: 3

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Sazabi19 on 9/7/2011 10:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
Honeslty I always thought it was for 1 device at a time already. I used it for my free month and then they announced the price hike, I cancelled my service after that :)

By jeepga on 9/7/2011 12:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
The second price hike within a year was enough for me. I cancelled just before the new rate took effect. This essentially amounts to a third price hike.

At least cable companies are smart enough to trickle the price hikes in over time.

By FITCamaro on 9/7/2011 10:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said, another dollar for concurrent streaming wouldn't be bad. But essentially having to pay for another account? No. That's ridiculous.

Luckily it doesn't affect me yet. If it ever does, I might have to reevaluate my subscription.

By Hiawa23 on 9/7/2011 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
or you could watch something together or coordinate your time so can watch something after someone else does.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By gorehound on 9/7/11, Rating: -1
By MrBlastman on 9/7/2011 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. With those 18 years of experience you have, I'd consider working for Netflix or the like if I were you as a professional "reviewer" of movies on the site. I'm sure you've seen quite your fill over that tenure.

RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: What about unlimited streaming only?
By MrBlastman on 9/7/2011 12:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2011 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
oh man... reading that just made me kinda sad.

By Mortando on 9/7/2011 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
I so want to see streaming video end.I want to see people return to going into videostores.

I worked with llamas for 18 years. I so want to see automobile-driving end.I want to see people return to riding llamas.

By cjohnson2136 on 9/7/2011 12:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
How about instead of complaining about your video store job you get another job. Try a fast food place they are typically always hiring.

By Hiawa23 on 9/7/2011 12:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
I have been a member of Netflix since the beginning, & before the price increase I had the 2 out DVD/Bluray plan plus unlimited streamin, $17.99, this would increase to $23.99 this month, so I decided this month to cancel the streamin feature, as I barely watched it & any streamin movie I want I will just rent the Bluray or DVD copy. I had streamin setup on my TV, Xbox 360, PS3, & my daughter's Wii, & It was cool for me to be watching a movie in my gameroom & she could watch her movies in her room at the same time, but like I said, this month I decided to cancel streamin as I barely used it, & I tend to wacth more new releases than old stuff, plus didn't want to pay for it anymore, so this news doesn't affect me.

I hear the music now
By Dr of crap on 9/7/2011 10:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
This is the decline of Netflix.
They could have gotten even bigger, but this will cause them to loose even more customers.

I had been able to stream more then one movie, although my internet connection could make the stream stop once in awhile, it wasn't to bad.
Now I can't do that!
And I have to pay for discs and streaming!

So now that Blockbuster is gone, Netflix ups it pricing and I'm thinking they just might not survive if another company gets even lose to what Netfix offers!

Even though through the mail DVDs are convient, Redbox has whatever you need for less. So steaming is Netflix only hope and this will hit them hard.

RE: I hear the music now
By Raiders12 on 9/7/2011 10:20:43 AM , Rating: 4
How? People willingly still pay $100-200 a month for cable services. You're absolutely joking right?

RE: I hear the music now
By bupkus on 9/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: I hear the music now
By Spuke on 9/7/2011 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I don't live in the Hamptons.
Anecdotal for sure but I know tons of people that pay $100+ a month for cable/satellite. I don't but, anecdotally, I seem to be in the minority.

RE: I hear the music now
By MrBlastman on 9/7/2011 1:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have basic cable. I fail to see the point in paying 120+/month to sit in front of a box that offers zero interactivity.

I also know plenty of people living in Apartments or making very little money paying ludicrous prices for all the bells and whistles on their cable plan.

RE: I hear the music now
By Dr of crap on 9/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: I hear the music now
By Raiders12 on 9/7/2011 12:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying I know a bunch of wealthy folk, but basic cable cost about $30-40 a month nowadays. People who whine and gripe will have their HBO or Cinemax add-ons at ($12/mo ea),then the box rentals ($5-10), maybe throw DVR service in there ($10-15/mo). I do know people with those options and after tax it easily piles up to $75 on the low end.

Netflix, despite cost increases, will chug along just fine, unless their prices get near CableCo levels...

RE: I hear the music now
By Dr of crap on 9/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: I hear the music now
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2011 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 1
Their selection leaves a lot to be desired and after Starz leaves even less.

Yeah I'm really missing fresh titles like "The Karate Kid" and "Alice in Wonderland". /sarcasm

RE: I hear the music now
By Hiawa23 on 9/7/2011 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think my 2 out at a time DVD/Plus Bluray is $14.99/mo. I go through maybe 6 movies a week, so Redbox would cost me more, on top of that, much more hassle, plus I would have to figure wear & tear & gasoline for my car in it having to drive back & forth. Netflix is the cheaper alternative to my needs, but I could see how that might not be for some. I haven't seen TV series like True Blood in the Redboxes yet, so netflix works for now, & the movies come the next day, & the next one ships as soon as I drop em off at the post office so so far I haven't seen anything close to netflix for me in terms of value even with the increase.

Quality,Qualtity, Quality
By davidjcu on 9/7/2011 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
I would be willing to pay 25 and maybe more for 2 streams at a time, for a streaming library that wasn't garbage. People will pay for a quality product that has added convenience.

RE: Quality,Qualtity, Quality
By phatboye on 9/7/2011 11:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
That is the main problem that I see with this move. Netflix library isn't that great at all and with them losing that Starz contract I don't know WTF netflix is thinking by trying to limit usage. Honestly If their library of streaming movies where better I wouldn't mind paying the cost but until Netflix gets a better selection I don't see myself staying with this plan long.

RE: Quality,Qualtity, Quality
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2011 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
You people want it all! For the stupidly low monthly and the convenience of streaming, Netflix is a great deal. You can't always find everything you want to watch, sure. They aren't a video store. But you can always find something.

Netflix would LOVE to provide us with everything possible. The problem is the goddamn content providers want to bleed them for every penny. Look at Starz! $300+ million really wasn't enough? Come on.

By cjohnson2136 on 9/7/2011 12:45:39 PM , Rating: 3
As one person said above their July profit was 298 million. Starz wanted an entire month's worth of profits. If all the content providers wanted high prices Netflix would be a lot more expensive.

RE: Quality,Qualtity, Quality
By xSauronx on 9/7/2011 12:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think they *want* to limit usage, they just want enough money to pay whatever insanse licensing fees copyright holders are asking. Starz turned down 300 million dollars because netflix wouldnt offer a "premium" content tier for starz to get paid from.

Pay attention to what netflix is saying: content providers want an absurd amount of money, in order to provide the content netflix has to pay the money, in order to get the money to pay, they have to charge the users

it doesnt mean it doesnt suck, but netflix has had pretty good deals for a while now and its not part of their traditional business model to bend over customers and charge more and more for less and less.

/loved netflix
//less loving it, but dont blame them entirely for what is happening

its similar to amazon wanting cheap e books, but publishers refusing to let them price ebooks cheap:

netflix wanted cheap content, they said numerous times that streaming costs them far less than mailing DVDs, but producers/publishers/etc dont want cheap content available to people. the music industry has even had issues with this, why people keep complaining about companies that *want* to provide cheap content instead of the companies that *refuse* to let it happen is beyond me.

/find a way to vote with your wallet

RE: Quality,Qualtity, Quality
By FITCamaro on 9/7/2011 12:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
If they can start getting first run shows a day or two after it airs, I'd gladly pay $25/month.

No Big Deal
By ShammGod126 on 9/7/2011 10:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
I feel like this was to be expected and people are making a big stink about nothing. Netflix is a great product who is increasing their cost to the customer as their own operating costs increase; this is pretty basic business procedure. ISPs are hiking up costs for bandwidth heavy content providers (and Netflix is pretty high on that list) it's common sense that they'll pass some of these costs to the consumer. $9.99 a month for DVD and unlimited streaming was a deal that wasn't going to last forever and to be honest the new pricing scheme doesn't look that bad either.

RE: No Big Deal
By Reclaimer77 on 9/7/2011 10:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually if you're like me and only streamed and didn't use discs, the cost was like cut in half.

But yeah, just another silly little thing for people to make a big deal over nothing. Bla bla bla, everything should be free how dare Netflix bla bla

RE: No Big Deal
By invidious on 9/7/2011 10:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
Netflix was a great product who is increasing their cost to the customer as their own profits decrease ; this is pretty basic business procedure.

1. Service is getting less convinient
2. Monthly costs are increasing
3. Content library is not increasing as fast as it used to (and should be)
4. HD streaming quality is not increasing (even youtube has 1080p)
5. Major content distributors are jumping ship.
6. ISPs are rolling out capped data packages which is a stealth charge to Netflix.

RE: No Big Deal
By ShammGod126 on 9/7/2011 11:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
From their latest income statement their gross profits have increased from 208 million in September 2010 to 298 million in July 2011. Annually it has increased 36 percent from 2009 to 2010. They're making money and I'm sure they're confident from their market research that they won't lose too many customers with the subscription changes.
Netflix also defended the consumer in the deal with Starz. They offered 300 million annually for Starz content and actually walked away when Starz countered with larger tiered pricing plan for their content. If Netflix agreed it would have been additional costs on top of their own subscription fee for Disney and Sony movies.
I also think HD will become more available once the streaming cap is in place. Their networks won’t be clogged by multiple streams per user so they can focus on the quality of picture. These changes will probably not influence the general consumer too much; but it won’t stop people from complaining on the internet.

RE: No Big Deal
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2011 8:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Two of your points are wrong or irrelevant.

How is Netflix getting less convenient? It's available through more devices than ever? It's still way cheaper than renting movies from the store even with streaming + DVDs assuming you rent more than 3-4 movies a month.

Also I'd rather have a quality 720p than a crappy 1080p stream.

By SigmundEXactos on 9/7/2011 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 5
Example of actual journalism:

1. It was always their policy, now they are enforcing it
2. If you have a streaming only plan, you can stream 2 shows simultaneously.
3. If you have a DVD plan, it streams that # of DVDs + 1.
4. It seems (possibly an error?) to only apply to movie streams.

By nocturne_81 on 9/7/2011 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
It still doesn't make sense... First, it seemed that with a 1 DVD plan (or any dvd plan) you would get no streaming. Is this stating that a streaming plan gets two streams for $8; while for the same price you have the option of 1 DVD and 1 stream..? If that's the case, I don't see what any customers have to complain about..

Though, looking at their site... I see no more mention of any DVD plans.. It seems it's no longer either/or (no dvd only plan) -- pay $7.99 for 2 streams, pay another $7.99 to add on 1 DVD and another stream, etc. It really doesn't make much sense from either the customer's or netflix's perspective...

Never saw it coming...
By Raiders12 on 9/7/2011 10:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
A service starts up that everyone becomes ecstatic with, it provides most of what you want for an affordable price, and then it becomes the most popular service for consumers. Then with popularity comes $$$$ making opportunities. Fox, Sony, Starz, ABC, or whoever are seeing Netflix as the cash cow that it is, and will pass the costs through contract renewals. Netflix passes this on in new cost plans, that shock consumers and raises prices. Netflix is just doing what every company ends up doing, no matter how "good" or "bad" you see them as a company. It sucks, but unless you cancel, then pay.

RE: Never saw it coming...
By AssBall on 9/7/2011 12:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that the news surprises me all that much. I don't have to like it though, do I? Of course I'm going to whine about it.

RE: Never saw it coming...
By jeepga on 9/7/2011 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the point of your post. No one is saying what they're doing is illegal or immoral. But customers are rightfully upset. They have the decision whether to stay and pony up the extra money or cancel, but that doesn't mean they can't let their voices be heard either.

As far as I've heard, the contracts for the content providers haven't come up. Starz is due in February and is the only one I've heard about being an issue. So Netflix is getting ahead of the ball by raising prices now. That increases revenue per subscriber, but also reduces the number of subscribers. That in the end may be their goal as it could provide a point for negotiation with content providers. I suspect that it's going to cut a lot of the light to moderate users of the service though which in the end are more profitable for them.

What about watching on small screens?
By bupkus on 9/7/2011 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
So peeps are charged per device, but if my device is a smart phone or tablet with a small screen and lower resolution should I be charged less for less bandwidth cost to Netflix? Couldn't NF transmit more titles per server for low res as opposed to higher resolutions?

NF charges a premium if you want a BR disk instead of a DVD, so shouldn't I both be charged by resolution levels as well?
And shouldn't I have the choice to download the res I can best afford?

By Dr of crap on 9/7/2011 12:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yea of little tech knowledge.
Just because you get it on your smart phone doesn't mean you use LESS bandwidth just because it's a smaller screen!

Any screen size uses the same bandwidth.

I like the different charges for resolution levels though. That would be reasonable. But not if it's another $8 like the multiple screen charge is!

Netflix denis
By Nakecat on 9/7/2011 1:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Netflix denis
By wellurm on 9/7/2011 2:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix has clarified and said that all accounts can support at least two concurrent streams. The users who saw/heard that they could only have one stream were experiencing an error which Netflix is fixing.

Might NOT be TRUE!
By Migraine on 9/7/2011 3:45:42 PM , Rating: 4
I just called Netflix and asked em if they where doing this. they said NO! where did you hear that?

I just told em the news...

But I was assured that they are not going to charge extra for more than one stream in the same place, now I don't know if there is a way for em to tell if say your girl friend across town is using your account.

And if so I could see em stopping that.

But unless NETFLIX is just right out lying ... you might want to recheck your source on this.

By p05esto on 9/7/2011 12:59:15 PM , Rating: 1
Glad I cancelled last month. In my family of 5 we easily had 3-4 different TVs/computers all streaming at the same time. We have like 6 TVs, 4 computers, tablets, etc and everyone is always on some device either online, playing games or watching/streaming movies (except when it's nice outside of course, then no TV allowed is our rule).

Anyway, Netflix is certainly not a company I'd want to have stock in...jump ship boys, this ship is sinking fast! Unfortunately torrenting movies is now the only logical and simply way to allow everyone in the family to watch movies almost instantly and all at once. Good job movie industry on screwing yourselves yet again!

RE: crap
By disgusted@thieves on 9/10/2011 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
How is the movie industry screwing itself by you being a thief and stealing their product?

Glad I dumped them!
By wannabemedontu on 9/7/2011 12:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
This is precisely why I dumped them last night before the new charges went into effect for me today. Hulu+ better not pull this crap.

An update -
By Dr of crap on 9/7/2011 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix has confirmed that the streaming-only plan allows for up to two streams, but no more, and all customers can access as many streams as they are allowed DVDs, plus one.

So it's better if this is true.

They will lose a lot of customers
By Dug on 9/7/2011 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
I unfortunately will drop their service.
I have 3 kids and bought 4 Apple TV's for the house specifically for Netflix.

But I'm not paying for 4 subscriptions. We don't use it that much, just a few times a week so it doesn't make sense.

I don't see the big deal...
By nocturne_81 on 9/7/2011 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, the fees don't seem all that unreasonable when compared to the $15-30 premium channels like HBO and Showtime cost each month; or any other comparable service such as vudu, blockbuster, or the equivalent on demand services provided by your set top box (which range $4-10.. per rental). I'm sure this new restriction is merely due to a high volume of customers switching to the streaming-only plan and foregoing the mail service entirely (a service which I'm sure they have plans on discontinuing), so they desperately tried to think of some way to use their warehouses full of dvds; though I think an extra $2-3 per additional stream is much more reasonable for both sides (considering that most don't always use two streams simultaneously, but perhaps less than 15-25% of the time).

You have to keep in mind what an incredibly immense business media is.. I'm sure most people here spend much in excess of $100 per month on media consumption (cable/satellite plans, theaters, shows, subscriptions, music -- even the respective portions of bandwidth used for media in your internet/data plans). As the net continues to change the business, you certainly have to be ready to shell out for multiple services as no single one will ever be able to license everything you want to watch. It costs millions to license even one mildly successful movie/show, though typically you have to take a dozen shows/movies you don't want (and have to market/provide for) in order to get the one you do (if not the entirety of the media company's catalog). Exclusivity is now something that fetches a price far in excess of what the actual content is worth, something which will surely drive the auction of Hulu to up around $4B. The simple fact that Netflix has to negotiate a different deal with every single media provider (many with restrictions, like warner's 4 week waiting period) should put your concerns over their selection in perspective -- they certainly do just as well or better than most competitors.

I find it amusing that there were so many gripes about the changes in fees months back, though the majority of users would likely be saving money as they tend to use one side of the service exclusively. This new limitation, though reasonable (in theory, not practice), is actually something worth getting upset about.

Comparisons to Cable/Sat/Pay
By stm1185 on 9/7/2011 3:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
When you think about it as 1 account per household it seems like Netflix is further screwing over their customers with only 1 stream per that account. Yet I am also a HBO subscriber and their HBO GO site limits it to 1 stream at a time, and unlike Netflix you can't really get multiple HBO subscriptions in 1 house where you typically only get 1 cable/satellite hook up.

So for Netflix I don't see it being that big of a deal after having already learned to work around it with HBO. I think this should also hopefully put in end to those stupid laws some areas coming up with to make it illegal to give out your netflix account info. Now that it's capped what would be the point.

Isn't this in effect already??
By loganSLC on 9/7/2011 4:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
I know when I am on my Xbox 360 trying to watch a show, and earlier I may have been on my desktop or laptop.

I get an error from streaming window that there is one or more device already connected/streaming.

Doesn't that constitute what this 'new change' is?

How to
By icanhascpu on 9/7/2011 11:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
destroy your company 101

I'll be canceling anyway
By tayb on 9/8/2011 9:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'll be canceling my Netflix subscription anyway but not because of this. From what I've read the $7.99 streaming allows TWO concurrent streams and if you want more you have to pay more. To me that is fair.

What I won't do is continue paying $8/month once Stars is no longer streaming... unless they replace Stars with another company.

Netflix was either woefully undercharging customers for years or have a serious case of greed. The business moves they've been making the past 12 months belong in the "business suicide" category.

Why would I pay $8/month for 1 DVD out at a time? It takes a day (or more) to be sent back, a day (or more) to get a new movie, and a day to actually watch the movie. We're talking 3 day turnaround for each movie on an absolute best case scenario and a 5 day turnaround on average. I couldn't possibly get and watch more than 5-6 movies a month and if that is the case I would just assume pay $0.99 each time and get it from Red Box.

By Arsynic on 9/8/2011 10:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
They seem to be looking for new ways to screw their customers.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki