« DVD Shipments Dropped 44% in 2010 | Main | Netflix Quietly Adds Subtitles in Latest iOS Update »


Leon Villanueva

watch out isp providers.... blockbuster messed around with the creator and mastermind of netflix.... will he go into a unlimited internet model while everyone else would be stuck in a 1$ giggabyte plan dying to sign up for netflix high speed internet access!? !??? lol netflix member since 2001/~!

Todd Ostermeier

Bah, "unlimited up to a cap". Let's drop that last part and just have unlimited again. Or seriously increase the cap. Comcast's 250GB cap has not moved in almost 3 years (it'll have been officially in place for 3 years this fall) while available speed offerings have more than doubled (you can get 100Mbps service in a number of areas now, 50Mbps almost everywhere Comcast provides service; 3 years ago you were lucky to have 30Mbps available).

Netflix member on and off since 1999, though my current account has only been around since ~2007.


I agree with Netflix on this matter. I'm not sure I agree with "unlimited up to a cap" though. I would like to know what that cap is and and what cost before I decide.

Robert Emmerich

and will do what we can to promote the unlimited-up-to-a-large-cap model.

Jumbos shrimp, army intelligence, a little pregnant...


So NF is complaining that ISPs are raising their prices? Who do I complain to the next time NF raises it's prices?

Oh, and technically it isn't a cap - I really wish people would stop calling it that - a cap implies you can't go over it, in these cases you can go over it but then you just pay more, so their isn't a cap, there are only levels of service. Once people stop talking caps and start talking levels of service then we can force ISPs to only charge us for what we use - I know for NF customers that will be a lot, but there are still plenty of people only using email and browsing the web who I'm sure are using nowhere near 250gig but are still paying for 250gig. If 10gig cost $10 then many people in this country should probably be paying $10 per month for internet access.


What they're saying is clear. That's what matters.

To me the big point is what ISPs are planning to charge per GB. If incremental costs per GB are under a penny (and dropping), and ISPs add a reasonable 20% margin, then they should charge around $1 for each 100 GB. $10 for 50 GB - 20 times what it should cost (to use AT&T as an example) - is ludicrous .

If ISPs were willing to be fair I doubt many people would take issue.


Netflix knows that the writings on the wall just like with Canada. These bandwith caps are going to be comming fast and hard and they are directed at Netflix.

Edward R Murrow

Yeah, I want to drive on the roads and not pay any tax. I want others to build out the transportation infrastructure and allow me to freeload. It's called the parasite business model.


You can be real thick sometimes, Pud.

No one is advocating driving on the roads for free. Further, that analogy is shit, and you know it. City/county/state infrastructure is paid for on a sliding scale basis - the more money you make, the more stuff you buy, the more expensive your house, the more in taxes you pay - nowhere in the bargain struck between a taxed citizenry and the taxing government does there exist a "metered usage" clause. The agreement is that we, the taxed, will continue to earn a wage, shop and endure home ownership, and the government can take a percentage rake off of all three of the above, and in return they build us roads that we can use for free, in nearly whatever way we see fit, as much as we see fit, for as long as we see fit.

On occasion that agreement is altered and roads, which are viewed as a necessity by the self-interested populace but of which demand has not yet reached a critical mass sufficient to warrant building, are built and tolled. It is the only way to ensure that some avenues of transport are built. Other times, unnecessary toll roads are built out of a need for a corporate profit. For the most part, though? Taxes. We pay them. They use them. They build the road. We use them. However much we want, whenever we want.

So, thusly, your analogy is shit. You know that, of course, but that's never stopped you from making one of your quarterly quintessentially business ignorant non-points.

Here's what I, and everyone else, wants: access to world class internet at a price that guarantees the corporation a solid future with enough profit to see that the world class internet that they provide us with stays world class. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bandwidth costs between $0.005-$0.02 a gigabyte in the United States. That is between a half a penny and two pennies, depending. That is the full cost of transport, from the brick and mortar infrastructure to the cost of the peering agreements and everything inbetween. That includes the multi-billion dollar rollouts of FiOS and the maintenance of antiquated copper lines. It even includes a profit. Nice, huh?

So, knowing that cost, and using the worst case estimate (two pennies a gig), my $45/month AT&T bill would require me to use 2.2 terabytes of data in one month just for AT&T to lose profit and merely just break even. AT&T state that 98% of their U-Verse customers stay under a 250gb/month cap, which means that 98% of their 2,000,000 (circa 2009) subscribers pays AT&T anywhere between $15 and $60 a month in pure profit. I imagine the profit margin for much slower DSL is even better.

Though AT&T do not release statistics of the overage amount of that 2%, let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say that that 2%, which equates to 40,000 customers, saturate all of their bandwidth every month. For one of the faster plans - 12mbps - that equates to 37 terabytes (times $0.01/gb, as you can damn well guarantee that with that amount of data usage AT&T would negotiate the best possible rates for themselves) of transfer a month, which means each of those 40,000 customers costs AT&T $378 - $45 bill = -$333 a month * 40,000 = total net less of nearly $14,000,000 a month. That's a shitfuckton of money, I admit, but using even a conservative estimate of all of their other customers (1,960,000) only being worth $15 a month in profit still yields $30,000,000 in profit which, when taking in the $14,000,000 loss the "freeloaders" incur, still yields a net profit of $16,000,000.

$16,000,000. In profit. After ALL costs and losses are factored in. A month. Worst case scenario in losses, middle of the road estimate in profit.

If they want to be treated like a utility, that means being regulated, which is the one part of metered billing they don't find acceptable.

If you accept that they are analogous to the taxed citizen / taxing government relationship, which they are so fucking not, then you would have to accept the fact that, as with any government, they are being run inefficiently and not for profit and instead for the greater good. They would still make money hand over fist, just not as much of it, and even that would be a step above how governments operate now.

So what, exactly, is your argument? You don't have one, because you're full of shit, just like AT&T. The only entity practicing the parasite business model in this entire situation is AT&T.

Eat it, Boss Hogg.


Edward R Murrow

My attention span is too short to read that marathon of a post. I'm sure you make some wonderful points. But your language is not very nice. I think that whoever runs this blog will need to post one of those warnings to make sure that whoever enters is 18 or over.


@ Edward R Murrow:

BP did make some interesting points but, as you said, his language leaves a lot to be desired.

It's as if he is giving Mike K. the finger and telling him he (BP) is going to do whatever the heck he wants and to heck with what Mike K. wants.


You certainly enjoy finding motivations that aren't there, Tester. My internal machinations are no more complex than that being how I write, how I have always written and how I always will.

You have this problem on Hacking Netflix a lot. Searching by both "Tester" and "Bogarts_Falcon" reveals your combative attitude towards other members and a fairly large persecution complex. Welcome to the internet, kid. Deal with it.

I couldn't give a shit less about what you or Pud (WHO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, ONCE AGAIN, RAN A FAMOUS WEBSITE CALLED "FUCKED COMPANY") think about my writing or the words I choose to use. As far as I am concerned, if you're full of shit, I'm going to say you're full of shit. There's no sense in dressing up chicken shit and calling it chicken salad just to appease your fashionably delicate sensibilities.

If Mike dislikes it, so be it, I am sure he'll say. He's got my e-mail address, and my url. If he doesn't want to address the topic with me and decides to outright ban me, so be it, his prerogative. If you think for one second that my calling bullshit when I see bullshit is in any way worse than said bullshit then you have some fairly damaged reality perceptors that you should take in to Tyrell for maintenance.



BP, the biggest difference between you and I is that you need to always start the name calling. You think you're always right and if anyone disagrees with you then you make personal attacks on them.

I have made personal attacks on some others here but the attacks have not been started by me. In some of the cases the other person and myself have ironed out our differences and gone on from there.

I would appreciate you answering just one question. Since Mike has said he doesn't like the personal attacks and the cursing why do you continue to defy him?


You two are both a joke!!!


BP108, I'm going to take the high road for now and not tell you what you are.


Guy, knock it off.

- Mike / HackingNetflix


Mike; I'm not going to take too much more of BP108's BS!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites