« Price Increase: Change Your Netflix Plan Before Your "Next Billing Date" | Main | Netflix New Releases for September 6th, 2011 »


Julian Dunn


It seems like Netflix has been taking a lot of steps backward this year.

Starz, Criterion, etc.

Maybe Netflix should focus on TV series, foreign films, and classic films.

Is there any reason why netflix shouldn't be streaming the entire catalogs of Kurosawa, Godard, Truffaut, Hitchcock, Fellini, etc?

Also cult shows like Spaced, Pete & Pete.


Is it me or is Starz content often in lower-clarity than most other streaming content? I have a new, good LED TV but I just can't watch eye candy movies like "Toy Story 3" or "Tangled" in streaming. I need the disc.

Noor Almtowaq

so that means hulu plus is getting better if they can stream new titles from 2000-2009 hot titles and about 200 new titles from 2010 to 2011.

NETFLIX hates us so much. we are paying more money netflix. If u hate us so much then go away.
we love u since 2007 first day of streaming to now.

1. shipping takes 3 nights to get your house
2. Starz is leaving
3. Reruns of old tv series
4. 100 percent of gays movies
5. more crap movies

Noor Almtowaq

If i was netflix for one day "how to make better deals" i will remove everything but i still have those deals.

1. i will buy 5 movies and 5shows from each year 1980 to 1999 hot titles
just like walmart 99 cents to 5.99 dvd so these titles will be remove from dvd area and stay streaming.

2. buy tv movies like i want a mom for christmas which cant be found or doug first movie

3. if a movie is hard to mail then make it stream

read more on my blog http://netlixme.tumblr.com/


Well, considering the price hike and the dwindling selection of quality streaming... I have cut back my netflix just to streaming and dropped the 1 dvd plan. Even up to the last minute the movies I wanted (2011) releases were "very long waits."

Frankly Netflix, you are no longer the game in town. We have alot of alternatives now.


I never really used Starz due to the picture quality like the other poster said. But Netflix is really becoming a waste, the DVD plan is too expensive for how many movies I watch a month, so I'll have to use Redbox for that, and their streaming catalog really isn't anything impressive. I just canceled my account yesterday before my next billing cycle on the 4th.


1. Shipping takes two days to get to my house, one day to get back to Netflix (I think it starts when USPS scans it.)
3. I like those "reruns" of old TV series. For example, Family Ties (which includes the last two seasons not on DVD). Most of us before last decade hardly saw syndicated shows in order and didn't really care.
4 and 5: Depends what you like, and apparently a great deal of people just want new and or popular movies their equally tasteless friends are watching. New releases probably make up less than 7% of my rentals.


My second post was in response to Noor's.


um...Noor...you're saying "100 percent of gays movies" because it's a good thing right? I think it is, so I'm assuming that's what you mean.

The Starz movies are not great, so i see it as no great loss, but bigger picture, it's less content for more $. I've recently switched to a streaming-only plan because of the price increase, but only temporarily.


Given that Netflix was paying for such low quality streams from them, I don't really see it as a big loss in the long run. I'm sure they'll get more content that looks better.


Well, what I mean is that on the plus side they can use that money to hopefully get content from elsewhere that is less terrible looking. I watched a few shows provided by Starz, but the quality difference is rather large to my eyes.


While not necessarily good for Netflix, I don't see this as being a plus for Starz either. The way I understand it, Starz pulled out because they were afraid of either losing subscribers or not gaining any which is corporate double speak for "we expected a bigger offer".

Frankly, if Netflix was willing to pay a hundred million for rights (or so I've read) they were probably overpaying anyway and I don't see Starz adding enough new subscribers to blow that off if that's what they are thinking. I think Netflix had a set amount they were willing to overpay to keep the comment, but Starz probably had a much higher figure in mind and overvalued their worth.

It would be interesting to see the Starz churn rates and new subscriber numbers before and after Netflix. Frankly the only movie service I subscribe to is Showtime, and only because we got it free for a year since I was canceling our cable phone service (I now pay nothing for Showtime, and the phone service is practically free now.)

They are all overpriced. If I wanted new releases, there's a redbox two blocks away from where I live. If I had to depend on Starz, Showtime, and HBO, I'd have to subscribe to all three to pick and choose, and so far I've been able to watch shows like The Sopranoes, Dexter, and Weeds through Netflix DVD's and/or streaming.


So I see that in re-reading, it says $300 million dollars but it doesn't mention over how many years that money would have been distributed. So, probably way more overpriced than I thought. And that should have said, "Netflix had a set amount they were willing to overpay to keep the content".


Meh... I stridently avoided any and all titles with the Starz Play logo. The picture quality was completely unwatchable. While this is terrible for Netflix stock and potential new subscribers who only see the loss in term of titles, the actual user really isn't losing much. Now, if a new contract with Starz had renegotiated the quality of the streams, well, that might have been something different. At this point in time though, might-have-beens don't count for anything.

George Isaacs

"preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content"
Yeah... Well, good luck with that.


Good. Use the money to purchase content from another provider who will put a little effort into their picture quality. All Starz did for me was annoy me when I saw a good movie that had the Starz Play logo next to it.

Marcus Brutus

Not really a big fan of Starz, so I couldn't care less.

As for the Netflix price increase, it was actually a decrease for me, because I went streaming only. I'll get DvDs from Redbox.


Not mentioned in this article is this little caveat:

Starz wanted Netflix to charge a premium price for its content in order to put the popular online video service more in line with cable and satellite providers. Protecting relationships with multiplatform video programming distributors (MVPDs) like DirecTV and Time Warner Cable is critical to Starz. The MVPDs are wary of Netflix because they fear customers will "cut the cord" if enough fresh content is available online at a lower price.

Netflix was apparently unwilling to introduce higher prices for access to certain content on its streaming service. The company's chief content officer Ted Sarandos, who led negotiations, declined to comment beyond an official statement that did not address the issue.

That makes a difference. Look, if people want to pay extra on satellite or cable for Starz, then that's all well and good. But for Starz to dictate what pricing system Netflix should set up is tantamount to blackmail not to mention backdoor collusion and price fixing. Although the press is playing this up as a Netflix folly, I still think they were smart to walk away from these demands.



Starz quality isnt really that good anyway.

Not sure exactly how much of my saved movies are starz though.

NF and starz both have to do what makes financial sense for them.

As do its customers.

Fred Talmadge

Funny to hear Starz talk about their premium brand. Just because you charge more doesn't make it premium.


I happen to enjoy watching the old tv westerns they Starz has been showing on Netflix. I happen to sub to the Starz Encore package on Dishnetwork and have always had access to those shows on tv but have preferred watching them on Netflix for I was watching them in order. Plus in my opinion the shows looked better on Netflix than on Dishnetwork.

I'm going to miss loosing Starz. I suppose i'll have to setup timers on my dvr to watch those shows at my convenience.

As someone stated maybe they'll come to an agreement by the time the contract is due to expire.


I'm a Starz/Encore subscriber, and the loss of this deal may actually prompt me to drop at least Starz. I had it because it was cheaper to keep it at one time, but recently, my deal expired, so it would cost me $10 a month. I had originally considered keeping it, because I do enjoy some of the movies. But, I enjoy the prospect of watching these things on my own schedule, which Netflix allows me to do. I do not have a cable company DVR, but rather a Tivo, so I don't have access to traditional on-demand.

Emory LaserWolf

This is actually great news. I won't ever accidentally sit down to watch a Starz-based Instant Watch. The quality was always horrendous. Sure it means less selection, but let's be honest, Netflix IW selection has always been borderline useless for someone who wants to watch specific things. It's fine when you're bored, which is why forcing you to pay separately for it is insane anyway. It was great when it was a free add-on to the ACTUALLY useful DVD service, but as something you pay 8 bucks for, what's the point?

James Heartney

With months to go till Starz titles disappear from Netflix, I think this is just a negotiating tactic. My guess is they (Netflix and Starz) both really need the deal, and Starz won't be able to afford to walk away from whatever Reed Hundt offers them.

Streaming is the future of content distribution. The players are all fighting for how it will be structured, but none of them can afford to walk away from it completely. Starz and the studios have massive egos, but eventually they have no choice but to make some deals, even if it's for less than they think they are worth.

Robert Emmerich

To follow up on 1 of Clyde's comments - I read that Starz wanted only customers with the $16 plan - including DVD shipping - to be allowed to get Stars streaming. Which made no sense to me when I read it and makes no sense to me as I type it. Though I have been saying for the past year that someday NF will have a "Plus" level akin to Hulu, maybe that day is coming? Glad NF didn't budge, they are the market leader and need to dictate terms. Though I don't see why Starz, or any other channel or content owner, just doesn't make their own streaming channel, ie HBO Go. Everybody has a website, just charge to stream your own stuff.

PS - glad to be back after 122 1/2 hours without power. Not that I was counting.


It will be interesting to see who wins this game of chicken.

In the Red corner, Netflix, just started charging for streaming content and needs to keep its customers happy, losing Starz would be a big blow.

In the Blue corner, Starz, do they want to get $300million or $0, people will be pulling their content from the Internet either way.

Lars Solunar

People make such a big deal about stuff like this. I can't hardly believe Netflix stock dropped for this. In the future, once people really understand the real world impact, when crap like this goes down Starz (or equivalent) will that the stack hit.

The truth is Starz probably can't afford losing this distributor. With cable and satellite on the decline every quarter companies that are add-on's to such systems are bound to suffer as well. If they intend to continue to compete they need to find new outlets.

Anyone who is keeping track knows that those new outlets are the PS3 and the XBox and to a lesser extent boxes like Roku. If you can't get into one or both you are a marginal system. This is why HBO's online system is both silly and useless. People aren't going to the internet content providers so they can watch on their laptop. They want this stuff on their TV.

It's an adapt or die situation now. What these older companies and investors fail to comprehend is how the internet is changing and who the real major players are. People overlook things like Netflix having a larger subscriber base than Comcast.

Anyway, the day is coming when companies will be crawling to Netflix/Hulu/Microsoft/Sony(and maybe Google if that ever works out) to carry their channel.

TL;DR - Starz is stupid. Netflix and others like it are the future of entertainment.


Starz should have jumped all over whatever Netflix offered. Before Netflix, Starz was and still is a 2nd tier premium channel. Subscribers and stockholders need to be be patient.... There will come a time when the contracts these premium channels have with the studios will run out, and I will bet a dollar to a donut, netflix will be there to bid directly with the studios one by one as it happens. The current contracts were in place long before netflix came around, and I can assure you if Netflix is willing to pay more for the content than Starz, Showtime, or HBO...... All these channels will have left, is their original programming, that they will come begging for netflix to make a deal.

Make no mistake..... Streaming is here, and it is here to stay!


When I first read this I thought it was a bad thing. Now, on reflection, I'm glad NetFlix is willing to walk away from bad deals (I kinda think they should have walked away from the Epix deal). The last thing I want is for NetFlix to go down the same path as cable, with the content providers dictating terms.

George Machen

But we just got Miramax, so one step backward, two steps forward!

Take the Starz money and get more old & recent TV series ("Route 66," "Then Came Bronson," "Push, Nevada," etc.).

"There's always something good on Netflix."

Jason Becker

The deal doesn't actually run out until February so there's plenty of time to still make it work. I think this is just Starz trying to play hardball to get more money. I highly doubt in the end they would walk away from the reported $200 million a year Netflix could be giving them.


We cut the cable a long time ago and haven't gone back for one major reason: very little new programming content interests us and we are stuck with watching on their schedule, not ours.

As far as watching via streaming, both my wife and I do not have the hearing we once did and prefer to run with captioned text. We can't get that with streaming (Roku just announced their new box that has captioning available, but I already bought their top of the line and don't want to dump another $99 just to get the latest version.)

As such, we've dropped the streaming and bring the shows we want in via DVD. For current shows, our Sony Blu-Ray couples nicely with Hulu plus and meets our needs.

I think Netflix needs to rethink their pricing in a hurry if they can't provide additional content and are dropping Starz as a provider. And Starz is just plain crazy, because they are being seriously challenged by Hulu and other new providers.

Noor Almtowaq

What i was saying! is that netflix is lossing so much. they rise the price and still adding stupid titles to instant watch. Really do we want to see a movie made in 1915 or 1945 i am just saying. we paying 8.99 to enjoy reruns of good stuff like pete pete, doug, ducktales and barney and my so called life and buffy and angel and x files and maybe add new shows.

also is so hard to find a movie on instant watch and i am wasting my time un star or star them. It still does not work.

what netflix need to do is remove all the instant watch and start all over again. what i mean is start with a blank paper.

1. remove everything
2. start with big new stuff and then go down to 1980 nothing below it.
3. look at hulu plus it has like 1,000 of tv series that had one or two season.
4. start with kids and family make it like 90 percent of family on there
5. now start buying or get find good titles like disney channel original movies stream them all i bet u will get more people watching them.

i can go on with list. i mean if they want to kill cable tv they doing something wrong like not good enough good titles or current shows or current movies from 2009 to 2011.

they should make a netflix plus 14.99 a month get movies and shows for a lifetime because we paying two times with good titles.


Starz needs to try to protect their brand. Since, outside of netflix, I presume most people obtain starz from cable providers, cable providers are starz real customers.

Why would someone pay $8-10 a month for Starz to a cable company when they can get it from netflix for $7.99, plus other content ?

A poster above, Robert E said Starz wanted their content give to people paying more than $7.99 which suggests they are trying to protect all their longtime customers, the cable companies.

But, like another poster pointed out, with months to go, this could well be a negotiating tactic for both sides.

i dont know enough about Starz business model.

But from a netflix customers perspective, starz quality is crap. Why should I have to pay $20 a month for crapping pictures ?

Jason Becker

Netflix has said Starz content is about 8% of streaming now. Starz may have been important early on when streaming first started but its not the must have for Netflix now. At least not at what Starz wants which was apparently a premium tier of streaming.


Great idea Noor. Change Netflix to Netkids and lose all subscribers except those under 12 and and those with IQ's under 100.

I live in a retirement community and everyone I know uses Netflix. If we created a model it would begin with movies from the 1940's and end with those before the year 2000! And throw in lots of the old TV shows such as ER, Ben Casey, and Mr. Novak.

Absolutely ridiculous to think that only one segment of the population should be catered to. The beauty of Netflix now is that there is something for everybody.

Louis S

I kinda knew this would happen, as the Sony titles disappeared only to not appear again. But I agree with one of the earlier posters in that this is a negotiating tactic. Both companies will eventually come back to the table and come to an agreement. I can see the new deal being similar to the Epix deal, in which Netflix has to wait 90 days for new releases and TV shows to reappear. How Starz can easily turn down $300 million for basically 15 million more subscribers is beyond me.

I dumped the DVD plan and I have the streaming plan now exclusively. You're paying $8 a month, so it is what it is. Other than that, Redbox is everywhere and VUDU has a 99 cent movie of the day which sometimes includes new releases. There's PLENTY of options.


Looks like I will have to watch the new season of Spartacus on the Starz website on my PC.

However things could turn around.

That's a lot of cash Netflix is offering & Netflix would be stupid not to demand higher quality streams.

So well have to assume if things change and the deal does get renewed that Starz will have better Quality.

If Starz needs people are gonna flock & pay 80+ for Satellite / Cable just to pay even extra to Starz they will soon find out.


As long as Netflix strikes a deal or maintains a deal with Disney to play their theatrical films, losing Starz will be no loss to me.

Starz has, as of late, been airing crappy stuff anyways. We still have digital cable and we recently got rid of Starz in favor of HBO in our 2 year contract because you got more channels, HBO Go, Max Go and better content.

But realizing the loss in content from Starz is a reminder of why Netflix's streaming library is still so unreliable that you have to have both streaming and dvd.

As they say, too many cooks spoils the broth (soup, stew).


The stars content was mostly crap. On top of what others mentioned about video quality. The stars content was often edited in the following ways: scenes cut that appear in both theatrical and disc releases for run time lengths; pan and scan instead of widescreen; and made for prime time broadcast TV cuts (language and violence etc)*.

*I'm reminded of this kind of version of The Great Outdoors; Everyone is in a group and the phrase blow it out your ass gets passed around many times, but the edit voices over blow it out your kazoo. And this is a mild example of these kinds of cuts.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites