« Netflix Spending Substantial Money to Help Improve The Internet for Everyone | Main | Netflix Signup and Payment with iTunes plus 1080p/5.1 Streaming on New Apple TV »




Would they interface the Netflix queue?

My cable co has On Demand, but their menuing is so convoluted that it isn't worth the time to wade through their listings to find anything.

Joe Stuart

For Netflix this is a great monetizing opportunity. Long term consumers will suffer since cable companies will want a larger piece of the pie; subsequently forcing Netflix to increase its rates on its customers. Personally, I feel Netflix is best as an alternative to cable. But from a business perspective, the move makes business sense - Wall Street will be happy.


This could be interesting as it could play out in so many different ways.

From this article does this mean that NF would be a free on demand like what the cable companies have for primetime, Showtime (with subscription) etc.

Or an on demand pay per view model like they have for new release movies.

Interesting to see how this could unfold. Very creative.


Although it sounds interesting I don't see an advantage for Netflix:
First you need cable TV to get it, many people cut the cord so they can save money. Netflix is on just about every CE device nowadays so what's the incentive to get it through cable?
Second I doubt Time Warner will sign-on because they own HBO and we all know how they feel about Netflix. Netflix would hurt sales of OnDemand and StreamPix on Comcast.


I can easily see this working via my Cablevision box as a listing between the other On-Demand channels. The cable companies would have to wonder though how much of their own demand money they would be losing. Of course that hasn't stopped Sony from having nf, and Hulu Plus, on the PS3 along with their own over-priced offerings, and Vudu, and Crackle, and iLoveFilms and some others. I'm guessing the Xbox360 is similar. One other issue would be how would you navigate it and what would the front end look like. I suppose it could work though as I've played a bunch of free Bejeweled and was surprised how well I was able to do with just a cablebox remote.
I guess it's a win-win. Though potentially a big lose for Roku if every cable box in America gets nf.


I could see DirecTV making a deal with Netflix for its original programming and then airing it on the Audience Channel.


this is something Dish Network would like to do
what did i just say?????

Edward R Murrow

Wait, I thought the strategy was the we were supposed to cut the cable cord. Now the strategy is that we have to re-attach the cord? I guess if you don't like the Netflix strategy this week, just be patient because the strategy will change next week.

"There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy" - George Orwell, 1984


More than price is the reason for cutting the cord. I realized one day that I had over 200 channels of junk. DemocracyNow and Bill Moyers were available online and I would hate to miss them. So I switched to Netflix for movies and iTunes for Democracy Now and Bill Moyers and a few other news shows. I also discovered a number of vodcasts for my favorite hobbies. I've since dumped Netflix streaming because the good movies are no longer available there...and NF is obviously moving to TV low-grade material. I can manage with 2 DVDs at a time and iTunes and/or Hulu. CBS has moved "Person of Interest" offline so that is the one time I have to turn on the TV (not cable or satellite). That is something that always makes me mad at CBS because I prefer to go to bed early and would rather watch online in the morning. Oh wellll.


@Judy grab a TV card (low as $30) and if you use Windows then use Windows Media Center. Or one of the many other free alternatives: http://alternativeto.net/software/windows-media-center/ then hook up an Antenna and DVR whatever.

As for everyone else thinking Netflix was made to "cut the cord"

Nothing was made to make you cut it. It's a personal choice that's up to you of whether or not you value the content enough to keep it or find other methods of getting content.

Netflix has always said it was a companion and not a replacement.

Plus many people never had a cord to cut in the first place.

If you don't like a service. Don't pay "support" it.


Plus many people do have Cable / Satelite service along with steaming services too.

It's not one or the other. Who said that to make people think that?

It's your choice. Some are fine with Over The Air content too.

Whatever ways you choose to get content is your thing.


Let me try to understand this. Netflix had the rental market with only one significant competitor (& given the modest inventory at a typical Redbox unit, Netflix had almost complete domination for customers who valued a deeper catalog). Streaming became a valuable add-on. Now Reed Hastings wants to toss this away and become one more cable network, and area where there are already many established networks. This is seen as a brilliant business strategy? Huh?




@Moom +1 that!


@moon - What is nf tossing away? If you are talking about the move away from disc to streaming that has nothing to do with cable tv, it just seems to be want they want to do. I really don't understand how nf on a cable box is any different than nf as a 'channel' on a Roku or an app on an Android device or an app on an iOs device or an app on a "smart" tv or internet connected blu-ray player or a choice on a PS3 or a tile on the Wii. It may not be a "network", but I don't see that much difference between a tv channel and an app. Google TV tried to blur the line, and if the Apple iTV ever comes out (a tv with iOS, not the current Apple TV box) then the line may be gone.

Maybe people are just reading this wrong, nf isn't becoming a "channel", it just wants it's user interface "app" on cable boxes, the only electronic device left in peoples homes without it.


Here's a good article that explains it better, it's all about churn(customer defection):



The only real information in this article is the teaser about how this is supposed to head off an argument over bandwidth.

As your cable company is likely your ISP, they want to start charging customers on a per-GB basis and have already started to limit bandwidth to high volume users.

This can be seen as a direct attack and an anti-competitive business practice to services like Netflix which needs access to homes (and high bandwidth) over the common carrier lines.

The rub comes in when you factor in the VOD offerings by the cable companies. In the current/proposed model, you would get charged bandwidth for Netflix but not for the Local Cable VOD service. Even if they were providing the same service.

This has anti-trust violation written all over it.

In order for the high speed internet folks to gouge consumers on bandwidth charges, they need the big guns on the bandwidth user side (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) to not force Justice/FCC to lower the boom on them.

If they give all the big players access to the non-metered bandwidth through the VOD system then they can go ahead and charge huge fees to watch YouTube, play Pandora, stream video from news/tv network sites, etc. perhaps without raising eyebrows at the Justice Department.

Paranoid a little? I think not. At a conference of Telecom execs in the early part of 2011 a Credit Suisse or Deutsche Bank analyst (I can't remember which) laid down a frame work to 'ease' consumers into the idea that they needed to pay more for internet.

If anyone's tried to open an new account for a smart phone at AT&T or Verizon you're already seeing the trend, no more unlimited bandwidth for $20 a month. Instead you get 4GB for $30 or some crazy small number like that. To suggest that it costs $7.50 a GB to deliver data is criminal.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites