Netflix and Microsoft, Sitting in a Tree...

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/events/e32008/articles/0714-netflixteamup.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community...tflixteamup.htm</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"An exciting new home theater experience is coming to living rooms this holiday season. At E3, Microsoft and Netflix, the world's largest online movie rental service, today unveiled an exclusive partnership to offer the ability to instantly stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix to your television via Xbox 360&reg;. Xbox 360 will be the only game system that lets you instantly watch movies and TV episodes streamed from Netflix. This movie-watching innovation will be available to Xbox LIVE&reg; Gold members who are also Netflix subscribers, and will let those users enjoy streaming movies from Netflix on Xbox LIVE at no additional cost."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1216078883.usr10.jpg" border="1" alt="" /></p><p>Now that there is an official, sanctioned way to stream from Netflix to the 360, it looks like come this fall I'll be upgrading to Xbox Live Gold and switching over to Netflix. The only thing that had been keeping me with Blockbuster, despite their being more expensive than Netflix, was the ability to trade in movies directly at the store. Frankly, the ability to stream over 10,000 items directly to my 360 outweighs the ability to periodically make a swap for a free in-store rental.</p>

[Joel Crane]

Hey, this looks cool!

[superrrguy]

They need this tomorrow. Not fall!

The hack for WMC is slow and a pain in the ass to use.

[inteller]

You know, netflix should start a program like SETI where users could encode DVDs for them so they could get more titles set up to stream. Their current library is simply lame. Award users an extra title a month or something for however many blocks they process.

[Felix Torres]

They need this tomorrow. Not fall!



Netflix needs to upgrade their servers first; that's why the deal has taken so long to be announced. (We all knew it was coming for over a year.)

(The coop viewing feature, though, took me by surprise. Once you hear of it, of course it is obvious--technically its no big challenge--but to think of it in the first place is sorta lateral thinking, no?)

Next step for MS is to see if they can sign up Hulu.
Get that free content in the stable and things will really get interesting.

Not that they aren't right now with 42 "channels", 10,000+ hours of on-demand content, more on-demand HD than (apparently) anybody else, and deals in place with Disney, Viacom, Fox, NBC/Universal (are they still ticked at Apple?), and TimeWarner. With yesterday's new additions (SciFi, USA, NBC for real, etc) they now have all the national networks except PBS.

Add-in the enhanced file sharing features (outgoing as well as incoming) in the 360 V2.0 upgrade and the 360 digital media functions will be taking a big step forward by fall. A lot will depend on the details but they seem to be serious about the social/sharing aspects; a lot of their talk sounds straight out of the Zune playbook.
Wonder why? :rolleyes:

[Jason Dunn]

You know, netflix should start a program like SETI where users could encode DVDs for them so they could get more titles set up to stream.

I kind of doubt the problem is getting the DVDs encoded - it doesn't take that long to encode a DVD, even if you're doing three-pass encoding. I'm certain the real problem is the legal/licensing issues around it.

[Felix Torres]

I kind of doubt the problem is getting the DVDs encoded - it doesn't take that long to encode a DVD, even if you're doing three-pass encoding. I'm certain the real problem is the legal/licensing issues around it.

Plus quality control.
Otherwise, all they'd have to do is troll bit-torrent for content, right?
Or are they already doing that? ;)

[Reid Kistler]

Just one question:
How does all this Streaming Video fit in with the talk about BANDWIDTH LIMITATIONS that nearly every broadband provider seems to be either implementing or at least considering?

Have not paid attention to amount of data downloaded for a long time now - but it appears more and more likely that that will again become a concern.

Or is this simply not likely to become a "real world" issue?

Thoughts?

[Chris Gohlke]

Excellent point. Especially when my internet provider is also my cable provider. I dropped most of their premium channels when I started with Blockbuster and might consider scaling back more when I go to Netflix and have so much stuff available on demand. If they can't be paid for being a content provider, they might at least try to recoup some of it in bandwitdh fees.

[Phillip Dyson]

This is exciting news. I was just about to try to install the SageTV Neflix plugin. But I can wait for this.

[Jason Dunn]

And once again I ponder moving to the USA... :D

[Felix Torres]

Just one question:
How does all this Streaming Video fit in with the talk about BANDWIDTH LIMITATIONS that nearly every broadband provider seems to be either implementing or at least considering?

Have not paid attention to amount of data downloaded for a long time now - but it appears more and more likely that that will again become a concern.

Or is this simply not likely to become a "real world" issue?

Thoughts?

No, not every broadband provider is looking to muzzle bandwidth.
Just a few clueless cablecos that are about to discover the telcos won't play their game. If they want to drive tech savvy customers to the telcos, their competitors will be only too happy to welcome them.
Remember, video is supposed to be cable's advantage over DSL; to the extent that consumers move from broadcast to internet-delivery, they are undercutting the value of the cablecos regional monopolies. Charging by the byte is a non-starter. Even cellular providers are moving away from it.
So, no; it is not going to be a real world issue.

[Felix Torres]

Sony "answered" by announcing a movie download service on PS3.
http://gizmodo.com/5025507/ps3-gets-video-downloads-and-rentals-tonight

[Reid Kistler]

No, not every broadband provider is looking to muzzle bandwidth.
Just a few clueless cablecos that are about to discover the telcos won't play their game. If they want to drive tech savvy customers to the telcos, their competitors will be only too happy to welcome them.
Remember, video is supposed to be cable's advantage over DSL; to the extent that consumers move from broadcast to internet-delivery, they are undercutting the value of the cablecos regional monopolies. Charging by the byte is a non-starter. Even cellular providers are moving away from it.
So, no; it is not going to be a real world issue.


Telco - such as AT&T? Am currently running U-Verse IPTV, Internet, and (now) VOIP, and there has been concern expressed on user forums about AT&T having plans to 'throttle back' internet usage - partially in response to Comcast's plans, partially to ensure adequate bandwidth for the IPTV signal across their network, and partially Just Because (it would bring in more $$; avoid having to spend $$ to upgrade; The Market Allows It....).

John C. Dvorak’s column Eight Reasons Your Web Connection Should Be Metered (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2319449,00.asp) was highly controversial - and contained what seemed to be some logical flaws - but a couple of the "rebuttals" to it really did NOT do a good job of actually Countering his arguments!

"Unlimited" internet access reminds me of the "unlimited" web hosting accounts - available for $10/month or so: once you really DIG INTO the contract terms you find out that a) Unlimited does not REALLY mean "unlimited," and b) even such bandwidth / server CPU cycles / Whatever... that IS available is always shared (at that price point...), so you better hope that your "neighbors" are not counting on "unlimited" access...

Looked at from another perspective: Why do people get kicked off "unlimited" web hosting sites for overusage? Why does cable internet service tend to Slow Down at certain times of the day? Why does the "WWW" ITSELF - or, at least access to certain portions thereof - sometimes slow down?
Resources in general have limitations. Bandwidth is not "unlimited" - and as more and more people find ever greater uses for the internet it seems inevitable that we will run into usage ceilings of some sort, whether it be actual Caps, Surcharges, or simply the 'running into a brick wall' effect of Too Many Users trying to Access (Download) Too Many Sites.

In the long run there may be some solutions. But in the short term, at least SOME people are likely to experience pain, whether it be in increased costs or decreased utility. Hopefully most of us will fall under the 'excessive usage' cap - but having lived through the Prodigy / Compuserve era, have no desire to return to the Cost Per Time Connected pricing model, let alone Cost Per Byte Downloaded...

But just because I don't WANT it does not mean "they" won't do it.

[Felix Torres]

Bandwidth is not unlimited, no, but it is very very cheap. At least for the telcos...

Remember, the reason why, 20-odd years after the breakup of AT&T in the MCI suit, we are back pretty much where we started (AT&T and Verizon/MCI and little else) is because in the "irrational exhuberance" of the internet bubble the Baby Bells and a bunch of other companies went hog wild investing in fiber optic infrastructure that is right now unused and returning zero income.

The real reason for non-cable ISPs want to "throttle" usage or go to proportional charges is that they see their fiber pipelines generating oodles of revenue for Google, MS, Apple, and the media companies while all they get is peanuts. So its not a scarcity issue but rather a gatekeeper issue. Just look at the fight over net neutrality and how the players line up to see what the *real* fight is about. Google makes billions of bucks off the net and they pay nothing to the ISPs that deliver their product.

To the ISPs, it looks like they own a toll road that truckers get to use for free and are clogging it up. So they want the truckers from google, MS, Apple, etc, to pony up a cut of their revenue as tolls.
But since Congress in their finite wisdom is protecting the Googles, ebays, and Apples of the world, the ISPs can't get their pound of flesh from the providers. So now they're looking at the consumers, figuring that if they can't get consumers to pay, they'll get them to cut back on usage and hurt the providers *that* way, thinking they can force them to negotiate by hurting us.

So yes, short term there is the potential for consumer pain but long term the ISPs (telcos in particular) would be shooting themselves in the foot if they go out of their way to discourage the use of their core product.
Cablecos have video broadcast revenue and their local monopolies to fall back on if bandwidth demand slacks; the telcos have nothing else, bandwidth *is* their product.

Sooner or later Congress will get out of the way and allow the ISPs to collect revenue from the providers just as cablecos collect revenue from even the OTA broadcasters. Its simply a new era and a new business and there are precious few agreed-upon rules on who is responsible for what and with all that money in play and politicians so cheap to buy it is simply easier to make the fight political than to learn to share the bounty like good little children. As bandwidth usage expands those issues will get settled and reasonable rates (and terms of use) will be agreed-upon for all players . Eventually.
Just not tomorrow.:rolleyes:

[Reid Kistler]

Bandwidth is not unlimited, no, but it is very very cheap. At least for the telcos...
....................

So now they're looking at the consumers, figuring that if they can't get consumers to pay, they'll get them to cut back on usage and hurt the providers *that* way, thinking they can force them to negotiate by hurting us.

Sooner or later Congress will get out of the way ...... As bandwidth usage expands those issues will get settled and reasonable rates (and terms of use) will be agreed-upon for all players . Eventually.
Just not tomorrow.:rolleyes:

Felix:

Your points are well made, although I do not have a lot of confidence in Government Decision Making, especially considering the recent past.

At least there ARE competing COMMERCIAL interests: one side calling for increased revenues on "bandwidth" while the other has a vested interest in trying to keep costs down, so your hope for eventually reaching a viable (for the consumer) compromise seems realistic.

And, to be fair, it has to cost SOMETHING to maintain the lines over which signals travel, so it is at least possible that the Telcos have a legitimate gripe.

Also, probably considered too "local" of a perspective when thinking about 'bandwidth': am an AT&T U-Verse customer, and while they run "fiber to the node," the connection from the local "Vrad" to the house is over plain old telephone wires - and available bandwidth is very much a concern.

Can a particular address be connected? Can AT&T offer multiple HD streams? Do they have to apply so much compression that picture is adversely impacted to the extent that people complain / consider changing service? How fast of an Internet connection can they provide In Addition To the IPTV signal? And is that Fast Enough not to lose customers to other providers (Cable)?

Always a balancing act.

Have a wonderful day!

[onlydarksets]

Plus quality control.
Otherwise, all they'd have to do is troll bit-torrent for content, right?
Or are they already doing that? ;)
Previous poster wasn't suggesting we all send in our converted files - he was suggesting distributed computing (like folding, SETI, etc.).

Still, Jason is right - this is a legal issue. I seriously doubt NetFlix is actually ripping DVDs. They get their files from the source.