THAT EXPLAINS IT!! Damn...that really blows. I watch a good number of movies, but recently I'm seeing many "Waits" in my queue. Oh well, it's just a matter of time some competitor swings by to steal their business. I'll be ready to change tracks.

I have been noticing a real difference in how I am being treated by NetFlix recently. I churn through about 3 movies a week. Previously I was able to time things such that I stood a good chance of getting a new release every week. Though my pattern hasn't changed much, my luck in getting the new releases has. In fact, I have been shut out of new releases for some time.

They have been accused of shortchanging frequent users before. Something to do with their business model and the per use cost of handling and mailing the DVD. Someone did a very detailed study of this, called them on it and they quit. They seem to be back to their old tricks, perhaps with a new slant.

Here is the best article I've found so far explaining the practice. Netflix may be deliberatly trying to weed out frequent users.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11325639/.

So now it is punishing frequent users? I remember like a year or so ago they had an article that said the longer you are with them, the harder it is to get new releases. They automatically give new users the releases they want, leaving anyone long term with the leftovers.

I honestly believe it should be first come, first serve. If you click it first, you should get it first. Screw trying to keep new users, they don't even pay right off. They will start to learn when all their old users leave them.

This is an old story and I disagree completely with the conclusion. It's not penalizing "faithful" customers, it's penalizing customers who are trying to take advantage of the system.

I visited a site that some guy threw up complaining about Netflix because with his $20/month membership he was not able to rent 100 plus DVDs per month. Give me a break. If you're going to watch THAT many DVDs every month, pony up and pay for a higher level plan where you can have more DVDs out at a time.

Sure, they say "Unlimited" rentals and they probably ought to drop that, but come on folks, it's a business. At the $20 level and NOT including cost of DVDS, fulfillment of orders and other overhead, with shipping per DVD at $0.78, after the 25th DVD in a month it's costing them money to keep supplying you with DVDs.

If there is a limited supply of a new release DVD, I think that someone who doesn't order that many every month should get priority.

Vic

NetFlix needs to restate their policies to let people know when they might be "throttled".

For those interested, I blogged about this algorithm here:
http://blog.air0day.com/2006/02/11/netflix-tries-net-tricks/

Basically, the system designates high-volume renters as low-priority. This is actually quite reasonable, because high-volume renters, if they were high priority, would get movies often enough as to make it impossible for infrequent renters to ever get new releases.

The problem is that the algorithm they use is not handling priorities correctly, and is, in fact, not a fair algorithm, but one that creates starvation.

Every CS student knows how to write a good priority scheduling algorithm - the fact that Netflix has failed to do so is what is indicative of their disdain for their frequent renters, moreso than the priority assignment alone.

I think its a little dis-ingenuous to label those netflix customers who try to get the maximum amount of rentals out of their membership as netflix's "Most faithful customers". Would you call someone who goes to an all-you-can-eat buffet, pays once, eats breakfast, camps out til noon, eats lunch, camps out til 6 and eats dinner one of the buffets 'most faithful customers'? Technically, there are no rules against doing this, but in practice, this behavior is discouraged by the restaurant owner, even if there isn't a sign explicitly prohibiting it.

Now, that being said, it does suck that netflix advertises 'unlimited' rentals and then imposes limits, but making the customer who takes advantage of it out to be some kind of angel is a little dishonest.

This is why I cancelled my membership like 6 months ago. Everytime I would get my movies I'd watch one that night and throw it back in the mail the next day. Sometimes it would take like a week and a half before I would see another movie in my mailbox. Unlimited rentals my ass!

I'm actually running into this problem with Blockbuster.com - the last few rentals have taken more than a week to arrive. It used to be within the week I could get 6 movies - and since I don't have cable it worked out well. Now, it'd be almost just as cheap to rent a movie every week at the store the way things are going.

"Sure, they say "Unlimited" rentals and they probably ought to drop that, but come on folks, it's a business. At the $20 level and NOT including cost of DVDS, fulfillment of orders and other overhead, with shipping per DVD at $0.78, after the 25th DVD in a month it's costing them money to keep supplying you with DVDs."

It's either unlimited or it isn't. I suggest they grab a dictionary and take a reasons + logic class before they make a business marketing unlimited rentals and then set up a system that you know can't support it. Hell I learned about those algorithims in 1st year CS ffs. Who are they using, high school kids?

john, you seem to be slipping in your old age :) This is old news, and frankly there's nothing wrong with it in my view. In order for this *business* to work, new/infrequent cusomers have to get priority, so that they can recommend other people to try it because of the fast service. This expands outwards, and netflix makes enough money to satisfy demand. On the other side, cusomers who *abuse* the system should get penalized to some extent, if someone rents 30+ dvd's a month, why should another person who only rents 1 a month suffer?

I will admit, that maybe the unlimited aspect should have it's terms and conditions explained fully somewhere.

Two great points have been brought up, the first that this practice is one of the few ways to make sure that the limited number of copies of Mr. and Mrs. Smith make their way around to all the customers that request it and second that you pay so much for your plan and you get what you pay for.

Another great point: the word unlimited should be dropped immediatly, because it's obviously not true.

I've been a Netflix member for THREE YEARS and I've never had a single problem with them. Over that span, I've gotten the wrong disc once (in the right sleeve, just wrong dvd), two unplayable discs, and one that they never got back when I sent it out.

They fixed the problems and sent replacements as soon as they were reported. I've never seen any evidence of being "throttled" at all, and get my discs within days of sending them back now that I've actually ended up closer to a distro facility.

Granted, I don't rent new releases but mostly classics, documentaries, and television shows. If I add a new release to the bottom of my current queue it would take approx. five years to get to it ; ) But still, I'd like to point out that the "throttling" is not as rampant as it's been made out to be.

That said, I also want to point out another reason this might have been implimented and it's the same reason software costs so much: piracy. I had a co-worker who would just get dvds from Netflix, burn copies that day and send them back. They sued rewritables so that when they watched the movie, if they didn't like it the next movie got recorded over that.

Blatant disregard for the people who are using the system honestly. By limiting new releases, people who are pirating copies through the system would be discouraged and move elsewhere to clog up somebody else's system.

Yes, the algorithm should be better. Yes, they should be honest about the entire thing. Yes, they should take "unlimited" out of their advertising.

But the practice itself evil.

As usual, I forget a negative to make my sentance make sense. Common problem, sorry.

My last sentence should be "But the practice itself ISN'T evil."

I haven't read this happening with Blockbuster.com. Maybe Blockbuster isn't as evil as people claim.

It seems to me that it is a classic exemple for "Click *Yes* if you agree with our Terms of Use" and people, keen on getting through this quickly, never actually reading the ToS. Just have a look here: http://www.netflix.com/TermsOfUse?hnjr=8. There it says:

"In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service."

So, it is part of their business, and every customer of netflix agreed to it.

schreibvieh: I think if you read the articles, you'll see that the statement you pulled from the TOS was put there somewhat recently in response to a lawsuit (or threat of one...I forget which). Point being...a lot of long-time Netflix customers never agreed to that statement. Of course, I'm sure they have the "we reserve the right to change the TOS to screw you over at our leisure" statement or something to that effect also in there to cover themselves.

In general, this is like Blockbuster's "No Late Fees" or early ISPs who advertised unlimited Internet access. The fine print at the bottom of the screen that you can't possibly read isn't enough to get you out of legal hot water.

I've had a Netflix account for years and throtling hasn't been a problem until about the last month or so. Now all the new releases seem to have a wait on them... very annoying. Luckily, i watch alot of "non new release" stuff, so i am never at a loss of something to watch.... but it most definatly a recent trend.

I like pie.

I think people are missing a key point of throttling. So much focus is being put on new releases and how high volume users are being put in a waiting line. It is more than that. Granted I have 8 new releases 'on wait,' I also have older movies in my queue that aren't on wait and those are being throttled. Typically a movie is turned around in the same day, but sometimes they hold onto your movie in an effort to throttle. Some may say it has to do with man power or volume of movies they are pushing through, but if you look at this picture, you'll see that a movie returned on a Friday morning won't be replaced until Tuesday, which means almost an entire week will go by with nothing to show for it. http://trey.cwtsecure.com/netflix_shipping_prob_to_throttle.jpg

Keep in mind, this is not because of a popular movie being on wait. I have over a hundred movies without a wait. They could easily throw a movie in the mail and get it to me by Saturday afternoon.

I'm sticking with Netflix for now because none of the other services compare, throttle or no throttle. I tried Blockbuster and Wal-Mart (when they were around).

Bottom line is, if it bothers you that much, then cancel your service and make sure they know why. If they find they are losing too many customers because of this practice they'll make the changes necessary.

What I love is people who complain complain complain and then shell out that 20 bucks every month anyway. That's exactly what they want.

By the way, long time customer and I've never had any problems. Of course now that I've said that I'll no doubt be throttled.

I inadvertantly stumbled on to this today after filing a complaint with BB for the delay of my last few movies which seemed to follow a pattern of end of the monnth slowdowns in shipping. In my mind there is no doubt throttling is occuring.