Block buster going out a business, again !

[RdM642]

Blockbuster has reorganized several times and its death projected over and over. I have heard that BB only has one year left from the moment netflix began. I think if you are a netflix customer it would be premature to applaud BB going out since it will significantly reduce competitive pressure and netflix is liable to hike prices and reduce benefits to customers.

I have both a $10/month netflix and a $19/month blockbuster. With the netfliux I get the instant viewing and four movies per month and with the blockbuster I get no extra charge BD, much higherl liklyhood of new reelases both in mail and in store, a free game rental per month and the ability to return my rentals to the store which I do on Tuesdays giving me the ability to score 12 new releases per month in store and 12 by mail. That comes to about $0.80 per rental. Now I have a BB literally on my walk to work, but even if they close that store I will stay will BB until they croak as they are much much more likely to get me new releases. They even get many release one month before netflix even stocks them.

I have OTA with all the networks and four different sets of PBS stations, a WHS with playon, a tuner, a nntp client and 10TB of ripped films -- streaming to media players in every room. one of our WDTVLIVE has a torrent client on it! The loser of our family's dollar is is cable which we gladly cut some time ago.

[lordsmurf]

The majority of people in the USA do have high speed connections now and most for a reasonable monthly fee. If you're renting Dvd's at a retail store for $4 dollars each, it won't take long to make up that $39 or there about for high speed dsl or cable internet hookup. When you have that, you can purchase a Roku player and stream from Netflix or Amazon the whole catalog, something it wouldn't even be possible to stock in a retail store.

This isn't really accurate. All broadband speeds are "up to" a certain speed, with most average speeds falling far below the "up to" specs. A majority of people still have trouble streaming 3Mb, much less anything that can compare to the quality found on a physical disc. Until speeds significantly increase, the "streaming only" market is largely Utopian.

[sum_guy]

Here in the Northeastern part of the USA, most people have a min of 5 mbs with many have fiber optic and cable lines up to 20 mbs, some with dsl here have as much as 10 mbs speeds, NY City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Virginia, these are huge metropolitan areas, not to mention California, Atlanta, etc. The haves far outnumber the have nots when it comes to good streaming speed.

[edDV]

Here in the Northeastern part of the USA, most people have a min of 5 mbs with many have fiber optic and cable lines up to 20 mbs, some with dsl here have as much as 10 mbs speeds, NY City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Virginia, these are huge metropolitan areas, not to mention California, Atlanta, etc. The haves far outnumber the have nots when it comes to good streaming speed.

Those are highly scattered. Until recently, parts of the Silicon Valley had very poor cable or DSL connect speeds. This is a neighborhood by neighborhood infrastructure upgrade issue.

In California, the state recently took control of cable franchise regulation from the counties and cities. Since then they have forced neighborhood upgrades to per capita income standards rather than market demand or ability to pay. As a result, higher income neighborhoods are often last to get fast internet. Of course this doesn't apply to San Francisco or LA counties.

Meanwhile the telcos can place U-verse or FIOS where they please because they operate under federal regulation. Of course those services go to dense high income zip codes.

News this week is Verizon is going to stop new FIOS expansions and just build out where they are. This may be a reaction to the Fed government "National Bandwidth Plan" which is fantasy.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/03/verizons-fios-rollout-drawing-to-a-close/
http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-brief/49141-verizon-fios-stunted-by-economy
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/192199/debate_rages_on_for_fcc_national_...band_plan.html

[NICEBUD]

Hi
I don't know about the dvd/blueray rental services in the US ,but it seems pretty shit from what Ive just read.
But here in England.My local BB is always jam packed at weekends.Also you can rent 5 blue-ray films for £10 and keep them for
5 days which I think is very good.So it gives me legal way of viewing the films before I buy it(if the film is any good of coarse).
So does this mean that BB will shutting down all the profit making outlets here as well ?

[cal_tony]

The majority of people in the USA do have high speed connections now and most for a reasonable monthly fee. If you're renting Dvd's at a retail store for $4 dollars each, it won't take long to make up that $39 or there about for high speed dsl or cable internet hookup. When you have that, you can purchase a Roku player and stream from Netflix or Amazon the whole catalog, something it wouldn't even be possible to stock in a retail store.

This isn't really accurate. All broadband speeds are "up to" a certain speed, with most average speeds falling far below the "up to" specs. A majority of people still have trouble streaming 3Mb, much less anything that can compare to the quality found on a physical disc. Until speeds significantly increase, the "streaming only" market is largely Utopian.

I'm always seeing the statement or hearing the statement most people have high speed access....

LS always says no and he is about the only one that does it on a frequent basis. Aside from his comment which may very well be true about cresting above or below 50% is the question about where the high speed access is.

In densely populated centers there are options for high speed access. Not where I live. Just last week the local tv station indicated that Google super high speed might be coming to the city of San Luis Obispo for test marketing. Fine. I live 20 miles away and there are no plans for even 50kb phone lines where I live(the norm is 12kbs) and there are no cable lines either. I have a 500kb satellite hookup and it's much too slow for downloading any video. Cellular phone companies can provide 1.5mb for $90 a month but you only get 5gb a month for that price. Maybe enough for 2 movies of low quality if the cellular connection remains constant.

So where do people in those lower density areas west of the Mississippi get their high speed access if they live just a mile or 2 outside of their local town? Every now and again federal politicos talk about bringing high speed access to all the US. But it's only been talk so far.

Tony

[lordsmurf]

LS always says no and he is about the only one that does it on a frequent basis. Aside from his comment which may very well be true about cresting above or below 50% is the question about where the high speed access is.

I work in the video field, and have a heavy workload of streaming video. edDV works in video, too, and he essentially agreed with what I said. The people who are not dealing with DSPs don't know any better. Very often their information is based on nothing, just their own misguided observations, and general misunderstanding of broadband.

[rayden54]

I have a Power Play membership at Movie Gallery: $40 per month unlimited DVD and game rentals (three DVDs or up to two games and one DVD at a time). With new game releases going at $8 for five nights and new DVDs for $4.39 plus tax - I find it a bargain. If you don't like the movie or game you haven't paid 5 days rental on the thing and can get something else.

That membership might not be such a good idea if your movie gallery is anything like ours. They sold people $100 subscriptions one day, the employees said they would seem them again tomorrow, and the next the store was empty. Honestly my biggest problem is that there isn't a single video rental chain that really offers what I want. If I want the "hottest new releases" I can get them anywhere. What I want is usually rare videos or tv shows that no brick and mortar carries. Which leaves me with Netflix (for some reason Blockbuster's by mail option doesn't carry them either). Unfortunately, I hate the subscription service. I want to pay for each movie as I go. Some months I won't use the service at all and others I want a whole season of a tv show at once. I'm constantly messing with my subscription, starting and stopping, upgrading and downgrading it. However, nothing will make me pay $50 to rent a season of a show when it costs less than that to buy it.
@orsetto Why should I pay 1/3 of the retail price of a disc to keep it for 3 days? That's ridiculous. Renting video games is even worse. You spend $5 to rent a game that sells for $10 new on Amazon.

[cal_tony]

Just so there is no misunderstanding. I also in essence agree with LS. I don't know where all these comments about most people haveing High speed comes from because it doesn't make sense to me either. But even if LS is wrong , and I doubt that he is, my comment was about the 100 + million people who do not live in metro areas and without some new improvement in wireless technology will just not have cable or DSL high speed type access in the foreseeable future.

I don't see anything other than purchased or rented disks in my future.

Tony

[next]

I have a very modest 6mbs internet feed into my home. It costs $35 per month. Although it is sold as a 6mbs service I routinely achieve 9mbs download throughput. Perhaps I'm lucky.

Broadband is poised to make a paradigm shift over the oncoming years.

As a subscriber to Netflix I can say that it works great. I have immediate access to thousands of titles at a moments notice. On a whim.

It beats the hell out of managing and collecting discs. Why try to centralize plastic in the living room when tens of thousands of titles are available in the clouds.

I remember debating with Vitualis years ago. Virtualis claimed the world would never move beyond VCD. My position was that DVD recording would be the norm. Even for Aunt Mable. Virtualis disagreed. I think I won that one.

Now my opinion is that even Aunt Mable will move to content in the clouds. It's too easy. Convenience always wins.

[Tearren]

I didn't read the whole thread, so not sure if someone said this already...

But most likely Blockbuster isn't going anywhere. Worse case scenario they will file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and emerge shutting down brick and mortar stores, have kiosks which they are already testing in some markets ala redbox, and keep the subscription service (maybe even expand it). Though i think it is also possible they keep the most profitable brick and mortars esp where there is little or no competition.

[lordsmurf]

I didn't read the whole thread, so not sure if someone said this already...
But most likely Blockbuster isn't going anywhere. Worse case scenario they will file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and emerge shutting down brick and mortar stores, have kiosks which they are already testing in some markets ala redbox, and keep the subscription service (maybe even expand it). Though i think it is also possible they keep the most profitable brick and mortars esp where there is little or no competition.

They can (and probably will) apply, if needed, but it's not automatically granted -- it can be rejected. Seeing how Blockbuster has used this escape plans several times already, it may be forced to meet certain goals. However, dissolving the B&M and going to online/kiosk only may be such a change that would allow for the Ch11.

You're not wrong.

[sphinx99]

Just so there is no misunderstanding. I also in essence agree with LS. I don't know where all these comments about most people haveing High speed comes from because it doesn't make sense to me either. But even if LS is wrong , and I doubt that he is, my comment was about the 100 + million people who do not live in metro areas and without some new improvement in wireless technology will just not have cable or DSL high speed type access in the foreseeable future.

I don't see anything other than purchased or rented disks in my future.

In one sense, you are right that the U.S. is always going to be disadvantaged when it comes to broadband access. Simply put, this is a big country with a somewhat low population density. As a result, infrastructure is expensive. The issue is not just about broadband but water, roads, etc. as well. The economics would be quite different if we were a nation of 700 million people, but we're not.

[RdM642]

Here in the Northeastern part of the USA, most people have a min of 5 mbs with many have fiber optic and cable lines up to 20 mbs, some with dsl here have as much as 10 mbs speeds, NY City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Virginia, these are huge metropolitan areas, not to mention California, Atlanta, etc. The haves far outnumber the have nots when it comes to good streaming speed.

NO. My brother who works for Verizon is capped in DC for his DSL at 3mb which is the general rule not the exception there. You cant get 5 or 7mb dsl at all in most of DC and FIOS has been delayed for years.

Moreover I think you are confusing access to a service with having it when you say

The majority of people in the USA do have high speed connections now

my guess is the GREAT majority of people under 1.5 mps, this has been widely discussed in news stories looking at the difference in high speed penetration int eh US vs Europe.

[RdM642]

In one sense, you are right that the U.S. is always going to be disadvantaged when it comes to broadband access. Simply put, this is a big country with a somewhat low population density.

It also has to do with the mix of business models and politics. some of the worst high speed availability issues are in the urbanized areas

[lordsmurf]

It also has to do with the mix of business models and politics. some of the worst high speed availability issues are in the urbanized areas

This is what I don't understand either. Sometimes there is faster Internet in the sticks, compared to what's available in the densest heart of the city. I'd guess it has to do with zoning, costs and other general money/politics issues, as you've stated. You can never get a straight answer from the ISP, they'd just assume lie to you.

Replacing ancient telecom wiring is also necessary, but nobody wants to pick up the costs. I think this is where Obama's plan comes into play (not read the full plan).

[cal_tony]

Replacing ancient telecom wiring is also necessary, but nobody wants to pick up the costs. I think this is where Obama's plan comes into play (not read the full plan).

I've lived in a lot of places where the phone lines were bootstrapped to the overhead electric lines. Where I live now all the phone lines are buried by themselves. Seems silly. Overhead elec and buried phone. The phone co. cost for a redig just seems out of the question without govt intervention.

Our Governor was always talking about bringing highspeed to the entire state, but with all our financial problems he hasn't mentioned it in about a year.

Tony

[Rudyard]

Just so there is no misunderstanding. I also in essence agree with LS. I don't know where all these comments about most people haveing High speed comes from because it doesn't make sense to me either. But even if LS is wrong , and I doubt that he is, my comment was about the 100 + million people who do not live in metro areas and without some new improvement in wireless technology will just not have cable or DSL high speed type access in the foreseeable future.

I don't see anything other than purchased or rented disks in my future.

In one sense, you are right that the U.S. is always going to be disadvantaged when it comes to broadband access. Simply put, this is a big country with a somewhat low population density. As a result, infrastructure is expensive. The issue is not just about broadband but water, roads, etc. as well. The economics would be quite different if we were a nation of 700 million people, but we're not.

Try living in AUstralia, population 20 million, land area similar to the US! This brings many benefits, Infrastructure is not one of them!

[jagabo]

average download speed...

Dial-Up: 34 kbps
DSL: 861 kbps
Cable: 2,178 kbps

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2004/04/National_Average_Download_...uage%29/eng-US

Cable ISPs: new broadband test makes our service look slow

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/cable-isps-new-broadband-test-makes-our-se...-look-slow.ars

My ISP rates my cable service as "up to" 12 Mb/s (15 Mb/s with "Speedburst"). During the day Speedtest.net reports about 17 Mb/s, at night 27 Mb/s.

[RdM642]

It also has to do with the mix of business models and politics. some of the worst high speed availability issues are in the urbanized areas

This is what I don't understand either. Sometimes there is faster Internet in the sticks, compared to what's available in the densest heart of the city. I'd guess it has to do with zoning, costs and other general money/politics issues, as you've stated. You can never get a straight answer from the ISP, they'd just assume lie to you.

Replacing ancient telecom wiring is also necessary, but nobody wants to pick up the costs. I think this is where Obama's plan comes into play (not read the full plan).

In a lot of urbanized areas the providers are forced to provide equal access by local politically sensitive authorities, meaning providers must wire less affluent sections where there is a much lower chance of picking up higher profit customers. IE Forcing simultaneous, or even prior, wiring of less affluent areas before more affluent areas. In those cases the provider is less likely to invest, and may delay wiring of the entire city, given they can recover more money more quickly in less controlled situations where they can give preferences to wiring upper demographics. In that sense, potential profit, a suburb can be seen as higher density than a city.

I am not saying that with prejudice to it being right or wrong on anyone's part but rather the fact of those politics and variables being present.. I believe in profit, demand driven decisions, but also in some oversight of utilities.

Take Verizon FIOS. In several cities with hundreds of thousands of high value customers, cities have tried to foce simultainious FIOS wiring of poor areas. What Verizon has done is is simply wire suburbs and long delay any wiring in the city. In my jusristiction that is exactly what happened. Interestingly Comcast were big contributors to the city councelmembers who insisted Verizon wire the city with poor areas first.

[edDV]

It also has to do with the mix of business models and politics. some of the worst high speed availability issues are in the urbanized areas

This is what I don't understand either. Sometimes there is faster Internet in the sticks, compared to what's available in the densest heart of the city. I'd guess it has to do with zoning, costs and other general money/politics issues, as you've stated. You can never get a straight answer from the ISP, they'd just assume lie to you.

Replacing ancient telecom wiring is also necessary, but nobody wants to pick up the costs. I think this is where Obama's plan comes into play (not read the full plan).

In a lot of urbanized areas the providers are forced to provide equal access by local politically sensitive authorities, meaning providers must wire less affluent sections where there is a much lower chance of picking up higher profit customers. IE Forcing simultaneous, or even prior, wiring of less affluent areas before more affluent areas. In those cases the provider is less likely to invest, and may delay wiring of the entire city, given they can recover more money more quickly in less controlled situations where they can give preferences to wiring upper demographics. In that sense, potential profit, a suburb can be seen as higher density than a city.

I am not saying that with prejudice to it being right or wrong on anyone's part but rather the fact of those politics and variables being present.. I believe in profit, demand driven decisions, but also in some oversight of utilities.

Take Verizon FIOS. In several cities with hundreds of thousands of high value customers, cities have tried to foce simultainious FIOS wiring of poor areas. What Verizon has done is is simply wire suburbs and long delay any wiring in the city. In my jusristiction that is exactly what happened. Interestingly Comcast were big contributors to the city councelmembers who insisted Verizon wire the city with poor areas first.

This is exactly what is happening in California. In the past each local city or district negotiated cable franchise contracts but this was grabbed by the state. Now cable companies must upgrade low income areas before high to justify by income standards. Most political analysts think AT&T lobby money was behind this since UVerse is exempted. Cable companies just slowed investment and lowered bandwidth in areas not already upgraded*. Recently Verizon announced FIOS is not profitable under these kinds of rules so they will only fill out existing areas and not expand further.

Your politicians at work taking lobby money.


* or converted to all digital which hurts low income analog customers.

[RdM642]

[QUOTE=edDV;1974120Most political analysts think AT&T lobby money was behind this since UVerse is exempted. Cable companies just slowed investment and lowered bandwidth in areas not already upgraded. Recently Verizon announced FIOS is not profitable under these kinds of rules so they will only fill out existing areas and not expand further.
Your politicians at work taking lobby money.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly right.

I can't say I am completely agaisnt local or state authorities giving some impetus, some nudge to providing better access in poorer areas and keeping providers from simply cherry picking.

But the more you look into it the more you realize what is occurring is s simply the typcial bordello of campaign contributions driving these things. The same type of thing has happened over and over with lots of technology. I have seen it up close with wireless. I have seen it upclose with DRM and the DMCA which was dominated by huge campaign contributions to senators who had no idea what they were talking about and just taking material by lobbyests as their verbatim positions (ted stevens). And you sure can see it in my jurisdictions with comcast donations to those who are trying to "shape" fios roll-out.

The reason you saw state authorities take it over in your jurisdiction was probably that the state officials elected and non elected regulators, wanted the cash cow from the lobbyists!

[edDV]

[QUOTE=RdM642;1974121]

That is exactly right.

I can't say I am completely agaisnt local or state authorities giving some impetus, some nudge to providing better access in poorer areas and keeping providers from simply cherry picking.

But the more you look into it the more you realize what is occurring is s simply the typcial bordello of campaign contributions driving these things. The same type of thing has happened over and over with lots of technology. I have seen it up close with wireless. I have seen it upclose with DRM and the DMCA which was dominated by huge campaign contributions to senators who had no idea what they were talking about and just taking material by lobbyests as their verbatim positions (ted stevens). And you sure can see it in my jurisdictions with comcast donations to those who are trying to "shape" fios roll-out.

The reason you saw state authorities take it over in your jurisdiction was probably that the state officials elected and non elected regulators, wanted the cash cow from the lobbyists!

In my county, cable was viewed with suspicion. We negotiated fiber to last mile, competitive internet, local origination from schools, subsidized community access, live govt meetings at city and county level, community college courses and >750 MHz fiber fed bandwidth.

In the next cycle the state negotiates "for us" by taking lobbyist money with little local input. The small counties have been cut out.

[Seeker47]

Take Verizon FIOS. In several cities with hundreds of thousands of high value customers, cities have tried to foce simultainious FIOS wiring of poor areas. What Verizon has done is is simply wire suburbs and long delay any wiring in the city. In my jusristiction that is exactly what happened. Interestingly Comcast were big contributors to the city councelmembers who insisted Verizon wire the city with poor areas first.

This is exactly what is happening in California. In the past each local city or district negotiated cable franchise contracts but this was grabbed by the state. Now cable companies must upgrade low income areas before high to justify by income standards. Most political analysts think AT&T lobby money was behind this since UVerse is exempted. Cable companies just slowed investment and lowered bandwidth in areas not already upgraded*. Recently Verizon announced FIOS is not profitable under these kinds of rules so they will only fill out existing areas and not expand further.

Your politicians at work taking lobby money.


* or converted to all digital which hurts low income analog customers.

I think you've filled in some of the blanks of our situation here. It was amazing to me that Verizon FIOS apparently has zero presence in San Diego County -- a large and significant piece of S. Calif., with plenty of prosperous sections. Yet they are in Temecula, a self-contained smaller city out "on the wing," just over the line inside adjacent Riverside County. Their website has claimed for some time that they will be expanding into metro areas like ours, never mentioning when, but I think that is window dressing and baloney. When I've called them in the past, some of their reps have talked about "territorial exclusivity" being the culprit, but I believe that to be crapola as well. I don't think they are classified as a competing cable Co. (like Comcast), and so should not be subject to the same assigned territories; rather, they should have the freedom to compete wherever, as the satellite services do. Some dirty backroom dealing seems like it would be more the ticket on this.

U-Verse, because it's from AT&T, seems to have the clout and the cash to slug it out with the cable lobby. Why Verizon does not, I can't quite see. Too bad that U-Verse has pretty bad reviews (I've inquired around this area, quite a bit), or else I might have considered it.

Re Broadband speeds: DSL Elite was widely available up in L.A., but forget about anything like that in S.D. We're stuck with TW. Meanwhile, I'm so envious of the really fast internet speeds a friend in Orange County gets with Verizon FIOS. (Not to mention the quality of their tv delivery.)

Gotta nod in the general direction of the original thread topic, so I'll say that I haven't had any dealings at all with Blockbuster for many years. Return policies aside, they were always the video equivalent of the late Crown Books -- e.g., a bestseller store, never really a place with a decent selection, particularly if you were looking for anything out of the ordinary. Can't say I'd miss them if they went away.

[lordsmurf]

To say "U-verse sucks" would be an understatement. FIOS has been mired in snafus, too. I think their tech is to infantile, still. What I'd rather see is the infrastructure for faster cable broadband. However, that requires newer, beefier cables, and more of the them.

[edDV]

To say "U-verse sucks" would be an understatement. FIOS has been mired in snafus, too. I think their tech is to infantile, still. What I'd rather see is the infrastructure for faster cable broadband. However, that requires newer, beefier cables, and more of the them.

It requires local state and fed governments get out of the way.

Let the high income neighborhoods absorb the early adopter costs. That brings down the cost for the next tier.

[SingSing]

To say "U-verse sucks" would be an understatement. FIOS has been mired in snafus, too. I think their tech is to infantile, still. What I'd rather see is the infrastructure for faster cable broadband. However, that requires newer, beefier cables, and more of the them.

I Tried FIOS in 2008, and they give me all the run around, and headache.

[jagabo]

I Tried FIOS in 2008, and they give me all the run around, and headache.

Meaning what? I'd like to hear the details...

[edDV]

I'd wish for that kind of headache.

[lordsmurf]

I'd wish for that kind of headache.

I doubt it. You get better service with two cans and a piece of string.