A California company with a novel approach for renting DVDs faces the prospect of a preliminary injunction against the service if a judge agrees the service is skirting copyright law.

Zediva promotes itself as a remote DVD rental service that avoids lengthy delays often imposed on online streaming and pay-per-view services.  The company allows customers to “rent” DVD titles the same they are released, remotely streaming the contents over a broadband connection.  Zediva says it literally has a bank of DVD players which customers can access and remotely control.  When a customer “rents” a DVD, a Zediva employee inserts the disc into a DVD player and gives each customer up to two weeks to watch the movie.  Because Zediva says only one customer can rent the physical DVD at a time, it is not skirting copyright or streaming laws. The service will even mail the DVD to a customer if they don’t want to watch it over their Internet connection.

Zediva argues it is using the Internet as a way to connect the DVD player to a renter’s television.  The company says it should not matter where the player is physically located, and because a customer can exclusively control the actual player during the rental period, it is not violating any laws.

Hollywood disagrees, and the Motion Picture Association of America promptly filed suit in April, claiming Zediva’s business model undermines its licensing agreements with online movie services.  The lawsuit claims Zediva is not paying movie streaming rights like other online movie services, and is not comparable to a traditional movie rental store because the company makes individual titles available for viewing by other parties as soon as four hours after a customer stops watching, even though they can return and watch the movie again for no additional charge for up to two weeks.

This week, the MPAA touted a potential new friend of the lawsuit — Cablevision, which filed its own amicus brief in the case drawing distinctions between its Remote DVR service and Zediva.  Cablevision is in trouble with some rights holders over its new Remote DVR, which records shows on equipment at the cable company’s offices and then streams the programming on-demand to subscribers’ TV sets.  Some contend Cablevision owes “per performance” license payments for every show watched over the service.  Cablevision has consistently argued to the contrary, suggesting the actual location of the storage system should not matter, so long as the recordings are made and watched by only a single customer.

But Cablevision’s brief shows the company has no interest in being connected to Zediva, arguing its Remote DVR service is not comparable to the pay-per-view business Zediva is running.

A judge is expected to hear the case early next week.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Zediva Video Streaming Service 3-17-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC and the New York Times’ David Pogue tried out Zediva back when it was introduced in March of this year.  (3 minutes)

More than 35,000 Netflix subscribers flooded the company’s blog and Facebook page with negative comments less than 24 hours after the company announced major pricing changes for its DVD-by-mail and streaming services.

News that Netflix would unbundle discounts for customers who enjoy online streaming and still need to rent an occasional DVD-by-mail went over like a lead balloon for the overwhelming majority, who hit the 5,000 comment limit on Netflix’s own blog by 5:30pm Tuesday, and continue to pound the company’s Facebook page by the tens of thousands this morning.

One of the most “liked” comments came from longtime Netflix customer Scotty Fagaly:

“The only way that this is terrific for the customer is if you plan to offer your entire collection available for streaming,” Fagaly lamented. “Otherwise, this is just yet another way to choke more change out of your customers.”

Only about 20 percent of Netflix’s library is available for streaming at any time, with some titles and studios coming and going.  Several television series are available online, but certain episodes are often missing from the streaming library, requiring customers to rent the DVD to see everything.

Are these discs made of gold now?

The biggest negative response came from the loss of the popular $9.99 plan, which allowed unlimited streaming and an unlimited number of DVD’s — sent one at a time — to customers.  With the unbundling of discounts, that same plan now costs $15.99 — a 60% increase.

Netflix officials have yet to respond to the firestorm of criticism, in part laid at the feet of Jessie Becker, who tried to make lemonade out of the price increase most customers describe as a lemon.

“It’s insulting that Netflix think we’re stupid enough to believe this change is either ‘exciting’ or ‘good news,'” one hostile commenter noted.  “Stop couching this as anything other than what it is — a price hike.”

“So far you have 32,446 people on your Facebook page planning to or already have canceled, and 6,857 on this blog [over an] announcement yesterday. If nothing else there might be an award in it for you guys for most Internet hits for pissing off customers in the shortest amount of time,” said Christine Perry.  “I can go to Redbox and rent a new release for a dollar, watch it and return it the same day and get a new one. Why would I pay $7.99 to wait 3 days to get a DVD, and the another 3 days after I watch it for you to get it back, and then another 3 days to get another one?”

Daniel Indiviglio, a former investment banker who works today as an associate editor at The Atlantic, called Netflix’s price changes “boneheaded,” particularly for investors if it backfires:

“How much could Netflix lose? Let’s do a quick analysis. According to one estimate, about 80% of Netflix subscribers currently have by-mail service that includes free streaming. Of that portion, let’s say half cancel streaming but keep by-mail service. Remember, many people don’t use streaming at all. In particular, if you don’t have an Internet-ready device connected to your television with a Netflix widget, then streaming is far less attractive. Through Netflix’s new pricing, by-mail only service will be about 20% cheaper than the current rate that includes free streaming.

[…] “Netflix has been a darling of investors for some time now. In just the past year, its stock price has increased by an amazing 144%. But Wall Street might begin to question its strategy. The company has said that streaming is the future. It’s right. But the future isn’t here yet. If its streaming subscriber base suddenly plummets by 50% or even by a smaller margin like 30%, then investors might worry about whether consumers are really ready to embrace the service on which Netflix has been investing a huge portion of its revenue. And if its profits dive as a result of the rate hike, then investors will be even more concerned with Netflix’s vision.

“So what should Netflix have done? It should have increased its rates slightly, maybe by a dollar or two, and broke out streaming and by-mail service. For example, the company could have increased the cost of its basic plan from $9.99 to $11.98 for streaming plus by-mail service. If you wanted the two a la carte, it could have charged $4.99 for streaming and $6.99 for one DVD-by-mail. Although customers wouldn’t love the rate increase, they’d be better able to stomach it. It would also give Netflix the ability to up its fees in future years gradually, to hit the target that it believes is appropriate. But putting the hike in place immediately may do the company more harm than good.”

Your Alternatives

Bankrupt Blockbuster wasted no time taking advantage, pelting many of their former rental members with e-mail reminding them they can rent Blockbuster DVD’s by mail without a monthly subscription.  Unfortunately, it’s not cheap.  A seven day rental of a single disc will cost $4.99.  Subscription plans offer a better value for frequent renters.  Blockbuster also benefits from not being perceived these days as a “bad boy” by Hollywood studios, who have been penalizing Netflix with longer rental embargo windows.  Many new releases reach Blockbuster a month before showing up in Redbox or on Netflix’s roster.  Customers can also swap out up for five DVD’s a month at BlockBuster retail outlets, and video game rentals are also available.

Prices:

• One DVD out at a time: $12 per month
• Two DVDs out at a time: $17 per month
• Three DVDs out at a time: $20 per month

Hulu Plus has not been a runaway success for its owners, charging $8 a month to paying customers who win the right to watch additional content, but with the same commercial load the free alternative service provides.  People don’t think of Hulu for movies because the service is heavily focused on television series, but Hulu Plus does deliver a small selection.  Amazon Instant Video is another alternative, for those paying Amazon.com $79 a year for the privilege of getting their orders shipped to arrive in 48 hours for no additional shipping charges.  Amazon added unlimited access to their Instant Video streaming library at no additional charge for Amazon Prime members.  Just about anyone signing up with a new account at Amazon can get a 30-day free trial of Amazon Prime, with the movie service.  But you will make due with watching around 6,000 titles, many of which are obscure or a distant memory.

Many of Netflix’s upset customers report they are headed for the Movie Tardis — the 27,000+ giant red boxes erected in front of grocery and drug stores.  Redbox pitches $1 movie rentals, but you need to return them by 9pm the following day.  Blu-ray movies cost 50 cents more.  Redbox carries a healthy selection of current titles, and you only interact with a machine, so you won’t deal with the eye-rolling you might get renting at area video stores.  This option works best if you are within a very short distance from the nearest kiosk.  Otherwise, you may find returning discs a hassle.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNAC Providence Netflix raising prices 60pct 7-13-11.mp4[/flv]

Netflix is raising prices and subscribers are not happy, shares WNAC-TV in Providence.  Their advice? “Stick to Redbox.”  (1 minute)

Hulu has received an unsolicited, and still private offer to buy the company lock, stock, and barrel — disengaging some of America’s largest television networks from the online streaming business Hulu represents.

With an offer in hand, Hulu’s owners News Corp., Walt Disney, and Comcast/NBC have decided to hire investment bankers to solicit any competing offers for the service.  Yahoo! may be one of the companies interested.

Hulu has always represented an irritation for program buyers — notably cable networks and television stations — that purchase programming to rerun on cable networks and television stations.  Because Hulu gives away most of its content for free, these buyers argue it devalues the programming they are buying.

In short, if everyone has already been able to watch 30 Rock several times online, for free, why pay top dollar to buy the series to show on a local television station?

The problem is even worse from the perspective of cable, phone, and satellite companies in the business of selling video packages to customers.  As soon as viewers discover they can watch all of their favorite shows online, again for free, why buy the cable TV or satellite package?

The Los Angeles Times reports Hulu may have some bad news in store for cord cutters: it may implement its own “authentication” system that would only allow instant access to those with a verified subscription to a pay television package.  All others would need to wait just over a week before they can watch popular shows during a limited viewing window.

For many analysts, that will slash the service’s net worth to a would-be buyer.  So would the inability of the new owners to win long-term contracts for the rights to keep popular series and shows on Hulu for the indefinite future.  In the case of Comcast/NBC, it’s a classic case of being torn between bringing your programming to more viewers and eroding away your company’s own cable subscriber base.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Olson Says Yahoo Google Amazon Potential Hulu Buyers 6-22-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports on rumors Yahoo!, Google, and Amazon may be interested in acquiring Hulu.  (5 minutes)

Phillip Dampier

This week, the tech community has been buzzing over new entrants in the world of cloud computing.  Apple’s iCloud in particular has sparked enormous media coverage as the company plans to encourage customers to access all of their favorite content over their broadband connection.  Apple is also moving towards online distribution of many of its software products, including the forthcoming OS X Lion operating system, suggesting consumers can pass up traditional physical media like CD-ROMs or DVDs.

Cloud storage theoretically allows you to store your entire music, video and photo collection online for easy access from any device.  Watching the 20-somethings buzz about 100GB+ secure file lockers and the end of traditional file storage as we know it has been amusing, but these people need to get their heads out of the clouds.  Unless they become politically involved in America’s broadband debate, it is not going to happen the way they hope it will.

Tech entrepreneur?  Meet broadband provider reality check: the Internet Overcharging usage cap and “excessive use” pricing scheme.

While Steve Jobs was introducing iCloud, broadband providers and their industry friends have been ruminating over the impact all of this new traffic will have on their broadband networks.  In an homage to former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre’s “you can’t use my pipes for free,” the drumbeat for implementing “control measures” for cloud computing and video traffic has been amplified several times over by certain providers, Wall Street analysts, and their trade press and equipment supplier lackeys.

One alarmed provider pondered the impact of iCloud in terms of their past experience with iTunes, which also spiked traffic when it was first released.  Others balk at the notion of consumers using broadband platforms to move entire libraries of content back and forth, especially on wireless networks.  The only sigh of relief detected?  Apple won’t start iCloud with video content — just music, at least at first.

The enemies list

The biggest targets — the companies that get a lot of pushback from providers for using “their networks” to earn millions for themselves are Google, Netflix, Amazon and Apple.  Each of them are rapidly moving into the online entertainment business, threatening to provoke more cable TV cord-cutting.  Netflix is now responsible for 30 percent of online traffic during primetime hours, a fact that some use as an accusation — as if Netflix should be held to account for its own success. Amazon has opened its own cloud based music storage and is also increasingly getting into online video content streaming.  Apple has a novel approach at handling its forthcoming iCloud music feature which should save hours in uploading, but the company is also moving towards online distribution of a growing proportion of its software, including the huge bug fixes and upgrades that will easily exceed a gigabyte if you own several Apple products.

Google is a frequent Washington target and honestly delivers the only truly effective corporate pushback to anti-consumer broadband pricing some providers have contemplated.  In fact, Google is putting its money where its mouth is building a gigabit network larger providers repeatedly scoff at as unnecessary, too costly, and too complicated.

While millions in venture capital funds new online innovations, only a miniscule amount of money is being spent to counter the lobbying major providers are doing in Washington to redefine the broadband revolution in their terms, complete with usage pricing that bears no relation to cost, arbitrary usage limits, and ongoing lack of true competition.

Online innovation is grand, but allowing providers to strangle it with Internet Overcharging schemes guarantees to end the party real fast.

Individually, none of the new cloud services are likely to blow out usage caps in excess of 100GB, but in combination they certainly could.  Anyone using online file backup, cloud storage of video and large music collections, uses Netflix or other online streaming services, and spends lots of time on the web will easily approach the limits some providers have established.  That doesn’t even include large software updates.  Unless you have an unlimited usage plan on the wireless side, don’t even think about using most of these services with AT&T’s 2GB monthly wireless usage cap.

Glenn Britt: The Internet is a utility which is why we can keep raising the price.

In the handful of countries with ubiquitous Internet Overcharging, little of this will pose a problem — companies won’t launch cloud computing services in markets where usage caps will effectively keep customers from using them.

That is why it is critical for some of America’s largest technology companies to get on board the fight against Internet Overcharging, and demand Washington recognize broadband as a utility service that should be wide open and usage cap free.  The evidence is right in front of you.  Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt recognizes the fact broadband is an essential part of our lives today, which is why he is confident enough to keep raising the price and charging even more in the future.  It’s not about “network congestion,” “building the next generation of broadband,” or “pricing fairness.”  Stop the Cap! started at ground zero for Time Warner Cable’s 2009 version of “pricing fairness” — $150 a month for an unlimited use broadband account that likely cost major providers less than $10 a month to provide.  It’s about pure, naked profiteering, unchecked by free market competition in today’s broadband duopoly.

Unless a company like Google can vastly expand its own broadband rollouts, it is increasingly apparent to me (and many others), we may have to move towards an entirely different model for broadband in the United States — one built on the premise of the Interstate Highway System.  One advanced, publicly-owned fiber network open to all providers on which telecommunications services can travel to homes and businesses from coast to coast.

Nobody says private companies shouldn’t be able to compete, but every day more evidence arrives they will never be inclined to deliver the next generation of service that other countries around the world are starting to take for granted.  They will instead protect their current business models at all costs, even if that means throwing America’s broadband innovation revolution under the bus.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Will iCloud Measure Up 6-7-11.flv[/flv]

CNN takes a look at what makes Apple’s iCloud service different from competitors from Google and Amazon.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNN Dropbox Cloud Computing 6-8-11.flv[/flv]

CNN talks with the folks at Dropbox about their cloud file storage system.  (3 minutes)

Netflix continues to get a lesson on broadband economics from the Internet Service Providers out to scare their customers away from spending too much time watching the company’s online streaming service.  As some Canadian ISPs lowered usage caps in response to Netflix’s imminent arrival, the video streaming service just announced it was letting customers turn down the bit rate of online videos to conserve their monthly usage allowance.

Neil Hunt, Netflix Chief Product Officer, told customers about the bit rate reduction in a company blog post:

Starting today, watching movies and TV shows streaming from Netflix will use 2/3 less data on average, with minimal impact to video quality.

Now Canadians can watch 30 hours of streaming from Netflix in a month that will consume only 9 GBytes of data, well below most data caps.

We made these changes because many Canadian Internet service providers unfortunately enforce monthly caps on the total amount of data consumed.

In the past, viewing 30 hours of Netflix could consume as much as 70 GBytes, if it was all in HD, and typically about 30 GBytes. While there is some lessening of picture quality with these new settings, the experience continues to be great.

Video compression reduces data consumption, but also sacrifices video quality and enjoyment. An example of high video compression on the left can be more than noticeable.

Unfortunately for Hunt, providers can continue to lower data caps to the point where Netflix would have to present their video library as a slideshow to keep customers under their limits.

Stop the Cap! responded directly to Hunt imploring Netflix to get involved in the battle that consumers have thus far fought alone:

While some customers appreciate Netflix for turning down the video bitrates, I am here to tell you it’s not nearly enough.

For nearly three years, our consumer group — Stop the Cap! has fought Internet Overcharging schemes in both Canada and the United States.

Whether it’s Bell’s proposal to eliminate flat rate broadband across all of Canada, Time Warner’s 2009 pricing experiment to limit broadband users to just 40GB of usage per month, or AT&T’s 150-250GB cap taking effect this spring, your competitors are on a mission to scare customers away from using your online video streaming service.

[…] The fact is, Netflix MUST engage in this fight. Consumers cannot do it alone, especially when up against billion dollar companies spending millions on lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers usage caps are about “fairness” when they are really about monetizing broadband traffic and scaring off cord-cutting.