Netflix News: Getting Rid Of Instant Queue, Bringing FilmDistrict To Watch Instantly, And Comcast Controversy

With most of the Netflix news surrounding there newly installed streaming-only subscription plan, there are a few other developments from the current giant of video renting, which have caught some attention.

First, according to NewTeeVee, the company is currently looking into getting rid of their Instant Queue, which was first installed in January of 2007, when Watch Instant officially launched.   The company is attempting to find different ways to bookmark films that a respective user is interested in viewing somewhere down the line. Here’s what Netflix’s CFO had to say on the subject:

‘The queue is optimized to DVD shipping, and we think its a poor vehicle to remember interesting content to stream. We are planning a round of exploration of simpler, more natural ‘remember’ functionality.’

Personally, I can’t think of a much easier way for a user to bookmark interesting or intriguing films, than separate queues for both streaming and non-streaming films.   I do think the limit of 500 films, which conceptually a broad number, is actually quite stifling, and for any cinephile, a number that is relatively easy to fill up.

In other Netflix-related news, the company has announced that they have partnered with distributor FilmDistrict to bring the company’s films to Watch Instant.   Starting with films like Nicolas Winding Refn’s upcoming James Sallis adaptation, Drive, the films will be available to stream ‘a few months after their release on DVD.’ Talk about a complete win for Netflix users.   Who could ask for something better? Refn on Watch Instant is like syrup on French toast.   Just delicious stuff.

Finally, and most disturbing, according to The Wrap, the communication company known as Level 3 Communication have been notified by Comcast (back on November 19), that Comcast was looking for a recurring fee for ‘transmission of movies and other content to Comcast Internet service customers.’ This is, like The Wrap states, taking the debate surrounding net neutrality to ‘a new level,’ and one that I frankly think is disturbing and must, if true, be stopped dead in its truly awful tracks.

That brings me to this.   What do you think about net neutrality? This is an issue that has been discussed all around the web, so we would love to hear what you think about the concept.

Source: NewTeeVee / Netflix / The Wrap

More from Joshua Brunsting

1 Comment

  • Comcast’s reason for jacking up the fees on Level 3 is nonsense. It claims that Level 3’s content delivery has “dramatically increased” and that under the “peering” agreement it is entitled to require Level 3 to pay more. That’s nonsense. First, Comcast, presumably, is not charging itself a higher fee for its content delivery; thus, it has the advantage of delivering its content a lot cheaper than its competitors, thereby gaining an unfair market advantage. Second, unless Comcast can quantify what “dramatically increased” traffic means and it can demonstrate that it has applied the same quantitative standard to all CDN providers, then Comcast’s action in this instance could be deemed arbitrary and discriminatory. Third, if the same content (Netflix movies) that Level 3 is delivering were to be spread out over three or four CDN providers (i.e. Level 3, AKamai, and Limelight), then the same content trafficking through Comcast would not “dramatically increase” by any one CDN provider and Comcast therefore would not have any grounds to require the CDN providers to pay more, under the “peering” agreement. The point is if Comcast could not increase rates if the Netflix movie content were delivered through multiple CDN providers, then it certainly should not be allowed to increase its fees just because that content is delivered by only one CDN provider. Just my thought.

Comments are closed.