Talk:Netflix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Netflix was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: December 30, 2006
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Netflix is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Archives

/Archive1 - Through March 2006

/Archive2 - April 2006 - the "Hacking Netflix Link" debate, including the an RFC.

[edit] "Fraud", "deceptive" POV additions

User NetFlixFraud has been adding what to me is some fairly obvious POV wording into the article. The current version is:

Many people assert that NetFlix continues to defraud customers: claiming "rent 'as many DVDs as you want'", when at the same time contradicting the marketing claim in their TOS. Promising one thing, and delivering another is bait & switch. This is fraud. Netflix has not yet been found guilty of fraud. The Netflix marketing campaign, "rent as many DVDs as you want" is not in line with their TOS. This is at the very least deceptive.

Some background for those just coming in - Netflix is settling the "Chavez" class action lawsuit mentioned in the article, which also prompted them to acknowledge in their Terms of Service what has become known as "throttling". Note that the lawsuit never reached any sort of judgement, and Netflix apparently felt no need to change their actual operational practices because of it, just document them. The US Federal Trade Commission was an intervenor late in the settlement, but only on how Netflix appeared to be using the settlement's free service to the affected members as a recruiting tool, not the behaviour alleged, and took no position on any sort of consumer fraud concerns, etc. It seems to be a classic "nuisance" settlement. Unlike, for example, Blockbuster, which was pressured by the various states over the introduction of their "No Late Fees" program, I'm not aware of any similar action against Netflix.

Whatever individual customers may think of such marketing terms as "unlimited" or whatever, they are fairly common in the online DVD industry (not just the US), and it seems to be not much different than "all you can eat" restaurants, or "unlimited warranties" on automobiles, where the fine print counts. Phrasing such as "fraud", "bait & switch" and "deceptive" would seem to have no justification in an encyclopedic article. - David Oberst 02:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's POV pushing, plain and simple. If there's a verifiable, NPOV way to put it, I invite the user to add it, but this shouldn't be left to stand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1500 Terrabytes

I'd recommend the comment about 1500 Terrabytes a day being as much as what travels the internet be removed. That's in the range of 150 Gbit/sec and I've been in two datacenters which together push 100 Gbit/sec and there are many more of that size and wihtin an order of magnitude.

[edit] POV

This article reads to me as distinctly POV. At least half the article is written in an extremely negative tone -- I came here looking to find out how Netflix handles licensing to movie studios, and find out that some dude has a beef with "throttling." The POV here needs to be cut down, especially since some of it is redundant. 24.185.243.220 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While some of it might be redundant, Netflix's legally-proven practice of delaying the shipment of DVDs to people who tried to get the most for their monthly dues is a large part of the company's brief history. To lop it out due to the complaint of the person above would be rash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.218.226 (talk • contribs)

I'd never heard of all this throttling business. And I wouldn't complain about them sending me a DVD from all the way across the country. When I rent big name Hollywood blockbusters, they send them to me from Lansing and I get them the next day. When I rent obscure animé DVDs, they might send it from California and it might take a whole week. I'm just happy they even have the title to begin with. I can wait a week for something I thought I'd never get a chance to watch. Well, that's my POV. Michiganotaku 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't just obscure movies (like anime) that are subject to throttling. They send many DVDs from across the country, including new releases. Blockbuster does the same thing. It should be pointed out, so people don't join with unrealistic expectations. Throttling is definitely real and most services do it. Some users never notice it, because they don't rent more than 8 or 9 movies a month. They would not be subject to throttling. They would always get one-day shipping both ways and high-priority for new releases. It's not a negative tone at all. People are just pointing out the fact that Netflix imposes artificial limits, while claiming unlimited service. They should be honest and just say you get 3x or 4x the plan (9 or 12 on 3-out). Then, nobody would have reason to complain. It's the fraud that bugs us and deserves to be noted..

[edit] Kitchen Sink?

Judging from that source cited (6) for the Kitchen Sink reference, it sounded to be purely metaphorical.

Ditto, I'm going to rev it out.---Jackel 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It actually *did* happen. It was a stainless steel double-bowl kitchen sink. Nsayer 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Libraries

"Free public libraries often lend out DVDs now. Some charge a small fee. They carry a variety of new and old titles from different genres - action, sci fi, drama, comedy, foreign, anime, horror, independent, cult classics, etc. Most allow you to reserve things online, and pickup locally when ready. They sometimes carry titles and versions that are Out-Of-Print or unavailable from Netflix."

Terrific - so public libraries lend DVDs. What has this got to do with Netflix? Public libraries also lend books - do they therefore get a mention in the entry for Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble? I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix, but whatever the reason, I don't think it belongs in the article because it doesn't have a single thing to do with the company. 12.162.189.80 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would highly agree.--Anthony 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, amazon does not ask for your book back once you have read it... the similarities between netflix and a library are more striking to me, and are worth being mentioned, but the paragraph you cite looks too loong and detailed than needed. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Libraries have many titles that are out-of-print or unavailable from Netflix. Also, they don't cost you anything usually. Many people can't justify the cost of a Netflix membership when they don't rent many discs a month. The libraries are part of Netflix's competitive environment. If that's off topic, then the whole section on competition should be removed.
"I assume someone with a beef against Netflix inserted that as advertising for an alternative DVD rental resource in the hopes of steering a few people away from using Netflix,"
Sounds like you are trying to push Netflix and don't want it pointed out that they do not have certain titles that libraries do. If that "steers a few people to the library," I think they would be happy to know about it. Libraries are a competitor to Netflix. If that's not relevant, then remove the whole section. Personally, I think competition is relevant. It is biased, NOT to point out the alternatives to their service. The page isn't supposed to be an advertisement for Netflix. If libraries have some things NFLX doesn't and provide them free, that makes them attractive, IMO.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix has many more titles than any libraries. They're one of the the foremost distributors of independent films. What public library can attest to that? I vote that the library comment should be removed. It adds nothing to readers' knowledge on the subject of Netflix. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, everybody knows that they can get books from the library. Not everyone knows they can get Criterion DVDs and other things. If someone adds a section on "Competitive Environment" to the Amazon or B&N articles, I would expect the Public Library to be mentioned. It has nothing to do with having a "beef" against Netflix. Libraries have things Netflix doesn't. Libraries usually let you reserve things online and borrow them for free. They deserve to be mentioned.
No, I still disagree. If you want to read about libraries, go to the public library page. This article is about Netflix. Would a published encyclopedia include a comment that "Netflix rents movies. But libraries have different movies." No, they wouldn't. And the argument that people don;t know that they can rent movies form a library isn't true anymore. Sure, when people had no idea what a DVD was, they might not have known, but this is 2006. In any case, people know that libraries hold all kinds of multimedia (microfilm, newspapers, journal articles, lots of stuff). I'm going to pull the comment off. --Michael 00:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox of Abundance

I think the piece of news reported here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1654258 (Netflix Users Experience Paradox of Abundance) should be mentioned in the article, but I do not have the time to elaborate it. If you think this is a good idea consider adding a reference to it. Muzzle 08:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gift subscriptions / Replacement DVDs

The fact that you will be charged if you do not cancel your gift/trial subscriptions goes with anything that has a trial (rhapsody and every porn site come to mind), and I think that someone got burned somewhere along the way and wants to express his anger. I'm deleting it. If anyone has a problem, feel free to discuss.

Second, is it really necessary to include all that information of replacmenet DVDs? So you lost a day because your DVD was broken in the mail. While it's not outwardly negative, I still feel that it's written in distaste. Anyone object to me editing it a bit?--Michael 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is the giver that gets charged if the gift is not cancelled by the recipient of the gift subscription. This is a very strange policy, and something that any potential giver should be aware of. It is not analogous to a trial subscription to a porn site or The Motley Fool newsletter. [—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.170.32.240 on 20:22, August 27, 2006]
That is not true. Nsayer 05:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

So what exactly is the reason this article has a neutrality tag? What was the tagger's reason? Has anyone done anything to address that reason? Michiganotaku 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that someone added the tag a long time ago and it's only undergone a few simple changes that have helped the POV issue. Still, reading over the article gives me the distinct feeling that it's still written in a slant. I don't know what else to do to help it. --Michael 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm just used to reading biased stuff or what, but this is the first time I read this article, and it seems fairly NPOV to me. There was a lawsuit, in which the plaintiff alleged some things, NetFlix denied it and settled out of court. There's no bias to that. The only things that bothered me were the "see www.netflixprize.com" thing and the "cultural references" section (but only because I really can't stand that comic strip! :P) --RealGrouchy 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throttling

I don't know about you guys, but I never experienced any of this throttling nonsense. But then again I don't care. Some people send a movie back and then have to wait for the stupid mail system to get the next one. I just make a copy a soon as I get the dvd and send it back the same day. That way I don't have to worry about when the discs arrive. They arrive whenever it's time and then a make a copy and send it back. When I want to watch something I just go to the every growing stack of burned DVD's. My only problem is that doing this has created more discs than I have time to watch and so I have twenty or so DVD's in my collection that I haven't seen yet and no pressure to get around to watching them. There is your paradox of abundance.--God Ω War 13:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "throttling" is that there's no accepted definition. Depending on what blog you read or what comment is posted, throttling can be as simple as them shipping a movie next day or shipping from a non-local distribution center to some complex conspiracy involving holding your rentals up in the system to delay shipments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, God of War? Evilrhino 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to do that, then you might as well just skip Netflix altogether and download movies from torrent sites...Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of how you do it.Dav2008 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality."

So... has anyone followed up on this? Anton Mravcek 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: need refs for citation needed tags, lead expanded and should summarize article, refs are not in a consistent format, refs come after punctuation-not in the middle of a sentence,

I provided a reference for the sentence requesting one. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but the rest of it isn't done and the lead does not summarize the article either.Rlevse 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed all the refs in this article and now all are in proper format (at end of sentence; etc).--Natl1 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Lead still needs work per above.70.160.188.138 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Rlevse appears to have left the project. I'm going to be bold and pass this, based on the work that's already been done -- I think it substantially meets the Good Article criteria. However, the lead does need a little more work in order to better summarize the article. On its way toward FA, I think it could also use some additional citing, especially in the Corporate History section, and a copyedit for manual of style and prose-tightening. Congratulations, and thanks for the hard work. Shimeru 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The article has an external link in the lead
  • Multiple onene sentence paragraphs, even a one sentence section
  • References in the middle of a sentence (should be after a full-stop or comma)
  • Some references aren't formatted properly, check {{cite web}}
  • Image lacks fair use rationale
  • Lead is too short
I haven't even read the text yet and would qualify this as a quick-fail. Deal with these issues ASAP or this will be de-listed. M3tal H3ad 09:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that cite-web format is not required by WP:WIAGA, nor are external links forbidden -- it isn't a reference -- though there's an argument for moving the link to a dedicated section and leaving only the text where it is. Images all have fair-use rationales. Above editor was correct about the two references in the middle of sentences; I have moved them. The article's lead is the major issue of note, and I am trusting that it will be expanded in the near future. Shimeru 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The lead, as noted by anon two days, still doesn't come close to GA quality. I'm listing for delisting. You should also not pass GA articles unless you are on the list of participants.Sumoeagle179 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The picture in the infobox doesn't have fair-use. However i was wrong about refs place as someone told me about it. There shouldn't be a external link in the text, it goes under the external link section for a reason. M3tal H3ad 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay... I'm confused. The image page I'm looking at tags that image as fair use as the logo of a corporation used to illustrate that corporation. Is the tag not showing up in your browser, or something? That would be strange... Shimeru 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I see the tag, but there is no fair use rationale, in the licensing, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale". M3tal H3ad 07:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's what you were talking about? All right. It's pretty clear from the tag and the file links, but I added the redundant block of text to make it extra-explicit. Apologies. Shimeru 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisting

See above entry and WP:GA/R concerning delisting nomination.Sumoeagle179 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse is not gone -it was a long wikibreak that was needed- and agrees with Sumo.Rlevse 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delisted per review discussion. Feel free to renominate once the others' objections are addressed. Shimeru 04:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference 11 Invalid

The 11th Reference link at the bottom of the page is an invalid link. It was supposed to lead to a Newsweek article, cited as a source for the throttling information. I suggest all information from that source be temporarily removed until a working link to that or another appropriate Netflix throttling-related article be found. Knightskye 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean BusinessWeek. I found the text of the article here, but on short notice couldn't find a reliable link to the story to replace the broken one. There's probably a copy on some news site somewhere if someone else wants to track it down. David Oberst 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead external link

The 'Throttling' angers Netflix heavy renters external link points to http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1603927&business=true which is dead.

A google search of that headline reveals a few hits that appear to be about the same article beginning with "Manuel Villanueva realizes..."

I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Is it OK to just pick any one of them and update the link?

For example: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/02/10/financial/f112412S32.DTL&type=business

Modul8r 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

The entry mentions that Netflix doesn't carry porn, but that wasn't always the case. In the early days of Netflix, they most certainly carried that sort of thing. IIRC, it had its own category. I'm having trouble tracking down a source for this so far. Thealien 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you use archive.org to look at old versions of the page, you can track down their "Mature" category: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117011532/http://www.netflix.com/ ("mature" under "featured genres" on the right-hand side) Dav2008 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It was never the case. Go one step further. Click on the "Mature" link in the archived page you mentioned, and it takes you to a listing of 30 or so extremely soft titles: 1999 Playboy calendar, 9 1/2 Weeks, etc. Definitely not porn. These are titles they continue to carry, and always have. They've never had any hardcore.PacificBoy 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the 1-800 number presented here goes to a adults-only phone number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.194.238 (talk) 17:59, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 97 or 98?

Established 1997 or 1998? Text says one, sidebar says the other. Bhudson 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was 1998. Thanks for pointing that out. Chris! my talk 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution Centers

The Distribution Center section was removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY shortly after it was added. This is valuable information and adds to the overall article by showing the growth of Netflix. It demonstrates Netflix distribution model, and it's reliance on USPS SCFs) far better than prose. (from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic") Yes there are directories on Wikipedia that are their for their own sake but this isn't one of them.--Rtphokie 23:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire distribution center list looks extremely trivial to me and I don't think it is valuable information like you said. Simply listing all the distribution centers doesn't contribute significantly to the topic. In, fact, inclusion of such information makes the article look like a yellow book, which is stated explicitly in the What Wikipedia is not. I think that it should be removed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I won't remove it just yet and I await your response. Chris! my talk 06:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's give some others a chance to share their opinions. Is additional information needed to make it more valuable? Perhaps better tying this information to the related USPS SCF?--Rtphokie 11:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The distribution center for Montana is reported as Denver, CO. I would correct this, but don't know what the actual address is. IanHerriott 05:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a huge list of distribution centers. Instead, have a paragraph that describes the locations. Such as, "There are distribution centers in the following states:..." with the following states having multiple distribution centers:"..."Dav2008 05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Chris! ct 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of Directories in Wikipedia (examples: List of Dish Network channels 000-298, List of radio stations in California, etc.). How is this one different?--Rtphokie 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Those are given as a separate article. Feel free to start a List of Netflix distribution centers article if you feel it doesn't violate the "Wikipedia is not a directory" terms.Dav2008 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You are making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What other article have doesn't matter? The fact that this list of distribution centers is trivial and not notable warrants its removal. Also thanks for pointing that Dish network list. I will afd it. Chris! ct 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't recreate the article List of Netflix distribution centers. It has been deleted three times already. Chris! ct 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it is decided by consensus that the list is trivial, I am deleting it. Chris! ct 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold off, there are several suggestions on reatining the information in a form other than a list--Rtphokie 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Netflix.jpg

Image:Netflix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NetFlix does indeed carry "porn"

Based on Wikipedia's own definition of the word; NetFlix does indeed carry "pornographic" materials; "Pornography sometimes shortened to porn or porno, is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal...." . http://www.netflix.com/Movie/I_Spit_on_Your_Corpse_I_Piss_on_Your_Grave/60024010?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1619353733_0_0 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Anatomy_of_Hell/70019235?trkid=174833 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Pola_X/60003399?prid=108117472&trkid=217222&lstid=15163 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Baise_Moi/60022022?prid=108117472&trkid=217222&lstid=15163 http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Cheerleader_Ninjas/60032818?trkid=64596 among many others. Each of these titles having scenes that are otherwise out of place if not used to stimulate for the sole intention to stimulate. Lostinlodos (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're argument is flawed; just because a film or movie may contain explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity does not define it as a de facto porno. Most American action films contain a sex scene, usually for plot, characterization, or an attempt to boost demographics, but this does not make them porn. Or take the award winning HBO/BBC TV series Rome which has full frontal male nudity at least twice, and more female nudity then I can count, sex scenes, orgies, rape, torture, elements of S/M, gay sex etc. etc. It is truly an adult work, but it is also completely brilliant as the above helps to portray the humanity of the ancient Romans. As such it is not porno, its more in the sense of sex as an artistic choice as opposed to just titillating material (compare for example the difference between artistic Nudity, and the physical Naked).
Also, I think the argument includes that there is no separate porn genre on Netflix, nor are the film explicitly and purely porn. I do know they carry certain films that may be considered porno among other qualifiers, but as unrated films (eg. Caligula (film)). Its the additional qualifiers that make them not porno. Zidel333 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Zidel333 couldn't have put it any better. -Zomic13 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not trying to argue against what they carry. I believe that all people should have access to all film media at any age no matter what the content is and that there should be no rating system of age restrictions; personally. That said, the fact of the matter at hand is that what many would consider to fall into that term's definition IS carried by Netflix. Many of the titles that fall into that genre that I listed above are banned in some towns (specifically including the titles above) as being "porn". It was that reference, and wikipedia's own definition that I use in determining what is/is not considered for inclusion for a genre. They did many years ago have a category listed as "adult", 'though of those titles have been merged into other sections when they dropped that grouping. If by porn you only reference "xxx" titles, then no, they don't carry those, but they do carry titles banned in many locations for being "sexually explicit". To stay in line with consistency on the whole of the site, I would stay with what wikipedia lists as "porn". If you have an issue with their definition, I'd suggest that it be argued there, rather than here, and that for the time being (pending any change in that definition) that this page remain neutral in its mention (or removal of reference to:) of so-called "porn".Lostinlodos (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Releasing this week section

I couldn't find any non-blog sources to cite for this section. At any rate, the "releasing this week" feature is available now: http://www.netflix.com/AllNewReleases?lnkctr=NavAllNewReleases Crymerci (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netflix Player Abroad

From the company:

Hello, Unfortunately this is a restriction placed by the Hollywood studios, and is not something that Roku or Netflix has control over. US Embassies are not supported. We apologize for any inconvenience, and appreciate your service. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you, ................................................................................... Heidi Freni Sales Representative Roku 12980 Saratoga Ave, Ste D Saratoga, CA 95070 toll free: 888.600.7658 tel: 408.556.9040 fax: 408.446.1735 www.roku.com ...................................................................................

Mike wrote: So much for us Americans serving abroad. At least Vonage says it’s only for the US but wink, nod, lets us use it overseas as Americans.

What about a US Embassy abroad, that is legally physically US soil?

From: Heidi Freni [1] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:45 PM To: Mike Subject: Re: Netflix Player

Hello, Thanks for contacting Roku. Unfortunately, the Netflix Player by Roku is currently available for use only in the physical US. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you, ................................................................................... Heidi Freni Sales Representative Roku 12980 Saratoga Ave, Ste D Saratoga, CA 95070 toll free: 888.600.7658 tel: 408.556.9040 fax: 408.446.1735 www.roku.com ...................................................................................

Mike wrote: Currently Netflix will send DVDs to US government employees serving abroad. Most of these employees also have Internet connections fast enough for the Netflix Player and NTSC television sets.

Are there any ISP restrictions on the Netflix Player that would restrict it from working abroad if licensed by a US customer to plug into an NTSC TV? We hope not as we miss US TV (we have AFN but it is limited). We have Vonage out here and it works well.

Thank you.

Not surprising at all. Your location on the Internet is determined by IP address, not by the nationality of the user (which would be a logistical nightmare to verify). There would be no way to know whether you're a US citizen or a citizen of the country in question, as you would both have similar IPs. Sending DVD's through the mail is different as Netflix can be sure that the address they are sending to is an US Embassy. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is unfortunately original research and thus cannot be used in the article. If you can find a published, reliable source that states the above information it can be added. Plus, it is technically the Instant Play service (and not the Netflix Player) that won't work outside the US. -Zomic13 (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)