Does Anyone Want to Own DVDs Anymore?

Lately, I've found myself staring irritatingly at the hundreds of CDs and DVDs that occupy numerous shelves in my living room. How can we get rid of all this clutter without investing in an uber-expensive media server? Sure, there are Media Center PCs that can store all this content, but that would mean having to sit down and rip one DVD after another, repeatedly, for hours on end. Even then, what happens if the system crashes? Sure, there's always back-up, and even a back-up for the back-up. But I wonder: are people really interested in owning all of this content, namely movies, or do we just want to enjoy it, then chuck it?

Case in point: popular U.S. video rental company Netflix has just announced that it will get out of the previously-viewed DVD sale market and focus on rentals and streaming video. Despite how much consumers might be upset at the change, it makes perfect sense. Why do I need to own a physical DVD movie? There are very few titles that are worth watching more than once, and often times when I have watched a movie for a second or third time, it's because it happened to have been broadcast on cable TV. If there's a particular movie that I want to watch at home on-the-fly, I'll grab it on-demand.

As I write this, I hear my former self yelling "hypocrit" at the top of her lungs. I used to be the one that argued passionately in favour of previously-viewed DVDs. Why would I pay $5 to rent a movie when I can just own it for a few bucks more? I would say to people. And there certainly are people who appreciate the full DVD experience, including the extra features and interviews, and love to admire the beautifully-created cover artwork. But now, looking at the hundreds of colourful cases unnecessarily taking up so much space at home, I don't quite feel the same way.

But before you're quick to call me out on predicting the end to a profitable after-theatre movie industry, that's not what I'm implying at all. Rather, the money will funnel itself through new channels. This could mean a cut of pay-per-view profits or specialty TV channels subscriptions, and probably the most lucrative option going forward: involvement in the streaming movie business. And hey, perhaps Blu-ray will take over as the only viable physical DVD format worthy of investing in and "collecting" because of its premium video and audio quality.

This, of course, is great news for cable/satellite TV providers and online distribution companies; not so good for DVD makers and distributors. But who knows: maybe in future, everyone will have a stab at the TV airwaves, and you'll be able to tap into services not from just one cable or satellite provider, but from a host of them, operating somewhat independently of one another. Sure, the idea might seem far-fetched to some; not to mention potentially confusing (and expensive!) for the customer. But if it means I can watch what I want, when I want, in high-definition quality, and take back a big portion of space in my living room that's now otherwise occupied, then I'm game.

Retailers Blowing Out or Hiking Up Price of HD DVDs

Since the end of the format war which saw Blu-ray emerge victorious, consumers that own HD DVD players have been doing one of two things: returning their players to the store, or stocking up on HD DVD discs while they're still available. After all, "winning" format or not, HD DVD produces some darned good quality content! Over the past few months, however, I've noticed some subsequent changes in how retailers have been dealing with the remaining discs.

The first step was logically to drop the price of HD DVDs. One that might have sold for $30 was all of a sudden $18.99, then $12.99, and so forth. Granted, I didn't see any earth-shattering deals, but the prices were certainly coming down more significantly than they likely would have if HD DVD remained in the market. Lately, however, I've noticed that the prices have gone back up as supply slowly dwindles and the discs become more difficult to find.

Interestingly, I was prompted to observe this by a fellow shopper in a discount retail shop this past weekend. As we stood side-by-side looking through the last few HD DVDs in stock (selling for just $6!), he commented about how the prices were going back up elsewhere. Funny enough, this was only after he proudly advised me that "you can't play that in a regular DVD player, you know?" While I enjoyed a little internal chuckle, I was genuinely quite pleased to see an example of an "average" consumer that appeared to understand the difference between HD and SD discs and was eager to share his knowledge.

Regardless of what the current average price is, the fact remains that HD DVD discs are still more affordable now then they were 6 months ago. If you still own a player, now's primetime to stock up on the last available titles. For now, they'll provide better quality content than you'll get via standard DVD, and will certainly tide you over before investing in a fancy new Blu-ray. And who knows: once these discs are completely out of circulation, you might be able to flip those discs to an A/V collector of some sort for a pretty penny!

Should ISPs Be Able to Slow Down Heavy 'Net Users?

Recently, it has been brought to the media's attention that several ISPs have been using back-end techniques in an effort to slow down heavy-bandwidth activites that people might perform on the Internet. This includes, most importantly, downloading and transmitting large files, like movies. Is it right of the ISPs to do this?

Let's play devil's advocate. If there are 100 people in one area and 10 are downloading massive files, that's going to slow things down for the other 90 people that are just doing regular Web surfing or messaging. Why should they have to pay the price for high-bandwidth activities that tech-savvy individuals want to take part in?

However, isn't the whole point of offering faster speeds and more robust services to accomodate the needs of these "heavy" users? Sure, everyone wants the average Web page to load as quickly as possible. But think about how far we've come: we have the kinds of speeds available these days that can accomodate much more than just a Web page loading in half a second! We can download entire feature-length films. Stream all kinds of music and video. Even upload massive files. Shouldn't we be utilizing these speeds to the best of their ability and not punishing those who are benefiting the most from them?

This issue garnered a lot of attention when Chatham, ON-based Internet provider Teksavvy Solutions Inc., which gets its network access from Bell, recently started receiving complaints from its users. The company realized that Bell was purposely limiting the amount of bandwidth that heavy users could take up during peak hours of service.

ISPs definitely have the right to limit bandwidth usage to ensure the best possible experience for all customers: it's their service. But on the same token, why bother offering things like unlimited bandwidth and blazing fast speeds if, in actuality, these conditions can't be completely honoured?

It's very possible that, in letting things be, the "regular" 'net users might not even notice slower load times. But maybe they would. You can't please everyone all the time so, as bad as it sounds, it might just come down to who the better customer is: either way, one group is going to be upset.