as I suggested, you can always refuse to rate their movies. I don't. It is a waste of my time, and my ego doesn't need the stroking. (That's why I have cats. :)!! ))

You're correct that Netflix is probably feeling the competition, but I don't want either BB or Netflix to go under. I need them to keep each other honest. And I don't want Netflix to cut their rates to the point that they can't provide the service I want. As I wrote earlier, I don't have Netflix to save money. I have it to see films otherwise unavailable to me.

I despise shopping for anything other than food. I damn near walked out of an Office Depot this morning because I was exhausted from walking the aisles trying to find my items - and then waiting on line for what seemed forever. (I didn't realize that all the tweens would be there shopping with their daddies. Ugh!)

I do think the headline - Netflix won't let you go - was borderline unethical; certainly it was not accurate, and it was not worthy of your history as a writer. I think you should change the headline, and apologize to Netflix.

Do you think Reid Hastings' background as an engineer could hamper Netflix ability to grow past their market boundaries?

They've gotten the technology part right on--their website is eons beyond Blockbuster's--but now it seems it's time to concentrate on the human portion of the equation.

A lot of the big Silicon Valley companies (and a big on in Redmond) previously headed by geeks have slowly replaced their EE-degree-hoarding frontmen with MBA-carrying make-pistols-with-the-hands-gesture types.

Netflix now needs someone to solve the people problems, as they've done well so far with their computer problems.

The danger of Blockbuster is the Wal-mart strategy of:

1) Crush all competition and/or drive out of business your rivals by using your huge bankroll and built in logistics.

2) Once competition is crushed and you're (basically) the only game in town -- go back to price jacking.

The trouble is that in all but rare cases the "competition" never lasts.

What you get is a company, like Blockbuster, getting into the market for the first time -- and during the first few months (sometimes years) there really is market compeition and both try to get the upper hand by lowering prices, offering more, etc.

But what happened when the war is over? Usually within 2 years?

Blockbuster will inevitably raise prices, increase late fees to $25 a day or God knows what else.

Sometimes this kind of psuedo-monoploy can be a force for good. Like Apple iTunes.

Wanna know WHY you aren't paying $3.99 for a new release song?

Because Apple dominates the market and REFUSED to allow companies to charge that much.

Had it been Wal-mart it total control of online music stores? It would be at least $3.99 per song.

Oh! But we'd just go somehwere cheaper, right?

Nope. Once Wal-mart initally sets the price that becomes the defacto "standard" price and the music companies simply wouldn't allow their music to be sold on any digital music service for a penny less.

People are worried something similar will happen once Blockbuster inevitably drives Netflix out of business and then has the power to start jacking rates back up.

I am a grown-up. Sometimes, I like grown-up movies. I also have money, and I spend it on things.

Your not carrying NC-17 movies keeps me from spending money on your products. Period.

That is all.

- Jeff Vogel

I joined Netflix in late 2004, after the election, when I saw it on the very-blue list of companies at www.buyblue.org

Hey, a good reason to join, and a good reason to stay. I'd like to do in-store trades, but it's just not enough to pry me away from Netflix.

that BB didn't rent NC 17 and non-rated movies. It now makes sense: when I went into their stores, there was nothing for me to rent except frat boy films filled with bimbos and potty jokes. THAT'S okay with the Focus on the Fanny types. But a film that might actually make you think...well, no room for that.

I suspect that in a few months, someone will make a doc film about Larry Craig. Guess we can't expect BB to stock that one either.

And it is one reason I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. I like having the freedom to buy music with profanity, and I like having the freedom to rent movies regardless of their rating.

The simple fact that Blockbuster refuses to carry such titles is enough to keep me a loyal Netflix customer. I don't need a company acting as my moral arbiter. It's bad enough that most cinema chains refuse to show films with an NC-17 rating or no rating at all, given that the NC-17 rating itself was invented as a way to distinguish adult-oriented cinema from porn.

As an aside, the streaming movies idea is pretty cool, but until it is compatible with Safari on the Mac, I am uninterested. On the Blockbuster side, the ability to return a movie to a brick-and-mortar store is a nice feature, but one I'd rarely use, given that the whole reason I have a Netflix subscription is to eliminate the need to run to the video store.

...but by not stocking NC-17 rated movies, they create a big incentive for the studios to create censored versions of their films for Blockbuster to stock. That's at least the way it was in the 90s. They had a censored version of Showgirls on their shelves, if I recall.

Their refusal to stock NC-17 movies is also, given their share of the rental market, a contributing incentive for studios to censor their movies prior to release in order to avoid getting the dreaded NC-17 rating in the first place. Thus, in the end, Blockbuster's refusal to stock NC-17 movies contributes to, and creates, censorship in the film industry generally.

Thank God for Netflix. May it live long and prosper.

Refusing to rent unrated or NC-17, or controversial movies because it's "the policy" is not an explenation. It's an insult to my inteligence. Whenever I hear anyone from a business say "that's our policy" what they are really saying is "I don't have to explaine myself to you."

Having a policy against renting porn makes perfect sense. But to have a policy against renting a movie because it didn't make it past that stupid ratings board doesn't make any sense. Are Christians really going to boycott Blockbuster because I rented "The Dreamers"? It is indirect censorship because it limits the people's access to the films.

As "This Film is not yet Rated" demonstrates, there is often just as much violence in PG-13 films as there are in R films. It is always sex that gets the NC-17. There are little children all over America who go home from Blockbuster with a copy of "Sin City" (which is full of non-stop killing, maming and all out slaughtering of human beings) and no one cares, but an adult can't go into Blockbuster and rent "Carnal Knowledge" (starring Jack Nicholson, Art Garfunkel, Anne Margaret and Candice Bergan, Directed by Mike Nichols) and I get treated like I'm trying to rent "Barely Legal". It pisses me off.

And the blarring advertisements and lack of service in the Blockbuster stores is torture.