12 ms·
Netflix Leaving Battle for Net Neutrality Shows Why We Need It
- pg_is_a_butt 9y agouh... netflix already pays the extortion fees to ISPs so they can host their own boxes in any datacenter that will have them. rather than routing over the wider internet, the requests can be routed locally. netflix has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality... if anything, they are the example that ISPs are using to justify their lobbying. you're all idiots.
- kev009 9y agoI guess it's inevitable for dominant companies to become toxic.
- pasbesoin 9y ago"I got mine..."
- meesterdude 9y agoSuch a shame. A blemish the otherwise stellar company will never shed.
- random3 9y agoSad. All I can do is #unsubscribenetflix
- shard972 9y agoThey realize that they don't have a chance with this current congress to get them to change the laws to benefit their business model. I guess they will just have to suck it up and build some peering infrastructure.
- graphememes 9y agoCancelling my subscription. Hope others do the same, this is the only way we can show businesses that they didn't get there without us.
- pg_bot 9y agoI unsubscribed from Netflix due to their backtracking on Net Neutrality. If you are an engineer at any company I would suggest organizing a walk out if your company is abandoning a free and open internet.
- rimliu 9y agoI will rather pay Netflix for unfree internet than have "free" internet where everything is paid by and poisoned by ads.
- izacus 9y agoThe leap of logic that brings you from net neutrality (that is - fully open free market where services compete) to "everything is poisoned by ads) is really baffling.
- la_oveja 9y agoYou're comparing pork with speed. Net neutrality does not have any relation with ad based revenue.
- dspillett 9y agoWhat you will probably end up with (and not just from Netflix) in the end is paying for unfree internet that is also encumbered by ads.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- omginternets 9y agoI'll wager you don't remember the days when cable TV was ad-free. Mark my words: it will be the same with the internet.
- autokad 9y agoi never understood how people thought netflix was for net neutrality in the first place. their whole argument was 'we are big, we desire special privilege to put pipes directly into the backbone for us', which would have been a competitive advantage.
- remotehack 9y agoIs Net Neutrality a 100% known quantity? I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are a lot of subjective considerations surrounding it and how it's perceived by both technical and non-technical people.
- audi100quattro 9y agoThe current Title II framework allows the FCC to look at cases on a case by case basis exactly for this reason. If you are making all VoIP traffic faster, it's ok. If your ISP does consumer unfriendly behavior (low data caps, zero-rating some services, paid/unpaid prioritization) and enough people complain, Title II gives FCC the authority to fix it. Without it, it won't be up to FCC at all or FTC.
- remotehack 9y agoConsumer unfriendly behavior, your words, strongly suggests that it isn't a communications issue; rather it is likely a consumer affairs issue. https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consume... Specifically: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1212043/mcsweeny_-_net_neutrality_statement_4-26-17.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements... "A simpler consumer protection solution exists. Congress should fully repeal the common carrier exemption in the FTC Act, and enable both the FTC and FCC to protect consumers and the openness and innovation of the internet." https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/federal-trade-commission/ftc-says-common-carrier-exemption-to-section-5-jurisdiction-is-activity-based-not-status-based/ https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/federal-trade-co... "The FTC argued that if Congress really intended to divide jurisdiction along industry lines, it could have exempted from the FTC’s authority everything subject to the Communications Act or the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) jurisdiction."
- audi100quattro 9y agoConsumer unfriendliness can be at multiple levels, not just in a falsely advertised plan. The FTC sued AT&T over wrongful advertising and changes of a data plan, a consumer affair issue. Figuring out whether your ISP is correctly being the common carrier it needs to be (correct or incorrect prioritization, 0-rating, caps, etc..) is definitely a Title 2-related communications & FCC issue. The FTC can continue enforcing what are consumer affairs issues related to ISPs being broadband providers. The FTC's legal reasoning is correct, getting rid of the exemption as I understand it would give them more authority if their current argument is rejected in court.
- marklawrutgers 9y agoI dropped Netflix back when they decided to blacklist VPN IP addresses. Using a VPN address for my own country was pretty much the only way I would be able to access content without it being throttled or manipulated by my ISP. Then they went ahead and worked with T-Mobile on Binge-On where they would throttle speeds and cap the resolution to 480p on their network which was also a troubling sign. Unfortunately the outrage and backlash wasn't enough then as the CEO brushed it off as only a very small minority that would actually cancel over net neutrality concerns like these so it didn't make much difference. And unfortunately, here we are today, where I'm worried it still won't make a difference.
- audi100quattro 9y agoIf you were ok with Netflix DRM at some point, getting rid of VPNs is only better enforcing what they're trying to do with DRM, preventing unauthorized content access. Probably not Netflix's choice. Binge-on is horrible, but you can opt-out completely in your T-Mobile account settings page. Amazon had unbox for a while.. you couldn't watch Netflix on linux at all forever until Chrome on linux added DRM support. I think this was their original wrong, and they've been doubling down since.
- Nullabillity 9y agoAs Hastings said himself, at this point they're big enough that they can get whatever deals they want. Especially considering that they're pretty much the only reason the movie industry is making any money at all... So no, the "DRM is a requirement from the studios" excuse isn't acceptable anymore.
- izacus 9y ago> Probably not Netflix's choice. Oh come on, this apologising needs to stop. Netflix joined the major DRM pushers as soon as they started producing their own content. They were the major proponents of HTML DRM. They happily apply that DRM and geoblocking to the series they produce and even more happily geoblock them as well. They've joined the other major publishers in behaviour. This net neutrality backpedal is just another in the line of their anti-consumer move - now that preventing others from joining the market makes them profit, they'll happily throw neutrality under the bus. It was just popular as long as they were the ones screwed by the cable operators.
- dsacco 9y agoFor an article that seems to be in such favor of net neutrality, the author is not making any attempt to be neutral in presenting the material. I read the Recode article this article is citing and watched the conference discussion. Here is what Hastings actually said: “It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings said. This article presents that subtly differently, by omitting the first sentence and shifting around the context (and thereby altering the tone). It also conveniently fails to include the broader discussion in which Hastings made this statement. If you look at the actual conference dialogue, Hastings didn't outright dismiss net neutrality categorically. Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources, which is far less cavalier and hypocritical than portrayed. The Recode article continues with more nuanced coverage: Perhaps another reason Netflix is being a little quieter about fighting to keep current net neutrality rules is that Hastings knows it’s already a lost cause. His best guess at what will happen is exactly what FCC chair Ajit Pai has been hinting at: “It might be that ISPs just accept the principles [of net neutrality] and it’s not enshrined formally,” he said. “I think the FCC is going to unwind Title II,” he added later. And he believes that it’s in the ISPs’ “long term interest” to respect net neutrality principles, so maybe they’ll just do it on their own. While we're at it, Hastings was also quoted saying, “The Trump FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says." I'm not taking a side on Netflix's course of action here, but I personally feel this article presented the facts in a particularly disingenuous way. There are legitimate arguments that blindly throwing resources at fighting the FCC is an unproductive use of time and money, even if you are pro-net neutrality. You can disagree with those arguments, but it's really unfair to mischaracterize them as sympathy and hypocrisy. For those of you readying hashtags and boycotts, consider that there can be valid opposition to the FCC that looks more nuanced than, for example, Tim Cook's letter to the US government.
- snewk 9y agothanks for the measured response. this is the kind of comment i've come to expect from HN. it adds to the conversation. the other responses on this story are surprising to me. they seem to be on the intellectual level of reddit/facebook.
- josteink 9y agoI think it's worth keeping in mind that this is the company that poisoned HTML with DRM. That pretty much sets the bar for what I expect from them.
- scarface74 9y agoWould you rather Netflix to continue using a DRMd solution controlled by one company (Microsoft) or try to work with a standards committee?
- CaptSpify 9y agoThat's a false dichotomy. They don't have to do either.
- scarface74 9y agoVideo has never been DRM free. Even in the days of VHS they had Macrovision. Video right holders have never allowed their content to be delivered without copy protections. But the larger question is, why do you care? You are not paying for ownership of the video. You are paying for access. Why shouldn't your right to access the video be limited to the time you are paying for the subscription?
- dorgo 9y agoIt's not about the time to access the video. It's about restrictions built into software and hardware. I don't care about video access. I care about beeing in control of my software and hardware.
- scarface74 9y agoYou are in control of your software and hardware. They never forced you to choose incompatible software and hardware. They are also in control of their content distribution. Seems fair to me.
- aanm1988 9y ago> What if Congress finally breaks up tech oligarchs like Netflix with revamped antitrust laws, for which progressive momentum is building? Yes please. I really don't use netflix that much now. Maybe I'll cancel over this.
- richardknop 9y agoI have unsubscribed from Netflix 1.5-2 years ago because I have watched all interesting content they had and it made no sense for me to pay them monthly anymore as I reached the point when I rarely ever opened Netflix app to watch anything. I'd probably do the same with other similar services like HBO or Amazon Prime. Subscribe for 6 months to 1 year, watch all the content I am interested in and then cancel my subscription.
- bmelton 9y agoBetween the Marvel shows, House of Cards, Longmire, Orange is the New Black, Bloodline, Sense8, Narcos, The Get Down, Stranger Things, A Series of Unfortunate Events, 13 Reasons Why, Master of None, Grace & Frankie, Love, Dear White People, et al, the viewing landscape of Netflix is indeed very different than what it was 2 years ago. I remember rarely launching the Netflix app for a long, long time, and constantly debating whether or not to maintain my subscription, and then they started releasing "original(ish)" content that, frankly, was pretty damn compelling. I still go through spurts where I find difficulty finding something I want to watch right now, but recently, I'm finding that's less and less Netflix's fault relative to the other cable-cutting services.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- richardknop 9y agoYou listed a dozen or more tv shows and other original content Netflix has but the problem for me is I would probably be interested in maybe 3-4 of those max so I'd subscribe and after several months of watching the shows on weekends and evenings after work I'd run out of content. So it doesn't continually make sense for me to keep paying Netflix every month when I can subscribe for 3 months every 2 years and watch the content I like. Then cancel subscription and switch to HBO/Amazon for 3 months and catch up with my favourite content there. It's much more economical than being subscribed to all 3 at the same time. And any single of these services does not generate enough content for me to keep me interested long term.
- 9y ago
- bko 9y agoI never understood when corporations buying influence with politicians (for admittedly their own self interest) is good or bad. Is it just based on the cause? If a corporation speaks out and lobbies for policies that I agree with its fine? But if its something I don't agree with, its corporatism and corruption? I get that net neutrality is popular among many in the tech crowd, but perhaps large corporations aren't shining nights and we shouldn't be applauding increased lobbying because their interests align with ours.
- xg15 9y agoThat implies that whether policies are good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Net neutrality - like combatting global warming - is to my knowledge widely regarded as having far more benefits for society than the opposite policy. So yes, it's the cause. That being said, of course relying on corporations doing the lobbying is bad. A better way would be to rely on groups like the EFF or (gasp!) MPs themselves caring for the topic. However, we already have the EFF caring for the topic. Apparently this is not enough, otherwise no "industry alliance" wound have been needed.
- bko 9y agoI just thought that many that are concerned with corporate speech do so more on a moral ground than just disagreement on the message. I just don't see a situation in which corporate speech should be both encouraged and discouraged depending on the issue and the side of the issue the industry is on. Too easy to be manipulated
- empath75 9y agoI'm okay with a limited amount of corporate spending that directly relates to advocating for policies that favor themselves. I just think that it should be strictly regulated and limited.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoCorporate influence supports corporate ends, as opposed to individual or societal influence and ends. Corporate ends are profits for that corporation, which tend to lead very different policy than societal or individual ends, especially regarding topics like climate change and net neutrality.
- Principe 9y agoThis shows that corporations can't be trusted to have any principle other that "FU, I got mine."
- morsmodr 9y agoThe road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties source - Their own original series