3 ms·

I 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 a

I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  As 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.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing. I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free. I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.
    - wand3r 9y ago
      Good point. I hate DRM but I couldn't articulate why I didn't have much issue with this. It's a rental, you don't own it. I bought a book that was DRM and I can't read it. It was Barnes and Noble and they cancelled the app and I don't remember the logon to the site or even exists still. Netflix is protecting it's service. I am not a dogmatic absoltist, they are renting the content and you are leasing the service from them. If you really want a copy I would just full screen it and screen cap it with quicktime. There are probably easier ways. Point is, with Netflix you are unlikely to do it because for $9 (or whatever it costs) the value prop is higher than the opportunity cost of piracy.
    - izacus 9y ago
      Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)
otoburb 9y ago
>>Then [Netflix] 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. A year ago almost to the day, Netflix admitted[1] that they (not carriers) were pre-emptively lowering the resolution of Verizon and AT&T subscriber streams. The irony last year was that neither AT&T nor Verizon were aware of this until T-Mobile's CEO called them out on it[2]. At the time, I seem to recall this didn't impinge much on the consciousness of Net Neutrality supporters as it should have. [1] https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/helping-netflix-members-get-more-from-their-mobile-data-plans https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/helping-netflix-me... [2] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11302446/netflix-admits-throttling-video-att-verizon-customers https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11302446/netflix-admits-t...

audi100quattro 9y ago

If 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 ago
As 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.
- scarface74 9y ago
  As far as DRM, isn't the usual spiel that when you have DRM you don't own the content you're buying? In the case of Netflix, you're explicitly not paying for content ownership, you are paying for access while you're subscribing. I have no issues with DRM for subscription based services. For instance, I have no problem with Apple using DRM for Apple Music (subscription) and then selling music on iTunes as DRM free. I will pay for DRMd movie rentals from Apple/Amazon but I would never pay to "own" a movie from either service.
  - wand3r 9y ago
    Good point. I hate DRM but I couldn't articulate why I didn't have much issue with this. It's a rental, you don't own it. I bought a book that was DRM and I can't read it. It was Barnes and Noble and they cancelled the app and I don't remember the logon to the site or even exists still. Netflix is protecting it's service. I am not a dogmatic absoltist, they are renting the content and you are leasing the service from them. If you really want a copy I would just full screen it and screen cap it with quicktime. There are probably easier ways. Point is, with Netflix you are unlikely to do it because for $9 (or whatever it costs) the value prop is higher than the opportunity cost of piracy.
  - izacus 9y ago
    Except of the tiny detail that you're not allowed to watch rented movies on devices that aren't completely locked down. The issue of DRM isn't just owning, it's forcing you to use a certain software stack and then disabling your paid access if the kernel/drivers/whatever differ from the few software stacks they tested. For example Netflix video is limited to low resolutions on Linux in free browsers. You're not allowed to watch rented content on Android you modified. And more. The added problem is that they threw a lot of money into standardization of DRM services. This now means that more and more services - even those with free and ad supported content - now stop working on systems that aren't whitelisted by Widewine or whatever DRM stack they use. With the speed of DRM adoption on the web, soon, you won't be able to watch most of streaming content on anything but fully locked down devices running a few whitelisted un-modified OSes. And that's a problem. Losing access to most modern video content (more and more modern western culture isn't available on anything but streaming services) just because I want night mode on my phone is excessive don't you think? Why would you let your stupid show provider dictate if you can add a driver to make the devices display more pleasant for your eyes? (And yes, I'm aware that not all restrictions are in place on all platforms yet, but take a look at BluRay AACS 2.0 DRM standard and new Android OS limitations for the directions they want to take you.)

otoburb 9y ago

>>Then [Netflix] 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. A year ago almost to the day, Netflix admitted[1] that they (not carriers) were pre-emptively lowering the resolution of Verizon and AT&T subscriber streams. The irony last year was that neither AT&T nor Verizon were aware of this until T-Mobile's CEO called them out on it[2]. At the time, I seem to recall this didn't impinge much on the consciousness of Net Neutrality supporters as it should have. [1] https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/helping-netflix-members-get-more-from-their-mobile-data-plans https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/helping-netflix-me... [2] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11302446/netflix-admits-throttling-video-att-verizon-customers https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11302446/netflix-admits-t...