4 ms·

>I think there is a huge difference here. First of all, the restriction on 4K has a lot more to do with technical limitations than anything else. Very few devic

>I think there is a huge difference here. First of all, the restriction on 4K has a lot more to do with technical limitations than anything else. Very few devices can actually handle 4K. While your laptops screen might be able to handle it, your browser might not be able to decode h.265 at all, and might not be fast enough to decode h.264 at 4K resolutions. The exact same setup (Chrome on this Linux laptop) works just fine with 4K youtube streams. Yet both Netflix and Amazon have restrictions for 4K where it basically only works with closed set-top box type devices. There's no reasonable technical motivation for the restriction. >Secondly, if Netflix doesn't provide you the service you need, you can switch to Amazon, or Hulu or any of a number of providers. There isn't "any number of providers". For relevant content my two options right now are Netflix and Prime Video, there is no third. >If your ISP doesn't provide you a service without restrictions, plenty of people have no recourse. It isn't unusual for natural monopoly industries to be more heavily regulated. While I only have 2 choices, and those are the same two worldwide, I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point. Worldwide the neutrality in content access is probably more important as it is a much more consolidated industry.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> There's no reasonable technical motivation for the restriction. There may well be licensing restrictions on the content which preclude them sending 4K video to unDRM'd or unverifi{ed,able} clients.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  So not technical and completely unreasonable for content that they own themselves. There's no reason Netflix can't just send me House of Cards in 4K or Amazon can't send me The Grand Tour in 4K. Increasingly those are the shows I actually do want to watch as the two streaming giants overhaul the content business, further consolidating the industry. So they can't really hide behind the licensing restriction argument.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > and completely unreasonable for content that they own themselves Well, no, because why would they want their own 4K content to be easily ripped and uploaded to Usenet?
    - zdkl 9y ago
      Oh come on, once the content is displayable it's piratable and they damn well know that. This is more a matter of restrictive terms and conditions they can enact due to their monopoly-like position.
      - xorcist 9y ago
        Everybody wants to own the customer. It's true everywhere in the value chain, in every value chain. That's why they need you to install their app.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        Streaming DRM'd video to a closed system (XBOX, PS4, set top box) is orders of magnitude less piratable than streaming video to an open system like Linux (DRM'd would be harder to pirate but I'm sure someone could lash up their own Chrome to dump the video after the unDRMing step.) (How would you get the video content out of a DRM'd stream to an XBOX?)
        pedrocr 9y ago
        Pirates are determined enough to break all the schemes and once one does the cat is out of the bag and everyone can access it without restrictions. Ultimately this makes the user experience of the pirate service better than the paid one. Netflix used to say, to convince license holders, that once it entered a market pirating went down because convenience went up. They're now falling in the same trap with their own content...
        zimpenfish 9y ago
twunde 9y ago
Can I ask where you live that you have 3! good ISP choices?
- Semaphor 9y ago
  Possibly Europe. I have tons of choices in Germany.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  I'm in Portugal but it's probably common throughout Europe. In urban areas having at least 2 and often 3 providers that can give you a reasonably priced 50 or 100Mb/s connection is common these days. Rural areas are harder but it's actually improving a bit. I've recently been upgraded from a flakey 8Mb/s ADSL with <1Mb/s upload to 100Mb/s symmetrical over fiber in an agricultural area where previously there wasn't much competition between ISPs. I think the combination of LTE offerings and cheaper fiber technology may have tipped the scales making a simple fibre installation on existing telephone poles an attractive proposition for the ISP.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    Yeah, in the US, you usually get a "choice" of: cable, dsl or dialup. Dsl can't usually do better then 5/1 (anywhere I've lived, at least). And the cable companies pretty much have split the country between themselves. Only 1 truly high speed isp is not a choice!
    - krallja 9y ago
      Where have you lived? I've had AT&T U-Verse (DSL) in Indianapolis, Chicago, and Greensboro, with speeds of 18/1.5 and 40/6.
- gambiting 9y ago
  I live in UK, city in the North East, and there's at least 5 major ISPs(BT, Virgin Media, Sky, TalkTalk, PlusNet) available here, plus there will be a plethora of smaller ones which are subleasing from the larger ones(so I can get broadband from the same company that I get electricity from, but they are most likely subleasing from BT)
hndamien 9y ago
One is a choice between produced entertainment content, and the other is free speech/ basic communication.
colde 9y ago
> The exact same setup (Chrome on this Linux laptop) works just fine with 4K youtube streams. Yet both Netflix and Amazon have restrictions for 4K where it basically only works with closed set-top box type devices. There's no reasonable technical motivation for the restriction. That doesn't mean it will do that smoothly with DRM on top of it. It also doesn't mean that most users have equally capable hardware, since it might not be accelerated in hardware. While pretty much any device today will do 1080p H.264 with hardware acceleration. Have you ever tried explaining these nuances to customers who says their movie playback is terrible, if so, I think you would reach the same conclusion as those providers. Youtube is free and doesn't really have the same issue as people don't expect to be able to contact Youtube support and complain about quality. > While I only have 2 choices, and those are the same two worldwide, I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point. Worldwide the neutrality in content access is probably more important as it is a much more consolidated industry. Well, good for you. But not every ISP market is the same, not every country is the same. I wouldn't mind that somebody looked at how content licensing works, but me being able to access Wikipedia or any number of other websites, a lot of which might be discussing my ISP in negative terms is IMHO much more important than i get to see the entertainment i like.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  >While pretty much any device today will do 1080p H.264 with hardware acceleration. And yet Netflix won't give me even that. >Have you ever tried explaining these nuances to customers who says their movie playback is terrible, if so, I think you would reach the same conclusion as those providers. If that was the issue the help line should be able to enable this for me once I've specifically asked for it. They don't and I very seriously doubt that's even 10% of the reasoning. > wouldn't mind that somebody looked at how content licensing works, but me being able to access Wikipedia or any number of other websites, a lot of which might be discussing my ISP in negative terms is IMHO much more important than i get to see the entertainment i like. My point isn't that net neutrality isn't extremely important. My point is that having Amazon and Netflix fighting for net neutrality while being so blatently anti-consumer is hypocrisy.
maxsilver 9y ago
> I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point. I think your missing the point. You already have Net Neutrality (by your own admission) so that seems like a solved issue for you. But the Americans don't have what you have -- almost nobody in the US can claim to "easily have 3 good ISP choices". Most Americans have 1.5-ish ISP choices or less (usually a shitty-but-usable monopoly cable provider, and occasionally a shitty monopoly DSL provider that is often so slow it not really competitive). The Americans are simply trying to create regulation that would allow them to have a situation closer to the ones most Europeans already have.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  >I think your missing the point. You already have Net Neutrality (by your own admission) so that seems like a solved issue for you. Having a choice of ISPs isn't net neutrality. All the ISPs I have access to will sell differentiated access to their networks absent net neutrality rules. Europe has some (generally weak) net neutrality because it has legislated it like the US should too. But my point isn't that we shouldn't fight for net neutrality. It's that Netflix/Amazon say that ISPs shouldn't be able to play favorites over streaming services (and I agree) while they play favorites over devices (and I disagree and say it's hypocrisy).
  - maxsilver 9y ago
    > Having a choice of ISPs isn't net neutrality. Right. A choice of ISPs (in my opinion) is actually better than net neutrality, for the things that matter most. > while (Netflix/Amazon) play favorites over devices (and I disagree and say it's hypocrisy) How do you draw that distinction? Is it "playing favorites over devices" that I can't sign into Xbox Live from my PlayStation? Or that Apple won't let me watch my iPad-purchased movies on an Android device? Or that Spotify won't let me listen to music in iTunes? Is it playing favorites that Comcast can stream the Hallmark Channel, but Hulu TV can't? Or that Nintendo won't let me play my Wii U games on my Gaming PC? I agree that you have a valid criticism of those video services. But your comparison of it to Net Neutrality feels forced. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of Net Neutrality -- it's seems like a clear case of comparing Apples and Oranges. If "Netflix is a hypocrite because they don't support 4K on my Linux laptop", then your basically upset with the entire tech industry, where every product has a list of platforms they've chosen to support, and a list they do not support.

zimpenfish 9y ago

> There's no reasonable technical motivation for the restriction. There may well be licensing restrictions on the content which preclude them sending 4K video to unDRM'd or unverifi{ed,able} clients.

pedrocr 9y ago
So not technical and completely unreasonable for content that they own themselves. There's no reason Netflix can't just send me House of Cards in 4K or Amazon can't send me The Grand Tour in 4K. Increasingly those are the shows I actually do want to watch as the two streaming giants overhaul the content business, further consolidating the industry. So they can't really hide behind the licensing restriction argument.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > and completely unreasonable for content that they own themselves Well, no, because why would they want their own 4K content to be easily ripped and uploaded to Usenet?
  - zdkl 9y ago
    Oh come on, once the content is displayable it's piratable and they damn well know that. This is more a matter of restrictive terms and conditions they can enact due to their monopoly-like position.
    - xorcist 9y ago
      Everybody wants to own the customer. It's true everywhere in the value chain, in every value chain. That's why they need you to install their app.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      Streaming DRM'd video to a closed system (XBOX, PS4, set top box) is orders of magnitude less piratable than streaming video to an open system like Linux (DRM'd would be harder to pirate but I'm sure someone could lash up their own Chrome to dump the video after the unDRMing step.) (How would you get the video content out of a DRM'd stream to an XBOX?)
      - pedrocr 9y ago
        Pirates are determined enough to break all the schemes and once one does the cat is out of the bag and everyone can access it without restrictions. Ultimately this makes the user experience of the pirate service better than the paid one. Netflix used to say, to convince license holders, that once it entered a market pirating went down because convenience went up. They're now falling in the same trap with their own content...
        zimpenfish 9y ago

twunde 9y ago

Can I ask where you live that you have 3! good ISP choices?

Semaphor 9y ago
Possibly Europe. I have tons of choices in Germany.
pedrocr 9y ago
I'm in Portugal but it's probably common throughout Europe. In urban areas having at least 2 and often 3 providers that can give you a reasonably priced 50 or 100Mb/s connection is common these days. Rural areas are harder but it's actually improving a bit. I've recently been upgraded from a flakey 8Mb/s ADSL with <1Mb/s upload to 100Mb/s symmetrical over fiber in an agricultural area where previously there wasn't much competition between ISPs. I think the combination of LTE offerings and cheaper fiber technology may have tipped the scales making a simple fibre installation on existing telephone poles an attractive proposition for the ISP.
- Vendan 9y ago
  Yeah, in the US, you usually get a "choice" of: cable, dsl or dialup. Dsl can't usually do better then 5/1 (anywhere I've lived, at least). And the cable companies pretty much have split the country between themselves. Only 1 truly high speed isp is not a choice!
  - krallja 9y ago
    Where have you lived? I've had AT&T U-Verse (DSL) in Indianapolis, Chicago, and Greensboro, with speeds of 18/1.5 and 40/6.
gambiting 9y ago
I live in UK, city in the North East, and there's at least 5 major ISPs(BT, Virgin Media, Sky, TalkTalk, PlusNet) available here, plus there will be a plethora of smaller ones which are subleasing from the larger ones(so I can get broadband from the same company that I get electricity from, but they are most likely subleasing from BT)

hndamien 9y ago

One is a choice between produced entertainment content, and the other is free speech/ basic communication.

colde 9y ago

> The exact same setup (Chrome on this Linux laptop) works just fine with 4K youtube streams. Yet both Netflix and Amazon have restrictions for 4K where it basically only works with closed set-top box type devices. There's no reasonable technical motivation for the restriction. That doesn't mean it will do that smoothly with DRM on top of it. It also doesn't mean that most users have equally capable hardware, since it might not be accelerated in hardware. While pretty much any device today will do 1080p H.264 with hardware acceleration. Have you ever tried explaining these nuances to customers who says their movie playback is terrible, if so, I think you would reach the same conclusion as those providers. Youtube is free and doesn't really have the same issue as people don't expect to be able to contact Youtube support and complain about quality. > While I only have 2 choices, and those are the same two worldwide, I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point. Worldwide the neutrality in content access is probably more important as it is a much more consolidated industry. Well, good for you. But not every ISP market is the same, not every country is the same. I wouldn't mind that somebody looked at how content licensing works, but me being able to access Wikipedia or any number of other websites, a lot of which might be discussing my ISP in negative terms is IMHO much more important than i get to see the entertainment i like.

pedrocr 9y ago
>While pretty much any device today will do 1080p H.264 with hardware acceleration. And yet Netflix won't give me even that. >Have you ever tried explaining these nuances to customers who says their movie playback is terrible, if so, I think you would reach the same conclusion as those providers. If that was the issue the help line should be able to enable this for me once I've specifically asked for it. They don't and I very seriously doubt that's even 10% of the reasoning. > wouldn't mind that somebody looked at how content licensing works, but me being able to access Wikipedia or any number of other websites, a lot of which might be discussing my ISP in negative terms is IMHO much more important than i get to see the entertainment i like. My point isn't that net neutrality isn't extremely important. My point is that having Amazon and Netflix fighting for net neutrality while being so blatently anti-consumer is hypocrisy.

maxsilver 9y ago

> I easily have 3 good ISP choices and those are local to each market, so worldwide there are hundreds or thousands. That's exactly my point. I think your missing the point. You already have Net Neutrality (by your own admission) so that seems like a solved issue for you. But the Americans don't have what you have -- almost nobody in the US can claim to "easily have 3 good ISP choices". Most Americans have 1.5-ish ISP choices or less (usually a shitty-but-usable monopoly cable provider, and occasionally a shitty monopoly DSL provider that is often so slow it not really competitive). The Americans are simply trying to create regulation that would allow them to have a situation closer to the ones most Europeans already have.

pedrocr 9y ago
>I think your missing the point. You already have Net Neutrality (by your own admission) so that seems like a solved issue for you. Having a choice of ISPs isn't net neutrality. All the ISPs I have access to will sell differentiated access to their networks absent net neutrality rules. Europe has some (generally weak) net neutrality because it has legislated it like the US should too. But my point isn't that we shouldn't fight for net neutrality. It's that Netflix/Amazon say that ISPs shouldn't be able to play favorites over streaming services (and I agree) while they play favorites over devices (and I disagree and say it's hypocrisy).
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > Having a choice of ISPs isn't net neutrality. Right. A choice of ISPs (in my opinion) is actually better than net neutrality, for the things that matter most. > while (Netflix/Amazon) play favorites over devices (and I disagree and say it's hypocrisy) How do you draw that distinction? Is it "playing favorites over devices" that I can't sign into Xbox Live from my PlayStation? Or that Apple won't let me watch my iPad-purchased movies on an Android device? Or that Spotify won't let me listen to music in iTunes? Is it playing favorites that Comcast can stream the Hallmark Channel, but Hulu TV can't? Or that Nintendo won't let me play my Wii U games on my Gaming PC? I agree that you have a valid criticism of those video services. But your comparison of it to Net Neutrality feels forced. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of Net Neutrality -- it's seems like a clear case of comparing Apples and Oranges. If "Netflix is a hypocrite because they don't support 4K on my Linux laptop", then your basically upset with the entire tech industry, where every product has a list of platforms they've chosen to support, and a list they do not support.