6 ms·

> 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

> 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.

pedrocr 9y ago
>Right. A choice of ISPs (in my opinion) is actually better than net neutrality, for the things that matter most. They're orthogonal, you can have net neutrality without choice of ISPs and vice versa. I also think net neutrality is much more important than choice of ISPs because ISP monopolies are unstable over the long term. Technology advances fast enough that today's monopoly will not hold once new access technologies are deployed. My ISP has already felt the heat from LTE providers to upgrade me to fiber for example. And Elon Musk is working on high-speed satellite internet for everyone. Over the long term ISP monopolies crumble. Content monopolies are much more long lasting because they have the copyright law hammer and net neutrality is a freedom of speech issue. Of the three topics ISP choice is by far the least important even if it's the one that currently inconveniences Americans the most. >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. I'm not discussing net neutrality at all. As far as I'm concerned that discussion is a no brainer. I'm saying that Netflix is complaining that ISPs are using their monopoly in one area (internet access) to condition another market (streaming services) while at the same time using their monopoly in one area (streamings services) to condition another market (playback devices). If that's not an apples to apples comparison about business practices I don't know what is. >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. This and your other comparisons are disingenuous. I'm not saying Netflix needs to write a custom app for every platform under the Sun. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to actively disallow platforms that would otherwise work fine if they didn't arbitrarily restrict them. That's how Youtube works for example. Anything that can work with it's webpage gets to stream video and anyone can implement an app that works with their API. Google Search's interface is a standards compliant web page. Do you think it would be ok for them to implement software to make it so their web page only worked on some browsers, didn't work for FreeBSD users and only provided low quality results to Linux users? Because this is exactly what Netflix does today.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > This and your other comparisons are disingenuous. I'm not saying Netflix needs to write a custom app for every platform under the Sun. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to actively disallow platforms that would otherwise work fine if they didn't arbitrarily restrict them. That's how Youtube works for example. It's not disingenuous though, it's the exact same problem you've described. You cite YouTube as an alternative, but YouTube specifically has done the exact same thing you criticize Netflix for -- YouTube is also arbitrarily blocking some players from accessing it's videos (Samsung Smart TVs, LG Smart TVs, 2nd Gen Apple TV devices, and a handful of other STB devices). These players all already exist, have had fully-working YouTube access for many years, some were even sold with the explicit promise of YouTube access on the box but YouTube has arbitrarily decided to restrict the API those platforms use, so they're dead now. > Do you think it would be ok for (Google) to implement software to make it so their web app only worked on some browsers, wouldn't work for FreeBSD users and only provided low quality results to Linux users? No, but that's exactly what YouTube does to a bunch of other platforms today. In fact, it's worse than Netflix. At least Netflix still sends your platform 1080p, Google just killed YouTube off entirely (no video playback at all) for a handful of platforms. --- That's why I use them as examples, because they specifically mimic the behavior you cited. If "Netflix has a monopoly of their 4K content" and is "using it to condition another market" then every tech product is guilty of the same thing. YouTube is using their monopoly (of their videos) to condition playback devices too (to force you to dispose of working Smart TVs and buy new ones). Nintendo is using their monopoly (over their games) to condition consoles (make you buy a Wii U / Switch / 3DS). Apple is using their monopoly (over OSX and iOS apps) to condition other markets (laptops, phones and tablets). And so on.
  - pedrocr 9y ago
    >YouTube is also arbitrarily blocking some players from accessing it's videos (Samsung Smart TVs, LG Smart TVs, 2nd Gen Apple TV devices, and a handful of other STB devices). Do you have a source for this? I'm not aware of any devices that are blocked on the web interface and I suspect the API access going away is only for technical reasons. Edit: As I suspected Google deprecated the v2 API and the v3 one can still be used just fine. The fact that "smart" TVs are pieces of junk that don't have software updates breaks their youtube support. This would only be a counterexample if Youtube API v3 was actively denying service to specific devices which it isn't. >In fact, it's worse than Netflix. At least Netflix still sends your platform 1080p, Google just killed YouTube off entirely (no video playback at all) for a handful of platforms. There is no 1080p Netflix for Linux and as far as I know any platform can stream the Youtube HTML5 player in 4K. Don't know about the API. >Nintendo is using their monopoly (over their games) to condition consoles (make you buy a Wii U / Switch / 3DS). Apple is using their monopoly (over iOS apps) to condition another market (phones and tablets). And so on. These are not reasonable examples in my view because they are not cases where someone is actively preventing something that would work otherwise. They've just built software that only works on a specific platform. When Nintendo writes an HTML5 game and then blocks the Xbox browser it will be comparable. And I'll be here to argue they shouldn't be allowed to do that either. >Again, I don't claim this is "good", and I agree with your root complaint (Netflix should support 4K on Linux). That's not my complaint. My complaint is that Netflix has actively disabled 4K on Linux (and on most platforms actually). I don't think they should start supporting anything. I think they shouldn't be allowed to actively block platforms. >But I don't believe your particular comparison is fair -- if you claim this is a monopoly behavior, then by your definition every tech product is using their "monopoly" (over their own product) to push into another market (of whatever devices they choose to support). This is wrong in two ways. First is that most services are not monopolies. There are plenty of fart apps so the fact that your particular one doesn't support Android is not relevant. A monopoly "over their own product" is not really a thing. Netflix and Amazon however do have a relevant monopoly over streaming services. There are no more than 2 or 3 in the world and network effects makes this stable over time. Second the fact that a given platform is not actively supported is not the issue. The issue is that there is an active blocking of platforms by Netflix/Amazon on purpose. This is actually highly uncommon behavior. Most companies will welcome the fact that more platforms work with their service.

pedrocr 9y ago

>Right. A choice of ISPs (in my opinion) is actually better than net neutrality, for the things that matter most. They're orthogonal, you can have net neutrality without choice of ISPs and vice versa. I also think net neutrality is much more important than choice of ISPs because ISP monopolies are unstable over the long term. Technology advances fast enough that today's monopoly will not hold once new access technologies are deployed. My ISP has already felt the heat from LTE providers to upgrade me to fiber for example. And Elon Musk is working on high-speed satellite internet for everyone. Over the long term ISP monopolies crumble. Content monopolies are much more long lasting because they have the copyright law hammer and net neutrality is a freedom of speech issue. Of the three topics ISP choice is by far the least important even if it's the one that currently inconveniences Americans the most. >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. I'm not discussing net neutrality at all. As far as I'm concerned that discussion is a no brainer. I'm saying that Netflix is complaining that ISPs are using their monopoly in one area (internet access) to condition another market (streaming services) while at the same time using their monopoly in one area (streamings services) to condition another market (playback devices). If that's not an apples to apples comparison about business practices I don't know what is. >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. This and your other comparisons are disingenuous. I'm not saying Netflix needs to write a custom app for every platform under the Sun. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to actively disallow platforms that would otherwise work fine if they didn't arbitrarily restrict them. That's how Youtube works for example. Anything that can work with it's webpage gets to stream video and anyone can implement an app that works with their API. Google Search's interface is a standards compliant web page. Do you think it would be ok for them to implement software to make it so their web page only worked on some browsers, didn't work for FreeBSD users and only provided low quality results to Linux users? Because this is exactly what Netflix does today.

maxsilver 9y ago
> This and your other comparisons are disingenuous. I'm not saying Netflix needs to write a custom app for every platform under the Sun. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to actively disallow platforms that would otherwise work fine if they didn't arbitrarily restrict them. That's how Youtube works for example. It's not disingenuous though, it's the exact same problem you've described. You cite YouTube as an alternative, but YouTube specifically has done the exact same thing you criticize Netflix for -- YouTube is also arbitrarily blocking some players from accessing it's videos (Samsung Smart TVs, LG Smart TVs, 2nd Gen Apple TV devices, and a handful of other STB devices). These players all already exist, have had fully-working YouTube access for many years, some were even sold with the explicit promise of YouTube access on the box but YouTube has arbitrarily decided to restrict the API those platforms use, so they're dead now. > Do you think it would be ok for (Google) to implement software to make it so their web app only worked on some browsers, wouldn't work for FreeBSD users and only provided low quality results to Linux users? No, but that's exactly what YouTube does to a bunch of other platforms today. In fact, it's worse than Netflix. At least Netflix still sends your platform 1080p, Google just killed YouTube off entirely (no video playback at all) for a handful of platforms. --- That's why I use them as examples, because they specifically mimic the behavior you cited. If "Netflix has a monopoly of their 4K content" and is "using it to condition another market" then every tech product is guilty of the same thing. YouTube is using their monopoly (of their videos) to condition playback devices too (to force you to dispose of working Smart TVs and buy new ones). Nintendo is using their monopoly (over their games) to condition consoles (make you buy a Wii U / Switch / 3DS). Apple is using their monopoly (over OSX and iOS apps) to condition other markets (laptops, phones and tablets). And so on.
- pedrocr 9y ago
  >YouTube is also arbitrarily blocking some players from accessing it's videos (Samsung Smart TVs, LG Smart TVs, 2nd Gen Apple TV devices, and a handful of other STB devices). Do you have a source for this? I'm not aware of any devices that are blocked on the web interface and I suspect the API access going away is only for technical reasons. Edit: As I suspected Google deprecated the v2 API and the v3 one can still be used just fine. The fact that "smart" TVs are pieces of junk that don't have software updates breaks their youtube support. This would only be a counterexample if Youtube API v3 was actively denying service to specific devices which it isn't. >In fact, it's worse than Netflix. At least Netflix still sends your platform 1080p, Google just killed YouTube off entirely (no video playback at all) for a handful of platforms. There is no 1080p Netflix for Linux and as far as I know any platform can stream the Youtube HTML5 player in 4K. Don't know about the API. >Nintendo is using their monopoly (over their games) to condition consoles (make you buy a Wii U / Switch / 3DS). Apple is using their monopoly (over iOS apps) to condition another market (phones and tablets). And so on. These are not reasonable examples in my view because they are not cases where someone is actively preventing something that would work otherwise. They've just built software that only works on a specific platform. When Nintendo writes an HTML5 game and then blocks the Xbox browser it will be comparable. And I'll be here to argue they shouldn't be allowed to do that either. >Again, I don't claim this is "good", and I agree with your root complaint (Netflix should support 4K on Linux). That's not my complaint. My complaint is that Netflix has actively disabled 4K on Linux (and on most platforms actually). I don't think they should start supporting anything. I think they shouldn't be allowed to actively block platforms. >But I don't believe your particular comparison is fair -- if you claim this is a monopoly behavior, then by your definition every tech product is using their "monopoly" (over their own product) to push into another market (of whatever devices they choose to support). This is wrong in two ways. First is that most services are not monopolies. There are plenty of fart apps so the fact that your particular one doesn't support Android is not relevant. A monopoly "over their own product" is not really a thing. Netflix and Amazon however do have a relevant monopoly over streaming services. There are no more than 2 or 3 in the world and network effects makes this stable over time. Second the fact that a given platform is not actively supported is not the issue. The issue is that there is an active blocking of platforms by Netflix/Amazon on purpose. This is actually highly uncommon behavior. Most companies will welcome the fact that more platforms work with their service.