
Netflix Leaving Battle for Net Neutrality Shows Why We Need It - prawn
https://www.inverse.com/article/32361-netflix-reed-hastings-net-neutrality
======
dsacco
For 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.

~~~
dingaling
> 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

I think that's dangerously short-termist. The end of network neutrality will
consume far more resources in the long term than the disarray of a resignation
that will be forgotten bynext year.

Sure, they can afford the deals with carriers this year, and next. But once
they're locked-in the fees will just keep rising. Why _wouldn 't_ Comcast, for
example, keep raising the preferred-bits delivery fee? They'd be negligent not
to do so.

I was hoping that the big Internet content-giants would ignore the pay-for-
priority-delivery model that is emerging; if no-one paid for first-class
delivery then the pricing model would collapse. However it seems that they'll
just fall in line and accept it as a cost of business, increasing the 'cost'
to their customers to compensate.

~~~
Shivetya
while I like some of the promises that NN supporters claim we will have I
remember back to the highly regulated days of where ISDN was all that was
offered outside of pricey T1 lines and only because of lack of regulation did
competition arise to give me the day when I now have 1G internet.

Even getting ISDN installed was an absolute bear and I gave up while another
stuck with it. Modems were fortunately getting faster but DSL didn't come to
us till after cable did.

We are just as likely to get a regulated nightmare guaranteeing mediocre
speeds and service at set costs the prevents anyone from wanting to jump in.
Besides I really want to know why we should favor content providers over
service providers? If you are going to regulate one then why not the other?

~~~
chc
I'm not sure how we'd go about treating content providers as dumb pipes. What
are you proposing there?

------
marklawrutgers
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
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.

~~~
izacus
> 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
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.

~~~
izacus
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.)

~~~
scarface74
_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._

And before, you weren't allowed to watch Netflix _at all_ on any PC based
stack that wasn't supported for MS Silverlight. Web based DRM actually gave
you more choices, not fewer.

 _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 that has nothing to do with web based DRM. Netflix has always run on
custom clients on non-PC platforms. If they didn't have Web based DRM, what do
you think is more likely? That they would make a custom app for the most
popular platforms (like Sling TV) or that they would release DRM free video?

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._

Video on the "open web" is not a priority for most video producers. If they
wanted to DRM their content, the lack of a standard was never the issue --
they would just release apps for all of the platforms they cared about. There
are plenty of DRM solutions for video on the web.

 _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.)_

Every company decides what consumers they want to serve. It is a free market
-- they decide which consumers are worth serving and consumers decide which
content they are willing to pay for and what tradeoffs they are willing to
make.

~~~
audi100quattro
Your argument is self-defeating. If you're wondering why there are no, not
even one (unless you want to count gog.com/movies), drm-free video buying
sites, well, you have your answer. If people are ok with DRM while-renting,
well, they will be ok when buying too.

The opposite is true for games on GOG/Humble Bundle/Steam and music almost
everywhere, the less DRM, the more cultural and economic value is unlocked.
There is a reason why movies aren't as good as they used to be, why make
better content when you can resell the same content on Netflix and Netflix 4K
(let's not forget the different 4K plan).

Region locking via VPN banning, is basically another form of DRM, regardless
of them doing it for their content or others.

------
pg_bot
I 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
I will rather pay Netflix for unfree internet than have "free" internet where
everything is paid by and poisoned by ads.

~~~
dspillett
What 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.

------
bko
I 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
That 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
I 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

------
graphememes
Cancelling my subscription. Hope others do the same, this is the only way we
can show businesses that they didn't get there without us.

------
shard972
They 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.

------
kev009
I guess it's inevitable for dominant companies to become toxic.

------
richardknop
I 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
Between 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.

~~~
AcerbicZero
It's well documented that the overall catalog is shrinking
([http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size-
shrinks-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-catalog-size-
shrinks-2016-9)) and has been for some time.

You can't replace quality content with mediocre netflix originals. At best, 4
or 5 of those you listed are watchable, while the rest are just space fillers,
trying to distracted from the loss of a huge number of popular shows.

Hulu, Amazon, HBO, etc all provide more quality content per dollar than
Netflix at this point.

~~~
richardknop
This is true, there are movies that used to be available on Netflix last time
I was subscribed (mostly some old classics which I enjoyed rewatching from
time to time) which have since been removed from the catalogue.

Another issue is outside of US the catalogue is very small. I was living in UK
at the time I subscribed to Netflix and the catalogue was much smaller than US
one.

------
random3
Sad. All I can do is #unsubscribenetflix

------
josteink
I 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
Would you rather Netflix to continue using a DRMd solution controlled by one
company (Microsoft) or try to work with a standards committee?

~~~
CaptSpify
That's a false dichotomy. They don't have to do either.

~~~
scarface74
Video 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
It'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
You 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.

~~~
CaptSpify
How am I in control of my software, if I can't use it in they way that I want?
That is the opposite of being in control

~~~
scarface74
Are you not in control of your PS4 software just because it can't run on an
Xbox One? In either case the software you bought was not designed to run on
your chosen hardware.

~~~
CaptSpify
No, as long as they aren't purposefully trying to block. Incompatibility is an
entirely different issue than DRM.

------
Principe
This shows that corporations can't be trusted to have any principle other that
"FU, I got mine."

------
morsmodr
_The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties

source - Their own original series _

------
meesterdude
Such a shame. A blemish the otherwise stellar company will never shed.

------
pasbesoin
"I got mine..."

------
remotehack
Is 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
The 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
Consumer 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-
consume...](https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-
protection)

Specifically:

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1212043/mcsweeny_-
_net_neutrality_statement_4-26-17.pdf)

"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-
co...](https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/federal-trade-
commission/ftc-says-common-carrier-exemption-to-section-5-jurisdiction-is-
activity-based-not-status-based/)

"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
Consumer 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.

