Netflix Cracking Down on Password Sharing in Four More Countries, Including Canada

[thecombatwombat]

Thank you for sharing that article.

I don't necessarily agree with every conclusion and opinion, but Doctorow really, really knows his stuff, and has a fascinating take on this from the perspective of a deep insider who also has an incredible understanding of information exchange technologies and structures.

One thing Doctorow doesn't discuss, and seems to be so much simpler to understand and easily applicable to a wide-range of situations and edge cases, not to mention sidesteps all of the analogies both useful and tortured: If Netflix decided to frame their business as selling streams rather than trying to define who is on the other end of them, the only complaint in any of this would be that they're offering less streams for the same price.

When I sign up for a cell plan, I pay per line. As awful as cell providers are in general, they don't litigate how many people are able to answer the device attached to that SIM card when it rings, or where that phone spends most of its time, or where the person who usually carries that device sleeps at night most of the time.

On that same plan, I pay for 40GB of tethered data; it doesn't matter what device or devices that data is going to, where I'm located when I provide data to them, or what my relationship is to the person who owns the device.

I pay my email service per IMAP mailbox; it doesn't matter how many people check each box, where they are, what country they live in, how many addresses feed into that box, or what their relationship is to other box owners.

Netflix already has a clear metric for this: Number of streams. You get from 1 to 4 streams, depending on how much your plan costs. There's no particular reason, if I'm paying for two simultaneous streams, it would be easier for everyone involved--and cost them far less in sharing-detection infrastructure--if that's exactly what they sold, and stopped caring who specifically used them. If they genuinely think they've undercharged in order to build market share now that the no-competition-era is over, they might have to re-think the number of streams offered, but that would be simple to understand, covers just about every reasonable edge case, and even if the price goes up at least there's no background algorithm gatekeeper deciding who's cheating and who isn't.

Those things are bad analogies because none of them are paying to license content. Despite all the content it produces, Netflix is still paying huge amounts of money to license and stream other people's content. The content industry on the whole is still setup this way. Cable is still per household. A TV license in the UK is still per household. Traditional TV ratings are still . . . you get it.

You're missing the other option they don't want to do, which is to sell blocks of streaming minutes like they and cell phones used to do. I am 100% sure they've considered this internally but they feat the biggest backlach from it.

This is why the switch to ads is so important in this. AVOD is the only way they get variable revenue, if one "stream" is on 24/7, they generate more revenue than one that is on a few hours a month.

 

[TechnoMonk]

So, in fact, I had to use the Netflix app on my smart TV to set my primary location.

I don’t connect any of my phones to network or any apps. TV displays are supposed to be dumb, show what ever device is connected to it.
If Netflix wants me to use an app, I am gonna cancel.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Those things are bad analogies because none of them are paying to license content. Despite all the content it produces, Netflix is still paying huge amounts of money to license and stream other people's content. The content industry on the whole is still setup this way. Cable is still per household. A TV license in the UK is still per household. Traditional TV ratings are still . . . you get it.

You're missing the other option they don't want to do, which is to sell blocks of streaming minutes like they and cell phones used to do. I am 100% sure they've considered this internally but they feat the biggest backlach from it.

This is why the switch to ads is so important in this. AVOD is the only way they get variable revenue, if one "stream" is on 24/7, they generate more revenue than one that is on a few hours a month.

My directv stream allows 2-3 screens outside the house network. This whole should be tied to home network is dumb. Irony is Netflix started with stream anywhere and encouraging people to share password.

 

[Queen6]

I'm so glad that I cancelled. Last day is this month.

I went to finish out my Watch List and realized I didn't really want to watch any of the crap that was on it. Netflix sucks and puts out poor quality stuff these days for the most part.

Bye-bye, Netflix!

Just not worth the money. You get invested in a series, it gets cut. Worse they change the entire flavour of the show. Totally done with Netflix...

Very simple in the entertainment business you need to entertain the majority, not the minority. It's possible to entertain both, equally Netflix seems incapable employing weak showrunners & writers.

Q-6

 

[cmcbhi]

Well aren’t we all glad it’s not up to you to decide how to define intelligence and how people spent their time 😉 I don’t even know what you are doing in this thread if you find Netflix is a waste of time 🤷🏼‍♂️

I'm on the thread because I don't believe Junior who is praying instead of studying should pay for his own stream instead of parasitizing of Daddy's and Mummies subscription. Now, if the parents want to pay for Junior, then, well and good.
FWIW, hose who "cram" use before exam time retain far less of the necessary knowledge long term.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

I’ll end up being a 1-2 month a year subscriber when this goes into effect in the US. There will always be some content on Netflix I’m interested in but I will not pay $240 a year to watch it in HDR when I can get any other streaming service for half that or less. I’ll just have a dedicated Netflix month sometime in the summer when new content is slow to catch up on Netflix stuff.

I’m even pulling HBO ad-free for like $8 a month by paying annually at the moment. Netflix is delusional in their pricing.

 

[cmcbhi]

So you don't watch Netflix now do you? You're an adult you have work to do and if you don't have work to do then you have a lazy job and are a lazy human.

Why are you here?

As I said, I'm here because I don't think Pirating Mummie's password to laze around at "college" should be free. Pay for what you consume.
And, if you pay for the Netflix higher tiers, you need to watch a lot more than two hours a day to get your money's worth.
If you are using two hours of Netflix to fall to sleep at night, you are wasting Mummie's m0ney.

 

[I7guy]

I’ll end up being a 1-2 month a year subscriber when this goes into effect in the US. There will always be some content on Netflix I’m interested in but I will not pay $240 a year to watch it in HDR when I can get any other streaming service for half that or less. I’ll just have a dedicated Netflix month sometime in the summer when new content is slow to catch up on Netflix stuff.

I’m even pulling HBO ad-free for like $8 a month by paying annually at the moment. Netflix is delusional in their pricing.

Netflix may be delusional but they’ll still get revenue from you, even if not as much as before.

 

[webkit]

I’m even pulling HBO ad-free for like $8 a month by paying annually at the moment.

Sweet deal. How were you able to get HBO ad-free for $8/month? Is it part of a package with something else? I recall there being $8/month-ish specials last year but that was for the ad-supported plan.

Netflix is delusional in their pricing.

The current price for HBO Max ad-free is $15.99/month or $149.99/year (around $12.50/month). Netflix doesn't currently offer annual plans but their full HD (1080p) ad-free plan is $15.49/month which is comparable to HBO Max's $15.99/month.

Netflix also offers 720p plans for just $6.99/month (ad-supported) or $9.99/month (ad-free).

Netflix pricing seems to be fairly competitive in the market.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Sweet deal. How were you able to get HBO ad-free for $8/month? Is it part of a package with something else? I recall there being $8/month-ish specials last year but that was for the ad-supported plan.





The current price for HBO Max ad-free is $15.99/month or $149.99/year (around $12.50/month). Netflix doesn't currently offer annual plans but their full HD (1080p) ad-free plan is $15.49/month which is comparable to HBO Max's $15.99/month.

Netflix also offers 720p plans for just $6.99/month (ad-supported) or $9.99/month (ad-free).

Netflix pricing seems to be fairly competitive in the market.

I got the annual package and then stacked it with an AMEX $50 cash back offer.

You have to compare HBO’s $15 plan with Netflix’s $20 plan for an apples to apples comparisons. HBO has 4K HDR now. And they aren’t being sticklers about sharing either.

Netflix has increased prices every couple years to get where they are. HBO has been $15 dollars a month since dinosaurs walked the earth and only recently increased $1 after exponentially increasing the amount of content they provide. They are the anti Netflix.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Netflix may be delusional but they’ll still get revenue from you, even if not as much as before.

Making moves to decrease revenue are generally not good moves.

 

[Killerbob]

Letting their revenue-prevention department dictate business terms is generally not a good idea, but letting all the freeloaders and cheaters get away with sharing passwords with friends, is not a good business model either.

It is a hair-fine balance, and I, for one, commend them for trying to sort this out - the way they are going about it, on the other hand, leaves some to be desired. I am happy to pay for my household account, and as long as we all (three family members) can access Netflix in the house on the TVs and the Smart devices, and the hassle is not too great when we are outside the house, I am happy to keep being a subscriber.

 

[I7guy]

Making moves to decrease revenue are generally not good moves.

Balanced out with non-paying subscribers, I’m sure Netflix did the math.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Balanced out with non-paying subscribers, I’m sure Netflix did the math.

#TheyDidTheMath would be a great twitter trend highlighting failed businesses.

 

[I7guy]

#TheyDidTheMath would be a great twitter trend highlighting failed businesses.

Sure, but as of today Netflix isn’t the next blackberry.

 

[Manzanito]

Balanced out with non-paying subscribers, I’m sure Netflix did the math.

The way they’re rolling this out looks more like they’re not so sure about the math, otherwise they’ll jump in with both feet.

I, for one, am cancelling. We’ll see what happens.

 

[I7guy]

The way they’re rolling this out looks more like they’re not so sure about the math, otherwise they’ll jump in with both feet.

I, for one, am cancelling. We’ll see what happens.

They are getting two additional subs from me.

 

[Fpmtngal]

I’m single and solo. I don’t share my password and I always use either an AppleTV (mostly, like 90% of the time) or an iPad to watch Netflix. I only have one device streaming at a time.

So at first I was going to ignore this topic since it didn’t appear to apply to me. But reading the fine print, it most likely would apply to me when this policy hits the US.

Why? Because I’m a full-time RVer. The announcement shown on the initial post in this thread say “Netflix will require users to set up a primary location.” I don’t have a ”primary location.” What do they really mean by the term “primary location?” Will they allow tracking by internet service? My primary internet for most of the year is Starlink. But not all of the year - I also use cellular on occasion and every once in a while I’ll go visit a friend and take along my AppleTV, so I’d be using their cable internet. And during the winter when I’m in a park in southern Arizona, I’ll use the park provided cable internet (included with site fee).

Are they going to go the route of many of the live TV streaming services? Hulu Live requires you to have “residential service” for your home network - ie, they will only allow you to sign up if you are using cable internet or DSL - they specifically prohibit signing up with satellite or cellular service. At least they are fairly up-front about it if you look at their FAX. YouTube TV allows you to sign up using Starlink (I did just that when I was up in the middle of a national forest this fall where I had no cellular service) but when I tried to watch a relatively local network station, it said it couldn’t find my location and wouldn’t let me watch the station (they said to go to my mobile device, but it was also hooked up to Starlink because I didn’t have any cell service). I never quite found the fine print that said what limitations they put on an account because of using Starlink when you have no cell service. I canceled before the free trial ran out - it wasn’t going to work for me. I found a different live TV streaming service that seemed to work better in my situation, though I haven’t been traveling for long periods of time since I signed up for it.

What makes my situation worse is that I’m a snowbird and will stay parts of the winter (about 4 months, off and on) in southern Arizona. My site has cable internet provided as part of the site fee, so I have cable internet for that time. As soon as it starts getting warm I head somewhere else for the summer - I won’t be back in Arizona until late fall, so if they count the cable internet as my home network, will they block my account when I access it by 2 months after I leave Arizona?

My situation is somewhat unusual, but it is by no means unique. As Starlink becomes more wide-spread, I can see more people having problems with the whole approach of a “primary location.”

 

[I7guy]

I’m single and solo. I don’t share my password and I always use either an AppleTV (mostly, like 90% of the time) or an iPad to watch Netflix. I only have one device streaming at a time.

So at first I was going to ignore this topic since it didn’t appear to apply to me. But reading the fine print, it most likely would apply to me when this policy hits the US.

Why? Because I’m a full-time RVer. The announcement shown on the initial post in this thread say “Netflix will require users to set up a primary location.” I don’t have a ”primary location.” What do they really mean by the term “primary location?” Will they allow tracking by internet service? My primary internet for most of the year is Starlink. But not all of the year - I also use cellular on occasion and every once in a while I’ll go visit a friend and take along my AppleTV, so I’d be using their cable internet. And during the winter when I’m in a park in southern Arizona, I’ll use the park provided cable internet (included with site fee).

Are they going to go the route of many of the live TV streaming services? Hulu Live requires you to have “residential service” for your home network - ie, they will only allow you to sign up if you are using cable internet or DSL - they specifically prohibit signing up with satellite or cellular service. At least they are fairly up-front about it if you look at their FAX. YouTube TV allows you to sign up using Starlink (I did just that when I was up in the middle of a national forest this fall where I had no cellular service) but when I tried to watch a relatively local network station, it said it couldn’t find my location and wouldn’t let me watch the station (they said to go to my mobile device, but it was also hooked up to Starlink because I didn’t have any cell service). I never quite found the fine print that said what limitations they put on an account because of using Starlink when you have no cell service. I canceled before the free trial ran out - it wasn’t going to work for me. I found a different live TV streaming service that seemed to work better in my situation, though I haven’t been traveling for long periods of time since I signed up for it.

What makes my situation worse is that I’m a snowbird and will stay parts of the winter (about 4 months, off and on) in southern Arizona. My site has cable internet provided as part of the site fee, so I have cable internet for that time. As soon as it starts getting warm I head somewhere else for the summer - I won’t be back in Arizona until late fall, so if they count the cable internet as my home network, will they block my account when I access it by 2 months after I leave Arizona?

My situation is somewhat unusual, but it is by no means unique. As Starlink becomes more wide-spread, I can see more people having problems with the whole approach of a “primary location.”

You have no legal address? You pay no tax, have no drivers license?

 

[Manzanito]

They are getting two additional subs from me.

Still they’ll be loosing money. Twelve euros more from you, twenty less from me.

 

[I7guy]

Still they’ll be loosing money. Twelve euros more from you, twenty less from me.

Maybe, but hopefully they accomplish what they want…which is unauthorized sharing of passwords.

 

[Fpmtngal]

You have no legal address? You pay no tax, have no drivers license?

I have a driver’s license, a legal address and pay federal tax - I domicile in Texas (no state income tax) where they recognize my mail forwarding address as a legal address. I pay state and local registration fees for my vehicles to Texas and some day I’ll probably return there when I settle down, I have some emotional roots there (I lived there for 5 years in the 1980s and liked it). But I don’t own property there, I don’t have an apartment there, I don’t have a physical location anywhere that is permanent. That’s very common with the full-time RV community, if I get tired of a place or it’s too hot or cold, I move on to somewhere else.

 

[Manzanito]

Maybe, but hopefully they accomplish what they want…which is unauthorized sharing of passwords.

They’re in the game to make money, not for the purity of tos observance. If they loose money investors won’t be happy.

I’m not cancelling because it’ll be cheaper for me, by the way. The price was already too much for the value, and even though I let my sister borrow my account for free, I just feel I’m kind of getting ripped off paying for four screens when rarely I use more than one, just to have the privilege of watching 4k content.

Should they add a 1 screen 4k tier with a lower price I would consider it.

 

[bluskiff99]

23 dollars a month just to get 4K. Im done. If they offered a single steam of 4k for a decent price I might be interested.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I downgraded mine from HD to standard definition last year and can’t say I’ve thought about it since. That’s a good indication of how important I thought it was.