Netflix crackdown on password sharing now includes $2.99 “extra home” fee
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This seems bonkers. If I visit the same hotel for one day twice in the same year, that counts as a second home?
Netflix really starting to get expensive. They suggest now I pay $36 per location on top of the normal fees because I am happen to be multiple weeks a year at family or the house in my home country.
I recently got my own plan of my own accord because I didn't want to see my mom's profile and I didn't want to see hers. (We've had it since the DVD-by-mail days.) Also, I wanted 4K and she's fine with HD.
Another way they could monetize misery is by bleeding suggestions from one profile to the other. Muhah.
These are desperate moves of retreat rather than cool moves of advancement and innovation.
Now that they are a leader on their segment, and not gaining subscribers, they pretend that it was not a feature to increase prices discreetly.
No it's not a solution, Netflix already heavily uses IPv6 and most sane v6 endpoints will not be NATed. Maybe they could use v6 Subnets as an Identifier but this would be wonky at best.
This would be a support ticket pandemonium since there are more than enough providers with dynamic IP adressing on v4 and v6.
But to be honest I think they might not need all that, more likely is they use some sort of device ID the modern Smart TVs already have Baked in or build some hash of their own with some device specific identifier (size, resolution, manufactuter, User Agent).
The article and information out there seems to imply they're primarily targeting TVs and devices that are used with TVs (SetTopBoxes, AppleTV, Firetv, Roku et al). So it makes no sense to use a device type unspecific Identifier like the IP in any way
Example: https://www.howtogeek.com/747840/netflixs-vpn-crackdown-isnt...
Do I really need to set up a private VPN to reflect back to my home network or are they expecting that I'll just pay the $3 for the convenience?
If you're doing this it is a multi-thousand dollar trip and a single water bottle in the lobby will cost $3. You do not actually care about $3 though you may object in principle.
This policy targets casual password sharing among the working poor who don't know about VPNs. Whatever you think about that morally it does sound like they nailed the scope.
The principle is very important. And I think responsible for being able to afford a multi-thousand dollar trip.
Why not pay an extra $3 for that bottle of water? Or pay$3 to use your own toothbrush? $3 isn’t a big amount, but it adds up when everyone starts charging extra money for things they shouldn’t.
I like to think of what a donation of that amount could feed people. $1 is a bulk meal for someone in need. Should Netflix prevent me from donating three meals to needy families?
If they know you have $3 to donate to someone in need they will do whatever they can to prevent you to do it and they will try to capture this amount for themselves.
This is basically how our society works today. And I don't know what is worse, billionaire companies doing this or people that think they are right doing this.