Netflix Refuses Demand To Hand Over Subscriber Data

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Someone pass the popcorn, this looks like it is going to get interesting.

Netflix says it won't turn over confidential subscriber information to Canada's broadcast regulator in order to safeguard private corporate information. The video streaming company was ordered last week to give the data to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission by Monday, along with information related to the Canadian content it creates or provides to subscribers.
Click to expand...
 
fuck the CRTC, bunch of fuckin dinosaurs.

its because of them we pay too much for cable , cell phone service and internet service.

fuck them
 
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
 
arr4ws said:
fuck the CRTC, bunch of fuckin dinosaurs.

its because of them we pay too much for cable , cell phone service and internet service.

fuck them
Click to expand...

Yup, couldn't have said it better.
 
"Give us the viewing data so we can see whats popular so we can keep the dinosaur that is cable television alive longer!"
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...

I look forward to your hand shaking ceremony with the top brass at Google and Facebook for saving them from making a terrible mistake supporting NN.
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...
everything you wrote just seems so...credible:rolleyes:
 
From what I've been told, they're actually waking up to the fact that the 15% Cdn content rule is hurting Canadians. Sure there's some good Cdn content, but mandating minimum 15% when there isn't enough to start with just neuters our options. They want to see the stats so they can move forward out of the dark ages (somewhat). Cdn Netflix has some stuff that the US doesn't, but the choices are still largely limited.

If they want basic stats like content and general region data, give it to them. If they want to see where I'm at in Dr Who, fuggem.

My parent's smart tv is set up for US Netflix. My sister and I both use other services to watch it too, except for very few exceptions.
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...

Although what you are saying is a weird mix arguments, one thing you are correct: If the regulation comes out all wrong and favors Comcast/'Time Warner and not you and me and companies like Netflix,.. its not because incompetence on behalf of the government.. its by design as a product of corruption.
US government can be good government, it is just corruption has become very insidious and pretty much codified in law.
No, government is not an inherent bad, and companies and inherent good, that the biggest crock of crap. It bad corrupted government serving companies and not people.. and that doesn't always align.
 
ShamisOMally said:
"Give us the viewing data so we can see whats popular so we can keep the dinosaur that is cable television alive longer!"
Click to expand...

Not only that, it can prove a mayor disaster for Netflix if the data gets to content providers, they will lose too much leverage in price negotiations.
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...

Thank you, someone FINALLY gets it. I have been saying this for years since this whole debate started. It is all about the term "lawful content" no one making these laws or rules gives a flying fuck about your netflix stream speed. It is all about censoring speech on the internet. Remember that it is about lawful content not about illegal content. They are very different ideas.
 
I never understood the dumbass Canadian laws. Living close to the border we get some Canadian radio stations and like every third or fourth song had to be from a Canadian artist. If they didn't comply they could lose their license to broadcast.
 
Uvaman said:
Although what you are saying is a weird mix arguments, one thing you are correct: If the regulation comes out all wrong and favors Comcast/'Time Warner and not you and me and companies like Netflix,.. its not because incompetence on behalf of the government.. its by design as a product of corruption.
US government can be good government, it is just corruption has become very insidious and pretty much codified in law.
No, government is not an inherent bad, and companies and inherent good, that the biggest crock of crap. It bad corrupted government serving companies and not people.. and that doesn't always align.
Click to expand...

The question of the private sector vs. the (US) Government is not about "bad" vs "good". The US system was designed to have separation of powers because the founders did not think people could be trusted with too much power.

The real question is one of motive, accountability and resources. A business has to turn a profit and they have to have customers. While the profit motive can drive people to do bad things, the profit motive is still rational and somewhat predictable.

On the other hand, the government, especially the regulatory state, is flush with power and operates under a cloud of obfuscation where every program and action is designed to convince you that it's for your benefit while operating entirely for the benefit of the bureaucracy and it's congressional patrons. This is undeniable - just look at the VA Hospital scandal to cite the easiest example. Further, the regulatory state gives color of legitimacy to agents operating on their own bias, agenda and political interest (see Lerner, Lois @IRS) it also allows the government to try to pick market winners (AIG bailouts) and sink large sums of money into "investments" in their puppet masters (Solyndra, etc) with no regard for viability or market forces and no risk to themselves. It's the ultimate moral hazard "privatized profits, socialized losses".

So - no. No and Hell No.
 
DoubleTap said:
The question of the private sector vs. the (US) Government is not about "bad" vs "good". The US system was designed to have separation of powers because the founders did not think people could be trusted with too much power.

The real question is one of motive, accountability and resources. A business has to turn a profit and they have to have customers. While the profit motive can drive people to do bad things, the profit motive is still rational and somewhat predictable.

On the other hand, the government, especially the regulatory state, is flush with power and operates under a cloud of obfuscation where every program and action is designed to convince you that it's for your benefit while operating entirely for the benefit of the bureaucracy and it's congressional patrons. This is undeniable - just look at the VA Hospital scandal to cite the easiest example. Further, the regulatory state gives color of legitimacy to agents operating on their own bias, agenda and political interest (see Lerner, Lois @IRS) it also allows the government to try to pick market winners (AIG bailouts) and sink large sums of money into "investments" in their puppet masters (Solyndra, etc) with no regard for viability or market forces and no risk to themselves. It's the ultimate moral hazard "privatized profits, socialized losses".

So - no. No and Hell No.
Click to expand...

This is why it's important to eliminate the private sector and profit elements from the picture. We know that people are motivated by greed and corruption and if we restructure the economic conditions so that there isn't an immaterial thing like money to obtain we can centrally manage the entire economic structure using existing governmental systems to take over everything from obtaining basic resources to final product manufacture and then distribute them fairly to each citizen with small incentives for top performance within the system, we can basically cut out money and motivate people. Of course something like that would need a lot of auditing to prevent corruption, but it could work pretty well in the US if people would just figure out that mostly everyone is poor and through central economic management, they could all collectively live better more fair lives.
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...

Exactly which legislation are you arguing for/against here? The one that was proposed and supported by Comcast? The one where it said they could have fast-lanes?

Or are you arguing that they just "leave it as it is"?

If we "leave it as it is", the ISPs can extort money. First, it's a shakedown of Netflix (check). But you better believe that Comcast is probably drawing up designs/products to extort customers. You want access to Netflix/HBO-Go/Amazon-Prime/Hulu/YouTube? Well, that's our special streaming internet add-on package of $19.99. Those without competing ISPs (decent DSL companies), are screwed.

The real argument for net neutrality is about setting a few standards (regulations) on what can be done. It's FOR free speech, as it says all data is to be treated the same. It doesn't have to be complex, in-fact, I'm pretty sure a technical person could write it up in one page. No loopholes, nothing. Just everything-is-the-same.
 
I read it, and I'm confused... Why does the tv people think they can get another company's information?
 
For those who do not know who the CRTC are .... is a a regulator group which is supposed to ensure Canadian content and protect Canadian consumers. In reality the CRTC is a bunch of former Canadian telecom executives who are doing everything to prevent competition and keep our wireless rates as some of the highest in the world.
 
Ah, thanks for that. I did not know that. Makes more sense/.
 
They were actually forced to do some good a few years ago when our then Minister of Industry Tony Clement spoke out against them regarding usage based billing that ISP's wanted to implement, they ultimately reversed their decision because he spoke out against them. I'd like to think that they are open to promoting competition within the cellular market but the big three, Rogers, Telus and Bell are so big and unwilling to do anything but screw the consumer, I have little hope anything will change. The fact that Rogers was allowed to buy Fido years ago only set the stage for what we are dealing with today, high fees and little or no choice. I'm with Fido and have three lines with them, but they offer no sharing of minutes or data, funnily enough, Rogers and most everyone else does, but since Rogers wants to run Fido and their 'little bitch' 'value brand' they suck. As far as this Netflix thing is concerned what can the CRTC really do? Ban Netflix from Canada, how exactly?
 
"Sorry we don't want to provide the data, we'll just pull out of Canada if you force us to".
 
Maybe they'll refuse, be banned by the government, and then people will go berserk getting rid of whatever that stupid agency is that people are talking about.


I think we're about due for a revolution just about anywhere. Here, Canada...and other places as well.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
This is why it's important to eliminate the private sector and profit elements from the picture. We know that people are motivated by greed and corruption and if we restructure the economic conditions so that there isn't an immaterial thing like money to obtain we can centrally manage the entire economic structure using existing governmental systems to take over everything from obtaining basic resources to final product manufacture and then distribute them fairly to each citizen with small incentives for top performance within the system, we can basically cut out money and motivate people. Of course something like that would need a lot of auditing to prevent corruption, but it could work pretty well in the US if people would just figure out that mostly everyone is poor and through central economic management, they could all collectively live better more fair lives.
Click to expand...

This satire is brilliant, really... top notch. 10/10.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
This is why it's important to eliminate the private sector and profit elements from the picture. We know that people are motivated by greed and corruption and if we restructure the economic conditions so that there isn't an immaterial thing like money to obtain we can centrally manage the entire economic structure using existing governmental systems to take over everything from obtaining basic resources to final product manufacture and then distribute them fairly to each citizen with small incentives for top performance within the system, we can basically cut out money and motivate people. Of course something like that would need a lot of auditing to prevent corruption, but it could work pretty well in the US if people would just figure out that mostly everyone is poor and through central economic management, they could all collectively live better more fair lives.
Click to expand...

We can save money in the textiles sector by only buying red fabric dye, everyone loves red anyway.
 
Spidey329 said:
Exactly which legislation are you arguing for/against here? The one that was proposed and supported by Comcast? The one where it said they could have fast-lanes?

Or are you arguing that they just "leave it as it is"?

If we "leave it as it is", the ISPs can extort money. First, it's a shakedown of Netflix (check). But you better believe that Comcast is probably drawing up designs/products to extort customers. You want access to Netflix/HBO-Go/Amazon-Prime/Hulu/YouTube? Well, that's our special streaming internet add-on package of $19.99. Those without competing ISPs (decent DSL companies), are screwed.

The real argument for net neutrality is about setting a few standards (regulations) on what can be done. It's FOR free speech, as it says all data is to be treated the same. It doesn't have to be complex, in-fact, I'm pretty sure a technical person could write it up in one page. No loopholes, nothing. Just everything-is-the-same.
Click to expand...

Here's some light reading for you. From the people who help develop the standards for IPv4 and IPv6, the IETF. Long story short: No, and hell no.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474 - Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2475 - An Architecture for Differentiated Services

Different classes of service require different treatment. The voice over ip call to 911 is going to be handled more expeditiously than your request for a lolcat photo.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
This is why it's important to eliminate the private sector and profit elements from the picture. We know that people are motivated by greed and corruption and if we restructure the economic conditions so that there isn't an immaterial thing like money to obtain we can centrally manage the entire economic structure using existing governmental systems to take over everything from obtaining basic resources to final product manufacture and then distribute them fairly to each citizen with small incentives for top performance within the system, we can basically cut out money and motivate people. Of course something like that would need a lot of auditing to prevent corruption, but it could work pretty well in the US if people would just figure out that mostly everyone is poor and through central economic management, they could all collectively live better more fair lives.
Click to expand...

Wow, I can't even begin to understand what you are talking about or even how you could possibly get from point A to point B.
 
Handing over subscriber data to any government is never, ever, EVER in the best interests of the people. There is no possible positive aspect to doing so. Corrupt government is corrupt (like anywhere else).
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...

The Cable Co.'s were regulated into a monopoly positions. I don't see you complaining about that. I guess its ok until it stops benefitting you.
 
Just an update to this story.... The CRTC has now said that since netflix (and google) won't "cooperate" than the CRTC will ignore them. Essentially all input and comments, provided by Netflix (and google) will be removed from the record.
 
WaltC said:
Just a taste of what "Network Neutrality" legislation would do in the US (hint: the reality of it has little to do with fast-lanes/slow-lanes.) It's about legal control of the Internet. If you think the US POTs regulated phone system has been a wonderful thing--and we only got away from it through the de-regulation of competing industry tech--then you'll definitely want NN legislation of some kind. And if you think in the US that the IRS, or some other government bureaucracy, can do a better job with Netflix than Netflix, and a better job with Netflix than, say, Obamacare, then you'll definitely want to see some kind of NN legislation passed. Then you can get all of the government-created propaganda TV you want because everything else will be banned and censored.
Click to expand...


I love you.
 
Woops forgot to include the link to the news story about the CRTC ignoring Netflix and Google.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-to-netflix-since-you-won-t-co-operate-we-ll-ignore-you-1.2781748

"CRTC to Netflix: Since you won't co-operate, we'll ignore you

Canada's broadcast regulator is hitting the "delete" button on Netflix and Google, telling the online video services their submissions at hearings into the future of television will be ignored.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wrote to the companies Monday, saying it will remove presentations made by the two companies from the public record."
 
the 15% Canadian content is a sham, Rogers and Bell do this by "offering" time shifted crap filler TV like Hindu and French crap I need to pay for in my package every month

If i could get AMC and live NHL hockey, id ditch cable TV in a second for netflix ...too bad Rogers and Bell own the hockey franchises in Toronto and Montreal so that will never happen
 
If the CRTC is frustrated, it's probably a good thing for everybody. So not regulated.

That the CRTC went 1984 and is starting to delete public records, I'd say THAT is something to start worrying about, especially with the kind of legal power the CRTC can wield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top