Netflix to ban accounts outside a primary IP/location/UUID, and those that didn't phone home for 31 days

As for Netflix…I’m not a fan of these corporations, but it’s their right to do what they want with their service and it’s the right of the customer to stop being him.

Corporate greed is one thing, but you can imagine how much the accounts are abused.

In their place, I would simply introduce a limit of logged sessions and a limit of active video views. And added the appropriate plans so that people can adjust the price/quantity of their accounts.

Does it matter who is watching and where if you pay and can only use one session at a time and play only one video at a time. Imo not, and it would limit abuses and not introduce any complicated control mechanisms.

Of course, all this must be nicely and well planned in the offer - the less functional the account, the cheaper.

And if someone needs to share the account for 10 sessions/simultaneous video views, let them pay more.

Or if a group of people want to watch the same video at the same time then have the account owner do a private re-stream to the people. This will not directly abuse your account and may legally fall under the law of sharing with your family.

Assigning rigidly to a location is stupid. Sharing a password is a matter for the account owner, but if netflix were to limit sessions/active views, the problem would probably not exist. So, at the end of the day, they’re probably more concerned with the $ than with regulating the abuses.

Because after all, a person pays for access and the ability to watch when he wants and as much as he wants. The fact that one account will be shared by 10 people, but technically not at the same time but over 24 hours, does not change anything from the technical side for netflix. Whether one person watches something for 24 hours or 10 people for 2.4 hours each should not matter, because you pay for access 24/7, so you have the right to use it all the way to the ceiling.

Only where the abuse occurs is when many people use one account at the same time without blocking the queue.
As a result, the network traffic generated by such an account will always be greater than in the first case. As a result, we can talk about abuse here.

As for the location itself and recognizing the account / one house … Regardless of whether it will be per IP or some key / cookie per device, I see that there are still technical possibilities to circumvent this to some extent.

And I can already see on the horizon new service options in various VPNs and the like, which will help you always be “at home” and seen as one and the same device not only for the IP side but also for other verification that netflix uses.

I can’t even quit Netflix, I’ve had a free account for years through my internet provider.

I still never use it because Netflix is awful garbage.

1 Like

If you don’t have to pay, I don’t see a problem here :wink:

Personally I started sharing specifically because they jacked the prices up a year or two ago.

It was either start sharing with my parents or give it up, the price went up, much of the content I wanted to watch had already left for paramount/Disney plus etc, only the netflix originals are reliably there and frankly they do not warrant the asking price on a monthly rental.

If we can’t share anymore, it’ll either be the cheapest tier or goodbye I think.

Might be a good thing. I checked into a resort on vacation and the SMART TV had another families Netflix account logged in. My wife used the husbands profile to watch all of her soppy romantic films, so I’m sure his feed is polluted forever.

Rambo III
Terminator IV
Loves Lost Heart

:scream:

2 Likes

What will happen to users like me who are mostly on VPN networks? :frowning:

I don’t know, I can only speculate… They must have taken into account that one IP = many different people and not at the same time = one house.
The key word is “device” where you have to log in to your account once a month. And probably on the basis of this device deeper authorization/recognition takes place.
Some cookie, active session, and IP connection…

Only if that means one device per house or one master device per house to control but still you can have several simultaneous devices from one house… I don’t know.

The first thing that comes to mind is one house and only one device. But that’s just my speculation. So in theory it shouldn’t matter that some IP is CNAT/VPN and used by a bunch of people.

In the charts of accounts they say “device” but they don’t use any term home/location. And there is also this short option for those who travel.

So in theory, as long as you don’t use 10 PC/TV per account per location I guess you should be ok.
Unless they go one step further and start blocking known VPNs and other toys.

Another question that arises is whether one device can simultaneously watch, for example, 10 different movies … Will there also be a limit to one active video opening at a time.

1 Like

This is very complicated. Lets see what happens. Thank you for your detailed thought :slight_smile:

Just gonna leave this here. they might end up doing it, or they might not. But in all probability they’re not. Also, the “people are leaving netflix in droves” is dwarfed by the number of new subscribers they got from 2020 - 2022. Only in 2022 did the massive growth slow down. So, no. I don’t think they’ll be going anywhere. The most they’ll do is cancel a bunch of shitty shows and be more strict with what they produce. As they were 10 or so years ago. If they have any brain cells left, that is.

https://www.google.com/search?q=netflix+walks+back&oq=netflix+walks+back

One relatively unknown feature is the ability to download Netflix shows on the app before a trip. I grab the films and series (down to individual episodes) and download them before the trip. Can play on phone or tablet without any connection on the plane / train.

“You can have up to 100 active downloads at a time per device on as many devices included in your membership plan.” This requires free space on your device as well, of course.

For our family of 5, I have been paying for the Premium plan just so we could use it on 4 devices simultaneously. I don’t have 4k/HDR devices yet. Since they already have that limit in place, I don’t see the need to care whether we live in the same household or not. It has been nice as all my kids have been moving around, going to college, etc. It’s not like I’m going to make my kid in college get their own account. Right now two of my kids live across town in their own place so technically I’m the target of this. However, if this is put in place I’m just going to reduce my Premium plan to either Basic or Standard which covers 1 or 2 devices respectively. Then I’ll make my 2 kids that live in their own place get their own account and I bet they will pick the add supported Basic with adds plan. So we would be giving Netflix approximately the same amount of money, if not less, for a lot of hassle.

2 Likes

I hate to say it, but your example is exactly why Netflix is pursuing this strategy.
In your example a single account moves from $19.99/mo to $24.97/mo ($9.99+$6.99+$6.99), a ~25% uplift not counting additional revenues from ads.
Assuming the policy change impacts a significant percentage of their customer base this can have a siginifcant effect on the bottom line.

1 Like

Netflix grew exponentially during the pandemic and afterwards their growth slowed down. Couple that with the terrible movies and shows, along with a slew of other streaming services, their stock and profits aren’t at the levels they were a year or two (I haven’t checked to confirm the timeline) ago.
To increase profits, they are thinking of new ways to monetize and increase paid subscribers numbers. First it was ads, now it’s limiting device numbers.

It’s not because of DigitalMan or people like him. It’s because of Netflix’s sharp growth, their inability to make good content, and the pandemic blowing over. They created this business model to draw people in and now they want to split those people’s subscriptions into more of them. I can see why they’d do that, but I can also understand a bunch of my friends opting out and cancelling their subscriptions outright.

No matter what they (NF) do, I doubt their numbers will ever rise to the levels they were 1.5-2 years ago.

I agree they are on the downward slope.
I presumed they hoped the cheaper, ad-fuled tier might slow the decline.

Well, if they had not raised the prices first, it might have…

1 Like

This just in. Canada, New Zealand, Spain and Portugal now added to the multiple locations ban:

https://twitter.com/Techmeme/status/1623412810142326784

The Ad teir should’ve been free. If I’m paying money for a service I should not see ads.

Bandwidth is an unlimited resource, and disk space is cheap. They still made plenty of money.

3 Likes

Bandwidth according to lawmakers is NOT an unlimited resource. (And according to those that argue for paywalling 4K YouTube) This is why bandwidth caps still exist to limit or overcharge people that go over it.

Telus in Canada charges $5 a gigabyte for going over 1TB on Gigabit fiber, and it increases to $10 a gigabyte if they see you going over very often.

:warning: Not a personal thing, just me being mad at society as a whole :warning:

According to reality, everything is technically limited.
If you were to argue water is limited due to ground water replenishing at a limited rate, sure.
But data? It is not like the media-producers have to build and sustain the infrastructure to carry their videos to the consumers.

1 Like

See? That’s an example with the rift in perspective where if you talk economics, there’s no reason there should be a limit to bandwidth. But then when you count finite resources and infrastructure, the argument STRONGLY shifts to we need limits on bandwidth.

Limit bandwidth, okay. You can only draw so much from the electricity and bathroom tab.
Limit volume, :cow: :poop:

1 Like