Netflix to crack down on unblockers

Forums › Online streaming services › Netflix to crack down on unblockers

1 | ... | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | ... | 70

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1598220 25-Jul-2016 14:25

networkn:

Well that is what YOU want, but this isn't reality. What is "fair" to you? What if that isn't "fair" to me? What if I put a lot of time/effort into my business for little or no profit for the first 5 years and then in the second 5 years required to "balance" that by maximising my profits? Am I not allowed?

Do you know how much money each of these corporates make, what the actual profit margins are? What is acceptable to you? Why do YOU get to decide over anyone else?

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't understand how it can be realistic?

What exclusive regional rights gives is an effective monopoly. Generally speaking we don't allow monopolies because they are bad for our economy - they inhibit innovation, the supply inferior products or services at inflated prices. This is good for the (right holding) business, but bad for consumers. Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1598222 25-Jul-2016 14:29

ajobbins:

networkn:

Well that is what YOU want, but this isn't reality. What is "fair" to you? What if that isn't "fair" to me? What if I put a lot of time/effort into my business for little or no profit for the first 5 years and then in the second 5 years required to "balance" that by maximising my profits? Am I not allowed?

Do you know how much money each of these corporates make, what the actual profit margins are? What is acceptable to you? Why do YOU get to decide over anyone else?

I understand what you are saying, but I really don't understand how it can be realistic?

What exclusive regional rights gives is an effective monopoly. Generally speaking we don't allow monopolies because they are bad for our economy - they inhibit innovation, the supply inferior products or services at inflated prices. This is good for the (right holding) business, but bad for consumers. Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

Something I have often thought about.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1598235 25-Jul-2016 14:51

MikeB4:

ajobbins:

Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

Something I have often thought about.

Probably comes does to the fact that Sky itself isn't necessarily anti-competitive - you can compete with Sky in theory (including bidding for rights). In the past that was really hard. Setting up and maintaining transmission and distribution networks was insanely expensive. These days this isn't true, and it has brought the issue of the monopolistic content distribution to the forefront.

Content isn't a scarce good - it is artificially made scarce on the supply side to maximise profit. Guess you can't do much about that, especially when the rights holder is overseas.

Maybe our competition laws need an update to somehow try and prevent artificial scarcity when supply is effectively infinite.

Twitter: ajobbins

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1598238 25-Jul-2016 14:55

Damn. I keep losing what I have written. The wind is playing hell with our power. I have used up my train of thought and will have to come back to this later. I am not abandoning the discussion but I just can’t continue right now.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1598246 25-Jul-2016 15:10

ajobbins:

MikeB4:

ajobbins:

Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

Something I have often thought about.

Probably comes does to the fact that Sky itself isn't necessarily anti-competitive - you can compete with Sky in theory (including bidding for rights). In the past that was really hard. Setting up and maintaining transmission and distribution networks was insanely expensive. These days this isn't true, and it has brought the issue of the monopolistic content distribution to the forefront.

Content isn't a scarce good - it is artificially made scarce on the supply side to maximise profit. Guess you can't do much about that, especially when the rights holder is overseas.

Maybe our competition laws need an update to somehow try and prevent artificial scarcity when supply is effectively infinite.

Unfortunately there is no scarcity in the supply of garbage, just look at Media works new channel Bravo.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32863 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598250 25-Jul-2016 15:16

Rikkitic:

Damn. I keep losing what I have written. The wind is playing hell with our power. I have used up my train of thought and will have to come back to this later. I am not abandoning the discussion but I just can’t continue right now.

Maybe you should take it as a sign ;)

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1598254 25-Jul-2016 15:19

Rikkitic:

Damn. I keep losing what I have written. The wind is playing hell with our power. I have used up my train of thought and will have to come back to this later. I am not abandoning the discussion but I just can’t continue right now.

If you are using word or notepad or such like to compose do a save as straight way and save on a regular basis this will mitigate the loss.

Or type shorter posts

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1598283 25-Jul-2016 15:50

Both good suggestions. I just ran into a bad chain of coincidences.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598327 25-Jul-2016 16:47

ajobbins:

MikeB4:

ajobbins:

Not quite sure why/how content escapes anti-competition laws.

Something I have often thought about.

Probably comes does to the fact that Sky itself isn't necessarily anti-competitive - you can compete with Sky in theory (including bidding for rights). In the past that was really hard. Setting up and maintaining transmission and distribution networks was insanely expensive. These days this isn't true, and it has brought the issue of the monopolistic content distribution to the forefront.

Content isn't a scarce good - it is artificially made scarce on the supply side to maximise profit. Guess you can't do much about that, especially when the rights holder is overseas.

Maybe our competition laws need an update to somehow try and prevent artificial scarcity when supply is effectively infinite.

I feel the monopoly word gets over used. Sky never had a monopoly. They werent/arent the only TV network in town. There are shows that TV1 has but Sky doesnt, same thing. Would TVNZ/MW buy the latest and greatest sports? No, or yes if they made it PPV to pay the high costs.

Content is not a good. It could well be. Yes, it must be. But you cant compare a book that you can post around the world with content. They might not sell a book here, cos its just not worth it. Content differs. They may sell the content to someone here, either to be viewed now (there it is, go and pay Sky or LB, or QF for it, but thats also a no way) Or it could be viewed in weeks or months, perhaps its too near another similar content of the same provider or another. Maybe you could split the diff and pay for NFNZ and NF US, that way you CAN say you paid for it.

Maybe NF can remove geoblocking and just double the price, thats another 3 coffees every 30 days, then the world will end.

dclegg

2806 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 810

Trusted

#1598335 25-Jul-2016 16:55

tdgeek:

Maybe NF can remove geoblocking and just double the price, thats another 3 coffees every 30 days, then the world will end.

You may jest, but I'd quite happily pay 2x my current Netflix subscription to access to their entire global catalogue.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598359 25-Jul-2016 17:09

dclegg:

tdgeek:

Maybe NF can remove geoblocking and just double the price, thats another 3 coffees every 30 days, then the world will end.

You may jest, but I'd quite happily pay 2x my current Netflix subscription to access to their entire global catalogue.

I was quite serious. NF NZ is a smaller catalogue, the rights paid for what we don't yet get (as another provider bought them instead) , can be paid by us.

You would have to expect that will happen in time. I assume rights contracts are not annual contracts. The furore over another 2 bucks that they did I find absolutely ridiculous.

50c a week? Its already dirt cheap.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1598360 25-Jul-2016 17:10

tdgeek:

I feel the monopoly word gets over used. Sky never had a monopoly. They werent/arent the only TV network in town. There are shows that TV1 has but Sky doesnt, same thing. Would TVNZ/MW buy the latest and greatest sports? No, or yes if they made it PPV to pay the high costs.

Monopoly is to some extent a matter of definition. Sky has never had a technical monopoly, but it can certainly be argued that in the past it enjoyed an effective one. If you are the only game in town then you are a monopoly, whether or not that is your intention, whether or not you did anything to bring it about.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1598363 25-Jul-2016 17:17

Rikkitic:

tdgeek:

I feel the monopoly word gets over used. Sky never had a monopoly. They werent/arent the only TV network in town. There are shows that TV1 has but Sky doesnt, same thing. Would TVNZ/MW buy the latest and greatest sports? No, or yes if they made it PPV to pay the high costs.

Monopoly is to some extent a matter of definition. Sky has never had a technical monopoly, but it can certainly be argued that in the past it enjoyed an effective one. If you are the only game in town then you are a monopoly, whether or not that is your intention, whether or not you did anything to bring it about.

They have never been the only game in town. 1) As there are already existing TV providers. It started in 1990, there were 3 TV providers here then, and possibly smaller regional ones, although thats later. B) like any network, they buy content. That its pay tv is not relevant, thats merely a funding model.