Netflix throttling settlement getting bad reviews

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by wunnuy, Feb 11, 2006.

  1. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    wunnuy, Feb 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. wunnuy

    PC Medic Guest

    PC Medic, Feb 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. wunnuy

    Justin Guest

    Justin, Feb 13, 2006
  4. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    Basically this whole result seems to smack of more of Netflix's
    sleaziness. People have to sign up for the free month of an "extra"
    disk, but also have to then sign out for it. In other words, if you
    don't turn it off after a month, they start charging you and that is
    absolutely Netflix's goal here; to get people to start paying for an
    extra disk that they didn't intend to get. Netflix could absolutely set
    it up so that the free month turns off by itself (or send a reminder
    out or something) but they make it so it doesn't so millions of people
    will be paying for that extra disk when the second month of it starts.
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  5. wunnuy

    Justin Guest

    wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 07:37:41 -0800]:
    Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
    Justin, Feb 13, 2006
  6. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    I think the point is they did in fact lose - and they admit they
    throttle. In the end their sleazy practices will hurt them. I believe
    this whole thing is far from over.
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  7. wunnuy

    Jeff Rife Guest

    wunnuy () wrote in
    Actually, they settled and admitted nothing.
    Jeff Rife, Feb 13, 2006
  8. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    You might want to go back and take a look. Netflix has absolutely
    admitted to throttling.
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  9. wunnuy

    Invid Fan Guest

    To end the practice would kill the company, so I don't see it hurting.
    They'd make more money if those being throttled quit then having them
    stay but get more rentals.
    Invid Fan, Feb 13, 2006
  10. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    No. It wouldn't kill the company. They've probably lost far more
    business because of it than they ever would have by stop deceiving
    their customers and send disks out like they claim they will.
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  11. wunnuy

    Justin Guest

    wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 12:48:16 -0800]:
    I doubt you have any idea what you're talking about. There has been very
    little press about it outside of the rabid fanboys who need to receive a
    DVD every day or else it's not worth it.
    Justin, Feb 13, 2006
  12. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest You apparently have no idea what you're talking about, as
    obvious by the stupid statement. We can sit here and repeat this back
    and forth. I don't really care, as evident by your dumb comment, you
    shouldn't even be in this discussion. You and I both know the truth, so
    no need for this banter...
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  13. (Oh. That's all right, then.)

    (Note: Look up "probably" in a dictionary--it'll likely cross-reference
    you to "Supposition", which is an even harder word--and notice how it
    differs from the listed definition for "fact".)

    Derek Janssen ("[Antonym] See "Wishful fanboys")
    Derek Janssen, Feb 13, 2006
  14. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    Anywho, get back to me when you learn a little more about the case (I
    have no doubt you're pulling for those two morons in the Enron case
    too). Thanks!
    wunnuy, Feb 13, 2006
  15. wunnuy

    Justin Guest

    wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 12:55:27 -0800]:
    What a classic rabid fanboy comeback.
    Justin, Feb 14, 2006
  16. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    and this is what I mean. The fact that call anyone who thinks Netflix
    deception wrong a "fanboy" clearly shows you have no idea what you're
    talking about. Yes, yes, yes, we know, you've got another one of those
    clever "fanboy" lines... Need we take this further?
    wunnuy, Feb 14, 2006
  17. wunnuy

    Justin Guest

    wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 16:54:06 -0800]:
    No, not at all. It hasn't received that much press, so only the anal
    retentive online crowd know anything about the issue.
    Justin, Feb 14, 2006
  18. wunnuy

    wunnuy Guest

    hehe. Uh...okay. You go ahead and believe whatever gets you through the
    night, pally.
    wunnuy, Feb 14, 2006
  19. wunnuy

    Jeff Rife Guest

    wunnuy () wrote in
    Only in their TOS change, not in response to the lawsuit.

    They don't admit that they specifically reduce a person's movie rental
    ability, only that favoritism in choosing what movies ship is shown to
    those who rent less movies per month. In other words, the only reason
    you may not get all the movies you want is because somebody else is in
    line before you because you have already gotten a lot this month.

    The "throttling" claims also always include claims that Netflix
    intentionally delays movie check-in, doesn't ship out movies
    immediately, and has actual limits on how much somebody can get in
    a month. Although all of these claims may be true, none of them were
    admitted by Netflix.
    Jeff Rife, Feb 14, 2006
  20. wunnuy

    elrous0 Guest

    Class action suits *NEVER* benefit the consumer, because they are not
    meant to. Class action suits are bascially an extortion scam by lawyers
    designed for their benefit. And corporations go along with them because
    class action suits have the useful side-effect of shielding them from
    individual lawsuits. It's a win-win situation for ambulance-chasing
    lawyers and corporations, and a lose-lose for the consumer.

    elrous0, Feb 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.