On 23 August 2025 18:31:56 CEST, jay--- via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/23/25 08:40, nanog--- via NANOG wrote:
>> It's a basic principle of a free market that you cannot force someone to
>> provide service. If Netflix wants to ban certain IP ranges at random,
>> they're allowed to do that and the only recourse is whining.
>
>Customers in those random IP ranges who are paying for the service would beg
>to differ. They're paying for a service which Netflix intentionally is
>refusing to provide, based on erroneous data from a third party hired by
>Netflix.
Of course they would like Netflix to provide them service. As I said though,
their only recourse is to whine. And cancel the service (they're not getting it
anyway). That's the free market, take it or leave it.
A lot of people don't like the free market, but I gather that they're still a
relative minority.
Optionally pay a $200 court fee to get your last $20 monthly payment back.
>
>Part of the problem is that the term "IP address" was chosen instead of "IP
>number" or "IP identifier". It leads to the false assumption that an "address"
>relates to a physical location.
>
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VAFH3QPKFTD2S74IL37J2XL4KRZSEWEH/
