|
|
Posted by TH on 12/06/06 03:55
Haddatten Huttendrut wrote:
> In article <1165335733.273390.211630@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "TH" <thehendersons44@aol.com> wrote:
> > They didn't lose, as it has never gone to court. A settlement was proposed,
> though I don't know the current status and don't care. It will never go to
> court - it's a nuisance lawsuit that would cost more to fight; a law firm gets a
> large windfall, and members of the class get something worth a buck or two.
>
A settlment was agreed on as every netflix customer was allowed some
free month of an extra disk or something like that - which relieved
them of any future lawsuits by the customer (if they agreed to the
extra disk). My point was Netflix was sued. Netflix admits to
throttling and you have zero argument for why this is good.
> You apparently don't know how little it takes to launch a class-action suit and
> how few direct participants are required, or you wouldn't be so impressed.
What I am impressed is how when someone comes in here complaining about
being throttled, the same three or four guys jump all over them, whine
about how wrong they are for actualy wanting what Netflix advertises
and then babble on about their own viewing habits as if that has
anything to do with the price of tea in China. Although I think you're
a lot smarter than a couple of the other nitwits, your argument that
'they can do whatever they want, they work fine for me, you have bad
viewing habits, they don't have to live up to their slogan because I
have determined 'unlimited' is not what it seems" is not really a good
argument for Netflix. The only thing you said that is smart that I
agree with is "they need to change their advertising." If they changed
it to "you can get up to 12 disks a month" or "as many as we say" or
someting lke that, you'd never hear the "throttling" argument again.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|