Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#11

Post by bryanrasmussen »

This reminds me of the DR (Denmarks Radio - which is also a Public TV sort of like the BBC) license, you used to have to pay it for TV. I didn't have a tv so I stopped paying. Then a year or two later they passed a law that if you had a computer you had to pay.

I guess lots of European countries have a similar license.

They are phasing the license out in the next couple years, but it used to really piss me off because I never watched anything on DR but I still had to pay for it (ok I did accidentally see things if I was over at people's houses, it was nothing impressive). The assumption being of course that it was a public good.

Anyway - sub-regional pricing for Netflix etc.

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#13

Post by ponker »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #10
eric4smith wrote: post #5

By that reasoning, I'm using the "Public right of way" to make this comment. Therefore, I'm a defendant. Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ eating up all their local bandwidth. But that's where the money was. They need to skate where the money is going, not where it was. The money was in broadcast TV and cable. And most of it is still there. But it's rapidly being sucked away…

> Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ eating up all their local bandwidth. I don't get it. Presumably the companies involved are already paying for the bandwidth they're using, as are their customers. How are they any different from other internet users sending around video?

Why get paid once when you can get paid twice? This isn't about right, it's about might... let's see where this shakes out. The corporations have much more national political power but the cities can run a backhoe through your fiber uplink and then say "oops." I don't think the outcome is at all guaranteed to come out in favor of the streaming services.

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#16

Post by atoav »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #10
eric4smith wrote: post #5

By that reasoning, I'm using the "Public right of way" to make this comment. Therefore, I'm a defendant. Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ eating up all their local bandwidth. But that's where the money was. They need to skate where the money is going, not where it was. The money was in broadcast TV and cable. And most of it is still there. But it's rapidly being sucked away…

> Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ eating up all their local bandwidth. I don't get it. Presumably the companies involved are already paying for the bandwidth they're using, as are their customers. How are they any different from other internet users sending around video?

How are traditional TV Station different form Netflix and such?

Arguably Netflix is structurally and goal wise closer to any traditional TV station (who would owe that taxes) than to any individual using the internet.

The biggest point IMO is that they sell stuff film producers make to show ads — which is precisely the same thing TV stations did for decades.

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#17

Post by undreren »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #11

This reminds me of the DR (Denmarks Radio - which is also a Public TV sort of like the BBC) license, you used to have to pay it for TV. I didn't have a tv so I stopped paying. Then a year or two later they passed a law that if you had a computer you had to pay. I guess lots of European countries have a similar license. They are phasing the license out in the next couple years, but it used to really piss me off becaus…

I just wanted it to be financed through taxes as it used to be.

It was completely ridiculous; after switching to a licensing model, DR’s costs for raking in money went up by about 15 million DKK just in fees to lawyers, if memory serves correctly.

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#19

Post by oarsinsync »

ponker wrote: post #13
TulliusCicero wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ eating up all their local bandwidth. I don't get it. Presumably the companies involved are already paying for the bandwidth they're using, as are their customers. How are they any different from other internet users sending around video?

Why get paid once when you can get paid twice? This isn't about right, it's about might... let's see where this shakes out. The corporations have much more national political power but the cities can run a backhoe through your fiber uplink and then say "oops." I don't think the outcome is at all guaranteed to come out in favor of the streaming services.

> but the cities can run a backhoe through your fiber uplink and then say "oops."

Would me demanding money from you and, if you don’t pay, punch myself and your neighbour in the face, make you more or less likely to pay me?

Netflix etc don’t own the last mile fiber. Cities taking out their own utilities impacts them, their residents, and the ISPs operating them. Hulu and Disney are none of those entities.

Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”

#20

Post by hkmurakami »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #11

This reminds me of the DR (Denmarks Radio - which is also a Public TV sort of like the BBC) license, you used to have to pay it for TV. I didn't have a tv so I stopped paying. Then a year or two later they passed a law that if you had a computer you had to pay. I guess lots of European countries have a similar license. They are phasing the license out in the next couple years, but it used to really piss me off becaus…

NHK in Japan has a similar scheme. If you have a TV you have to pay. If you have a phone that can receive TV signal, you have to pay. They'd even send people in person to "check if you have a TV". I believe they recently lost a court case on this.
Post reply on HN