Simple: turn off the services for residents of those cities. The "public servants" will need to find a new line of work.
Why would you turn them off? Just make their prices 5% higher than other regions.
Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
21–30 of 127 posts
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#22By 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…
This has given me about 1000 ideas, I think you’re right too! Thanks :-)
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#23This can only be the first step. Since this is a political move, why not change the law and restructure taxes? It's difficult for cities to tax value creation if that value is created globally, in a data centre, somewhere on the planet.
Why should the city that just happens to host the data centre be able to tax the profits that are created in that data centre? Or worse, why should a company choose any city for its headquarters and pretend that the value is created there?
On a global scale, which society or political entity should have the right to tax profits that are created on the internet? How should cities be financed if most of the commerce in the city happens on the internet, outside of the city limits?
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#24Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you think that malfeasance at the federal level is bad (and it is at a historically bad level right now), the local stuff is a thousand times worse. A local Indiana city will absolutely be able to completely fuck with Netflix access of their residents. And the residents may have little recourse. After all they could just legally implement a 100% sales tax on streaming services sold to residents of their jurisdiction.
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#26Simple: turn off the services for residents of those cities. The "public servants" will need to find a new line of work.
Why would you turn them off? Just make their prices 5% higher than other regions.
I don't think most people will notice an extra 48 cents on their bill every month.
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#27Earlier 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?
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.
Uh, what Netflix have you been using?
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#28Is it like video watching tax? So what about people watching personal videos, and those shared through messaging apps or any video. The cities are looking for pathetic ways to tax its citizens, next what Anyone listening to music on radio or Spotify would be taxed?
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#29This 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.
In Britain, the BBC uses vehicles fitted with equipment to detect TVs, though who knows how effective they are.
Re: Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
#30So according to them, they should get paid for any video watched in their city? Sounds kind of pathetic, tbh.
Yeah, what next Spotify tax for music broadcast? Freaking city mafias and the politicians running them, tax anything that has revenues. A political upheaval is impending.