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

51–60 of 127 posts

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

#51

Post by atoav »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #27
atoav wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So you mean the difference is that it is a website where you may choose the films?

That is a difference (of course) — however from a film makers perspective they are still trying to sell my film to the audience.

I am just sick of modern silicon valley companies doing the same thing as traditional companies while additionally deploying "one crazy trick" that let's them argue they are exempt to all existing regulations.

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

#52

Post by UK-Al05 »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #35
predakanga wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Britain, the BBC uses vehicles fitted with equipment to detect TVs, though who knows how effective they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van

It's unclear they even exist..or work..our could even theoretically work now we have digital. Their true enforcement strategy is to harass the small minority who don't pay the license fee.

For young people it's not a small minority. Young people have gone off transmitted TV and they havent adapted yet.

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

#53

Post by a1369209993 »

atoav wrote: post #16
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?

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.

> How are traditional TV Station different form Netflix and such?

They paid for (read, "bribed politicians to give them", but that's beside the point) exclusive use of particular RF spectrum, which then cannot be used for other purposes. Netflix routes over existing common-carriage infrastructure, and so does not impose any costs on people who don't use Netflix (assuming non-corrupt management of said infrastructure, but y'know, caveats, caveats, caveats...).

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

#54

Post by adrianmonk »

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…

> eating up all their local bandwidth.

This is the city governments suing, so I don't think they're concerned about the ISPs' bandwidth being used up. That's not really their problem.

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

#55

Post by a1369209993 »

cheerlessbog wrote: post #35
predakanga wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Britain, the BBC uses vehicles fitted with equipment to detect TVs, though who knows how effective they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van

It's unclear they even exist..or work..our could even theoretically work now we have digital. Their true enforcement strategy is to harass the small minority who don't pay the license fee.

Well, yes. It's literally a protection racket, what do you expect from making that legal?

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

#56

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

It's the capitalistic viewpoint that these people have that grieves me; internet should be considered a utility, everyone should have access to it, it should be affordable, and net neutrality should be guaranteed.

I mean you don't get multiple water lines for different purposes... actually don't quote me on that, they could have a 'grey' water line to use for flushing toilets and the like. But my point is, you get a connection to the water mains, as long as you don't use excessive water (and even if you do, you "just" pay for your usage), what you do with it is nobody's business. Same with electricity.

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

#57

Post by shidima »

mvn9 wrote: post #23

This 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 h…

But if not this way, then should every city in the world get a cut of the tax? Can a tiny place in Holland then get a cut of the taxes?

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

#58

Post by SpaceRaccoon »

atoav wrote: post #51
johncolanduoni wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what Netflix have you been using?

So you mean the difference is that it is a website where you may choose the films? That is a difference (of course) — however from a film makers perspective they are still trying to sell my film to the audience. I am just sick of modern silicon valley companies doing the same thing as traditional companies while additionally deploying "one crazy trick" that let's them argue they are exempt to all existing regulations…

While I, for one, am sick of regulations that hurt everyone except the budgets of incompetent bureaucrats or incumbent monopolies.

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

#59

Post by adrianmonk »

boring_twenties wrote: post #21
chmod600 wrote: post #18

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.

One reason to turn cities off is to see if you can turn the people against the city government and get them to back down. If that tactic works, then other cities might think it's not worth trying.

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

#60

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

Because of the shift in how people use TV and public access channels, in the Netherlands they simplified the whole scheme, got rid of the TV license entirely and just pay the public broadcasters through the regular state budget - e.g. "regular" taxes. It just saves a ton of headaches and complexity. I'm not "smol government" or whatever, but I do think laws and the like can be simplified by a lot.

In a similar vein, they simplified tax brackets for last year, instead of four brackets, there's now just two, and most people ended up paying less taxes (see https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/belastingplan/belas... for an infographic; keep in mind that while the lowest incomes do pay a little more taxes, they also get more money back from the government in stipends and subsidies for e.g. rent, health insurance, and a fixed 'discount' on taxes)

Post reply on HN