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

71–80 of 127 posts

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

#71

Post by toyg »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #52
cheerlessbog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have started to - they extended the relevant law to close loopholes about “real time” vs “prerecorded” BBC broadcasts, now you need a licence if you use the iPlayer for anything. Which is fair, even if it forced me to get a license again. I expect at some point the law will either get more draconian (by requiring a license for any broadband contract at home) or the BBC will become an actual streaming service like Netflix, with regular subscription (which would be a bit of a disaster, since it would basically mean the end of the BBC as we know it).

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

#72

Post by powersnail »

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?

I think, the "I get it" was just saying that it was understandable that when money flew away to other pockets, and it was done in a way that used a significant amount of infrastructure they own, they wanted to get paid.

It wasn't saying that the reasoning is actually sound. It's just, can be comprehended.

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

#73

Post by rocqua »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #60
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,…

Note, before the tax change we had 3 brackets, not 4.

Also note: technically we have, and have always had 4 brackets. They just merged the tax brackets by setting limits and rates weirdly.

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

#74

Post by johncolanduoni »

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…

I mean the "ads" part. Netflix doesn't have ads...

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

#75

Post by mjevans »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #47
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…

> And at some point advertisers are going to wake up and realize the premium that broadcast and cable operators are charging per 1000 viewers is not really worth that much more than what YouTube pays Jake Paul. Tangential: I was watching free to air last night with my 7 year old (we both never watch TV) and she innocently asked “does everyone watching this show see the same ad”. I said yes and the look on her face sa…

Ads don't really work. At best (for the ad) they can remind someone of a provider for something they already want. At worst, they're lost of noise in the signal.

Usually they're the worst, and like the expenses associated with billing and hierocracy in the medical field, everyone would be better off with that bureaucratic effort not spent.

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

#76

Post by rocqua »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #61
Keverw wrote: post #36

Kinda reminds me a bit of how Milwaukee wanted money from Pokémon Go because the players was playing in the local park and some even went off the path so they were arguing the app is responsible for plants and stuff being damaged. The city lost but had to pay $83,000 in attorney fees. I think it's a bit of a overreach that a city in Indiana is trying to regulate a company in California. I know Ohio cities can have fr…

That's a BS ruling; it's the people that would be responsible for damages, and only if they moved into areas they're not supposed to. Parks are public spaces and they should both applaud and put a bit more money into them for what Pokemon Go managed to achieve.

The ruling was in favor of Pokemon Go.

I kinda see the argument of the city. But only if organizing an event in the park would normally have cost a fee. Because then pokemon go organized an event in the park, but because the organizers did not have a physical presence, they didn't need to pay.

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

#77

Post by adventured »

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.

Because Netflix & Co. are financially stronger than most cities, or even a small collection of cities (those not named NYC or Los Angeles etc). They can push back against this abusive tax chase if they do it early. You have to break the move in its infancy, otherwise you'll have a tag team of hundreds of cities demanding you pay a tax merely for the right to deliver bytes to the citizens that the cities claim ownership over (which is what this de facto is, they're saying: we own those bodies and a toll must be paid for any bytes flowing to and from those bodies).

Followed to its proper logical conclusion, Wikipedia must pay a tax, Reddit must pay a tax, Imgur must pay a tax, and so on. This is extremely authoritarian in its nature.

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

#78

Post by Broken_Hippo »

bleepblorp wrote: post #34
MattGaiser wrote: post #7

Cities need to start using technology to constrain their costs rather than just stabbing at anywhere that has revenue they can tax.

Any specific suggestions for how technology can cut municipal costs? Most of the fat in municipal spending tends to be political (pork) or criminal (public corruption and/or organized crime), rather than due to process inefficiencies that could be remedied through better use of technology. Municipal spending tends to be dominated by the kinds of inherently labor-intensive services that can't readily be automated. Aut…

But so much can be automated to a point. For example, garbage collection: Cities have already been saving money by putting in 'smart' cans/compactors (that are solar powered). No one needs to check every can, they just go along and get the ones that are full enough. Cities have also done things like standardize trash can so the machine takes care of the dumping. So many places now only have 2 people per truck instead of the 3 when I was younger.

We use sensors for water treatment plants (and possibly for water delivery), software for some public transport when they do such a thing, devices to measure road traffic, and machines that automate much of road building. I'm going to guess that there are lots of these sorts of small things these.

You can also simply start doing more of it as a city instead of contracting it out, but I suppose this isn't really technological.

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

#79

Post by woadwarrior01 »

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…

That is still the case in Ireland. It’s called a TV license. It’s an annual fee, that you have to pay as long as you have a TV, regardless of whether you use it for watching terrestrial TV or not. They even have a crew of inspectors who go around randomly knocking on doors to check if people are paying it.

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

#80

Post by BLKNSLVR »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #42

It seems on HN, that a lot of people are in favor of municipal owned last mile fiber as opposed to ISPs. However, this case makes me wonder if that becomes the case, would we eventually see more shenanigans like this with cities and towns trying to charge internet services for access to their citizens. Without competition, I could see them becoming even worse than AT&T and Comcast.

I guess it all comes down to the intention behind the action, and then what opportunities are offered as a result of the action down the track. Do you trust them now? Can you trust them in the future? Are they more or less likely to screw you than the big comms mono/duo-poly?

Municipality A may have initiated ISP infrastructure contract for the actual benefit of it's constituents against the comms mono/duo-poly. Hurrah for Municipality A sticking it to the man and looking out for the constituency.

X years down the track, Municipality A needs funding for corrupt members yacht or office chesterfield reupholstering. Hey, we're practically giving away broadband compared to the comms mono/duo-poly and prices have increased way below CPI the last few years, let's bump it up to (artificial) market-competitive, woo!

Post reply on HN