Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees” • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by objclxt » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:22 AM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #53

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.

> 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,…

> Netflix routes over existing common-carriage infrastructure, and so does not impose any costs on people who don't use Netflix

I don’t think that’s strictly true, since the available bandwidth on that infrastructure is not infinite.

That’s why Netflix supplies CDN appliances free of charge to ISPs - both to improve customer speeds, but also reduce bandwidth across the entire network.

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

#82

Post by onetimemanytime » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:23 AM UTC

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…

The only discussion if current laws /FCC guidelines allow this taxation. There's no logic in a lot of taxes, they just add them cause they need revenue. If one day we all move away from home internet, they'll tax mobile internet to make up for the loss.

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

#83

Post by UK-Al05 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:26 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #71

UK-Al05 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

Most young people don't watch iPlayer either. It heavily tilted towards older people.

It will only be an issue for people who watch it...

I'm heavily against the license fee, as the majority of content could be delivered commercially. I absolutely hate that i'm paying money towards soaps, cake shows, misses brown boys etc which I will never have an interest watching and get zero value from.

The small amount of state or non commercial stuff it produces could be paid for by tax or a much smaller license fee.

The money i save could be spent a couple of books or rentals instead which I would get value from.

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

#84

Post by walrus01 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:28 AM UTC

posguy wrote: post #32

walrus01 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional cable TV you would sit on a sofa and flip through channels with a remote control, yes, but your typical Comcast/Charter/Wave/RCN type cable multiservice operator is morphing into a DOCIS3/DOCSIS3.1 or GPON fiber based last mile DIA ISP. The cable tv operators care about their municipal franchise agreements and aerial pole+underground right of way very much, since it gives them an incumbent ISP operating p…

Centurylink has pulled quite a bit of fiber in Seattle over the last 3 years, but their expansion plans are erratic (eg: putting a 12 port GPON aerial terminal in the middle of blocks of 4 story MDUs that aren't allowed to use it) and the serviceability database often has said GPON ports misallocated due to incorrect identification of the number of units in a particular property. I think Centurylink is hard up for ca…

One of the things that distinguishes the 1Gbps to the home market in Seattle is the number of MDU specialists, and percentage of 35+ unit apartments or condos that have at least one gigabit provider in the building. I'm thinking of the AS54858 network (CondoInternet/WaveG), independent smaller player Atlas Networks, in addition to Comcast and Centurylink.

The WaveG MDU network is in a lot of places in the city which are not Wave cable incumbent territory. It started as its own independent network in areas that are traditionally Comcast/Centurylink territory around the core of downtown, capitol hill, south lake union etc and was later acquired by Wave. The Wave cable TV network was historically its own distinct thing in a different set of franchise territories within the city boundaries.

The origins of what we would call Wave in the City of Seattle are with Broadstripe. The same guys who acquired Broadstripe out of bankruptcy and glued it together with a bunch of other acquired small to medium cable MSOs on the west coast, are the ones who formed Northwest Fiber (now Ziply) to acquire the PNW assets of Frontier.

https://www.multichannel.com/news/broadstripe-writes-its-las...

Ultimately for a full understanding of what Clink and Ziply are doing and where their last mile and midddle mile networks are the strongest, one needs to have a historical understanding of the Pacific Northwest Bell network (-->USWest-->Qwest-->Clink) and the areas that were historically GTE territory (GTE-->Frontier-->Ziply).

On the topic of the city government of Seattle and its franchise agreement with CenturyLink. I don't think a city government ever has much negotiating leverage with an ILEC such as this. The clink network in Seattle is the result of 100 years of incumbent copper phone line dialtone service, clink setting its own poles in many places, and is a core part of municipal infrastructure. The city can't reasonably force the company to vacate the right of way or cease services without causing a severe impact on the residents of the city. There's no plausible scenario in which a new franchise agreement won't put be into place...

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

#85

Post by tallanvor » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:29 AM UTC

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.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. A traditional TV station is not subject to these franchise fees. Traditional stations receive their radio frequency allocations from the FCC.

A cable provider who lays physical cables in the ground pays a franchise fee to the community for the right to lay those cables on public land. The justification for this fee was that it increased community costs (it's more expensive to lay and maintain water and sewer pipes, for example, and digging up part of the road to lay the lines will result in the roads needing to be redone sooner even if they're patched).

Netflix, Hulu, and satellite providers do not use public right of ways. Sure, you may watch Netflix over DSL provided by your cable provider, but the cable provider has already paid the fee.

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

#86

Post by onetimemanytime » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:29 AM UTC

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.

6 figure pensions for public "servants" cannot be payed by tech. They are ridiculous when SS recipients receive about $20k a year.

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

#87

Post by Broken_Hippo » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:30 AM UTC

qppo wrote: post #6

Are the cities charging the same taxes to ISPs carrying the actual data delivered by these services? If so the court is probably going to frown on double dipping.

It probably depends on the type of ISP you have and whether or not they use the public right-of-way. I'm going to guess that most ISPs pay it in the US simply because most folks get their internet from the phone or cable company. If you happen to have satellite internet of any sort, though, or another form of wireless, probably not.

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

#88

Post by Zanni » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:32 AM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #75

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Maybe you're being sarcastic or hyperbolic, but of course ads work. Ask anyone who advertises. It's not a billion dollar industry for nothing.

I'd say at best, they can inform you of something you need but didn't know existed, but even your "best" case is a valid use of advertising. And, yeah, a lot of advertising is noise. That's why advertisers are so interested in targeted advertising.

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

#89

Post by atoav » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #74

atoav wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ever talked to filmmakers who made stuff for/with netflix? Product placement is a real thing. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/media/netflix-co...

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

#90

Post by bebna » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 8:57 AM UTC

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…

Germany had TV or Radio, (every car got a radio...). Today it is per household, independent what you own.

As a student, unemployed or otherwise paid from the state it isn't a problem, you let them pay it. But if you are single, you have to pay the 210€/yr on your own.