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

91–100 of 127 posts

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

#91

Post by benhurmarcel »

aikah wrote: post #37
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…

Yeah, France has the "redevance télé". You have to explicitly refuse any cable service from your ISP in order not to pay it. Otherwise you're screwed. And its cost is significant, I will never pay for such thing.

For context, it's 138€/year.

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

#92

Post by snorremd »

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…

Up until two or three years ago or so we used to have to pay a public TV license for the public TV and radio broadcaster in Norway if we had a TV or tuner capable of receiving TV signals. Some people just opted to not having TVs or disabling any receiver capabilities.

Then they simply moved the collection of the license to your taxes so you don't see it explicitly, and of course now it does not matter if you don't have a TV.

Everyone pays the TV tax regardless, but it is somewhat progressive with low income residents paying somewhat less than higher income ones. I don't really mind paying for the public broadcaster as they serve as a guarantee for public, independent news.

What does annoy me is that they compete for the rights to broadcast super expensive sports and culture events (olympics, various football leagues, eurovision, etc). This greatly increases their budgets while not providing essential news value to the public not equally well served by private media broadcasters. Some of their own tv-series productions are well made and would not get the green light at private broadcasters and channels, so I would rather they focus on those.

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

#93

Post by panpanna »

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?

Because Comsat, ATT and other have already strongarmed these companies into paying them for bandwidth. Why shouldn't cities get a piece of that too?

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

#94

Post by koonsolo »

It seems to me that government doesn't want you to figure out how much taxes they are actualy charging, so they split it up as much as possible. Also, when they want to increase taxes, they prefer to tax something new instead of increasing existing percentages.

Here in Belgium it goes as far as taxing for "surface water". I'm waiting for the day when they start taxing the air we breathe.

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

#95

Post by thewhitetulip »

hkmurakami wrote: post #20
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.

I read this in Murakami's books. Was surprised at Japan doing this to her citizens!

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

#96

Post by dontcarethrow2 »

Zanni wrote: post #88
mjevans wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'Ask anyone who advertises' - I know what you are trying to say but that is the funniest quote I've read on here. Ask the guy who relies on you believing it works -- he will tell you the truth -- it works!! Haha rock on!

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

#97

Post by readarticle »

dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #96
Zanni wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'Ask anyone who advertises' - I know what you are trying to say but that is the funniest quote I've read on here. Ask the guy who relies on you believing it works -- he will tell you the truth -- it works!! Haha rock on!

Advertisers buy from ad companies, ad companies rely on advertisers believing it works.

Advertisers don’t sell ads, they buy them.

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

#98

Post by dontcarethrow2 »

readarticle wrote: post #97
dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Ask anyone who advertises' - I know what you are trying to say but that is the funniest quote I've read on here. Ask the guy who relies on you believing it works -- he will tell you the truth -- it works!! Haha rock on!

Advertisers buy from ad companies, ad companies rely on advertisers believing it works. Advertisers don’t sell ads, they buy them.

Ok, replace advertiser with company that wants to display ads. Because that is how you are using it. The ad company is the original advertiser.. this gets even funnier, more please!

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

#99

Post by readarticle »

dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #98
readarticle wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers buy from ad companies, ad companies rely on advertisers believing it works. Advertisers don’t sell ads, they buy them.

Ok, replace advertiser with company that wants to display ads. Because that is how you are using it. The ad company is the original advertiser.. this gets even funnier, more please!

I really don’t understand your confusion over this:

Ad companies sell ads.

Advertisers purchase ads.

Users see ads.

That’s it.

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

#100

Post by Hamcrest »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #83
toyg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm also for getting rid of the licence fee but instead increasing taxes by equal measure and funding it that way. Hopefully enshrine that funding into law. The license fee is just too easy to attack nowadays.

I find the argument for purely commercial a selfish one as public broadcasting provides a lot of public good through educational means. I mean, just tune into The One Show or Spring Watch on an an evening and you'll get what I mean. Plus no ads!

Post reply on HN