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

Post by emiliobumachar » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 12:43 PM UTC

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #69

tallanvor wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you tried to explain how it's even worse to let advertisers know enough information about you to target you specifically, I hope.

I drilled that into my kids from an early age, and they’ve always known to only input fake data... that’s why she only gets ads for health insurance, back medication, and financial investments lol!

Post by lordlimecat » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

patates wrote: post #50

stkdump wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the same scheme in Germany. The reason given for the fee vs. taxes I think is the independence of public broadcasting from the government. Imagine a bully as the head of government that can threaten to defund public broadcasting, if it doesn't report favorably for him.

Yes, the question is (and I won't pretend to know the answer), do the people have the need to be forced to pay to have independent journalism? Is there any country in the world, where free press works just as a product of a free market? I'm living in Germany and I'm not super happy about the TV tax but I suppose we haven't got a better solution.

Post by Terretta » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

powersnail wrote: post #72

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?

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.

Post by ballenf » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

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!

Post by fabbari » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 3:32 PM UTC

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!

  Let me see if I can punch through your reading comprehension issues.

  Coca-Cola spent over 4 billion dollars in advertising in 2019 [1], I guess if you asked them if they believe in advertisement they will tell you that they do.

  Coca-Cola doesn't rely on you *believing* that advertisement work, they *believe* advertisement works.

  I do not know if advertisement works personally, I am guessing that Coca-Cola believes it does and that they have reason to believe so.

 [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/286526/coca-cola-advertising-spending-worldwide/