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

111–120 of 127 posts

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

#111

Post by kregasaurusrex »

predakanga wrote: post #29
hkmurakami wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Funnily enough in one of the article's citations, the UK's government has funded SIGINT research for CRT and LCD televisions[0] to see if you're watching the BBC on the flat panel television inside your own home. I've been cold-called by cable companies while in college trying to sell me a cable subscription, and were absolutely baffled when telling them I didn't own a television.

[0] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/temc2013-tv.pdf

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

#112

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

fabbari wrote: post #109
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!

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…

Poster didn't say it was wrong, they said it was phrased in a funny way.

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

#113

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

ballenf wrote: post #107
dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Ask the guy who buys a lot of hammers whether hammers work. Ask the company who uses lots of nails whether hammers work. I mean maybe the purchaser employee at the company has some conflict of interest around the question -- if they're specialized in evaluating and negotiating hammer purchases they'll not want the company to switch to screws. But the company as a whole seems to have no vested interest in promoting ha…

Ak the police who buy ADE 651 if it works, or the people who buy Q-rings...

Just because someone believes it works doesn't mean it does.

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

#114

Post by OldHand2018 »

I know this is not going to be popular, but...

Ars doesn't seem to have a good analysis on this. They have a quote from the lawsuit that says nothing about Netflix being a cable operator. Then Ars goes and says that Netflix is not a cable operator. They link to the relevant Indiana law, which again, says nothing about cable TV.

Here is what the law in question says: > IC 8-1-34-14 "Video service" Sec. 14. (a) As used in this chapter, "video service" means: (1) the transmission to subscribers of video programming and other programming service: (A) through facilities located at least in part in a public right-of-way; and (B) without regard to the technology used to deliver the video programming or other programming service; and (2) any subscriber interaction required for the selection or use of the video programming or other programming service. (b) The term does not include commercial mobile service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 332).

So really, the question hinges on part (A). If Netflix delivers video to the residents of these cities and at least part of it goes through a public right-of-way, then Netflix provides a Video Service in the state of Indiana and is subject to the taxes on video services. That's really it.

Now, a quick web search shows me that at least one of the cities in this lawsuit operates a municipal dark fiber network that businesses can rent access to. So if I get my home internet from Comcast and Comcast uses this municipal fiber network (why wouldn't they, if it's cheaper than doing it on their own?), then all of a sudden Netflix is a Video Service. And if I'm Comcast, I'm thrilled to stick it to them!

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

#115

Post by oarsinsync »

ponker wrote: post #25
oarsinsync wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the cities can run a backhoe through your fiber uplink and then say "oops." Would me demanding money from you and, if you don’t pay, punch myself and your neighbour in the face, make you more or less likely to pay me? Netflix etc don’t own the last mile fiber. Cities taking out their own utilities impacts them, their residents, and the ISPs operating them. Hulu and Disney are none of those entities.

If you think that malfeasance at the federal level is bad (and it is at a historically bad level right now), the local stuff is a thousand times worse. A local Indiana city will absolutely be able to completely fuck with Netflix access of their residents. And the residents may have little recourse. After all they could just legally implement a 100% sales tax on streaming services sold to residents of their jurisdicti…

> A local Indiana city will absolutely be able to completely fuck with Netflix access of their residents ... they could just legally implement a 100% sales tax on streaming services sold to residents of their jurisdiction

Population of local Indiana city as a % of Netflix global consumer base?

What would Netflix's response likely be?

> the residents may have little recourse

What would you do if Netflix increased your subs, because your municipality told Netflix that they need to charge you 100% sales tax?

What would you do if Netflix didn't even give you the option, and just cancelled your account for you, and gave you your local officials name, telephone, address and email?

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

#116

Post by hkmurakami »

marakv2 wrote: post #31
hkmurakami wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I didn't hear about the court case, thanks! I'll see if I can track some information on that down. I live in Japan, no tv and a phone that doesn't receive TV broadcast, but the nhk guys hastle us every month or two and almost convinced my wife to pay. Some of the tactics I've heard of them using are quite scummy as well. Edit: Link to some information about the court case. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06…

Happy to hear this might help you out! :)

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

#117

Post by stkdump »

Mirioron wrote: post #43
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.

Doesn't the parliament set spending? And if you're worried about the parliament not funding it, then why wouldn't you be worried about parliament just changing the law that set up the public broadcaster in the first place?

It isn't so simple. I think the federal government/parliament has to agree with the 16 state governments or so. There is a so called 'Rundfunkstaatsvertrag' (a treaty between states) governing the rules.

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

#118

Post by nybble41 »

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.

> It seems on HN, that a lot of people are in favor of municipal owned last mile fiber as opposed to ISPs.

Yes, and this is really quite silly when an independent fiber co-op would serve the same function with a very similar governing structure and responsibility toward its members without the obvious conflict of interest that comes with having the municipal government as your ISP. The only "advantages" a government-run ISP has over a co-op have to do with abusing their monopoly over the local right-of-way and powers of taxation to favor their own service over any potential competition.

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

#119

Post by stkdump »

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.

I think there are good examples, where the press operating in a free market can give good results. But the more important question is, if it is equal or better at its worst (which is exactly, when this is important).

Having a mix between private free press and publicly funded broadcasting probably creates some balance between the two worlds. I would expect the quality of the private press to decline (further), if we wouldn't have public broadcasting anymore.

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

#120

Post by rolph »

oarsinsync wrote: post #115
ponker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that malfeasance at the federal level is bad (and it is at a historically bad level right now), the local stuff is a thousand times worse. A local Indiana city will absolutely be able to completely fuck with Netflix access of their residents. And the residents may have little recourse. After all they could just legally implement a 100% sales tax on streaming services sold to residents of their jurisdicti…

> A local Indiana city will absolutely be able to completely fuck with Netflix access of their residents ... they could just legally implement a 100% sales tax on streaming services sold to residents of their jurisdiction Population of local Indiana city as a % of Netflix global consumer base? What would Netflix's response likely be? > the residents may have little recourse What would you do if Netflix increased your…

>>What would you do if Netflix increased your subs, because your municipality told Netflix that they need to charge you 100% sales tax?

What would you do if Netflix didn't even give you the option, and just cancelled your account for you, and gave you your local officials name, telephone, address and email?this would encourage me to find NETFLIX somewhere else

Post reply on HN