It seems the solution is to create or increase the franchise fees on ISPs that use municipal infrastructure.
Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
11–20 of 20 posts
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#12> It would be absurd to call Netflix and Hulu video service providers and could have extreme consequences, Garre said. > “It would mean that anyone who streams content over the internet – whether it’s a high school that streams educational programs or athletic events or a church that may stream programs or this court itself, which is streaming this argument live today – would be a video service provider under the act…
This only seems controversial because we're reading the colloquial meaning of 'video service provider' rather than the text of the bill.
The text of the bill applies to companies who >lay fiber or cable through the public right of way<
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#13This seems like a money-grab from a municipality. As people engage in cord-cutting behavior, the municipality can't excise it's tax from the cable companies (people who dig cables). So they are looking to make up for the shortfall by going after Netflix and Hulu.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. How do you expect these places to pay for infrastructure and maintenance and public services?
They should levy taxes on people living in the municipality, not a company thousands of miles away that is not using their resources in any way whatsoever.
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#14[deleted]
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#15> It would be absurd to call Netflix and Hulu video service providers and could have extreme consequences, Garre said. > “It would mean that anyone who streams content over the internet – whether it’s a high school that streams educational programs or athletic events or a church that may stream programs or this court itself, which is streaming this argument live today – would be a video service provider under the act…
This only seems controversial because we're reading the colloquial meaning of 'video service provider' rather than the text of the bill. The text of the bill applies to companies who >lay fiber or cable through the public right of way<
Hulu and Netflix do not do those things, so why are they being caught up in this?
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. I'm struggling to find where OP said any such thing.
> money-grab Connotatively negative word.
And I would agree that it is true that this is a money-grab in this particular case. However, as one who is happy pay municipal taxes most of the time, I don't think OP was stating that this is the case in general. But when one revenue source dries up, and an entity tries to make up the shortfall by dipping into the (arguably, which is what the case is about) unrelated pockets of Netflix customers, then yeah, a negative word or two might be in order.
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. How do you expect these places to pay for infrastructure and maintenance and public services?
They should levy taxes on people living in the municipality, not a company thousands of miles away that is not using their resources in any way whatsoever.
They’re attempting to do just that. This tax would be paid by the consumer, just as state sales taxes are. However companies must keep track of the relevant taxes for each consumer, charge them appropriately, and remit that to the appropriate government. It gets complicated real fast.
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. How do you expect these places to pay for infrastructure and maintenance and public services?
The taxes are levied on "video service providers" in order for those providers to secure the right-of-way to lay cable. Essentially, it's a tax to pay for the providers using municipal infrastructure (streets, utility poles), burying it if necessary, etc - for the purposes of laying new cable . Netflix and Hulu don't own or lay cable, they don't need right-of-way. As I understand it, the tax is already levied on cabl…
And when these companies buy their way out of paying taxes for infrastructure, were supposed to clap and say "well done ole boys"
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. How do you expect these places to pay for infrastructure and maintenance and public services?
The taxes are levied on "video service providers" in order for those providers to secure the right-of-way to lay cable. Essentially, it's a tax to pay for the providers using municipal infrastructure (streets, utility poles), burying it if necessary, etc - for the purposes of laying new cable . Netflix and Hulu don't own or lay cable, they don't need right-of-way. As I understand it, the tax is already levied on cabl…
> But my guess is that is less politically expedient. However the tax payers now have to foot the bill for the lawsuit, so who really wins?
Lawyers. Only lawyers win in prolonged legal and political battles.
Re: Netflix, Hulu argue they aren’t ‘video service providers’ in Ohio Supreme Court
#20This seems like a money-grab from a municipality. As people engage in cord-cutting behavior, the municipality can't excise it's tax from the cable companies (people who dig cables). So they are looking to make up for the shortfall by going after Netflix and Hulu.
I'm struggling to understand why it's a bad thing that a municipality wants to levy taxes. How do you expect these places to pay for infrastructure and maintenance and public services?
Be careful what you wish for, because if streaming video requires paying taxes there can be no free service streaming video. And that is without looking at the absurd costs of complying with a patchwork of municipal laws.