SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”:
Four cities in Indiana are suing Netflix and other video companies, claiming that online video providers and satellite-TV operators should have to pay the same franchise fees that cable companies pay for using local rights of way.
The lawsuit was filed against Netflix, Disney, Hulu, DirecTV, and Dish Network on August 4 in Indiana Commercial Court in Marion County. The cities of Indianapolis, Evansville, Valparaiso, and Fishers want the companies to pay the cable-franchise fees established in Indiana's Video Service Franchises (VSF) Act, which requires payments of 5 percent of gross revenue in each city.
Inspired by? Charter Can Charge Online Video Sites for Network Connections, Court Rules
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @11:48AM (3 children)
1. Netflix, etc. are on top of the Internet. Any infrastructure fees are already paid by the Internet providers
2. Satellite? - GTFO.
This lawsuit is as insane is cities suing Microsoft and Google for not paying for electricity franchise fees. But cockroaches want their food
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 21 2020, @02:16PM
The contention sure sounds like a VAT, but only on Internet activity. What's the gas tax in Indiana? Still 18 cents per gallon, like it has been since the early 1990s?
If anything, Indiana ought to be subsidizing Internet activity that materially reduces travel, and therefore wear and tear on infrastructure. Maybe Netflix and the rest should try a counter proposal. Set the gas tax to the percentage that 18 cents would have been back in 1993. Letting the oil companies off with a flat rate was an outrageous giveaway.
Really, this looks like sheer banditry. They're preying upon the weak. They won't take on Big Oil, but geeky tech looks like easy meat? Maybe there's also an element of anti-intellectualism in this lawsuit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @02:23PM (1 child)
When do you ever hear anything good coming out of Indiana?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday August 21 2020, @03:36PM
I almost thought you wrote India and was going to start linking their recent exploits in Space. Then, I noted it was Indiana, yeah, I've got nothing. I'm sure they've done some good somehow, though.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @11:48AM (4 children)
City's taxes drying up as folks cut classic cable..
Previous taxes laws written to cover classic cable.
Indiana law (IC 8-1-34-16 Sec. 16. (a) (1) )appears to depend on federal law(47 U.S.C. 522(10)),
Federal law seems about regulating 'cable systems' 47 U.S.C. 522.
(7)the term “cable system” means a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community, but such term does not include
(A) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of 1 or more television broadcast stations;
(B) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way;
(C) a facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter, except that such facility shall be considered a cable system (other than for purposes of section 541(c) of this title) to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services; (D) an open video system that complies with section 573 of this title; or (E) any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility system;
(6)the term “cable service” means—
(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other programming service, and
(B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service;
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @12:40PM (3 children)
The reasoning for the law might be questionable, but it seems like the tax also apply to online videoplatforms.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2012/title8/article1/chapter34/ [justia.com]
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).
As added by P.L.27-2006, SEC.58.
IC 8-1-34-15
"Video service system"
Sec. 15. (a) As used in this chapter, "video service system" means a system, consisting of a set of transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment, that is designed to provide video service directly to subscribers within a community. The term includes the:
(1) optical spectrum wavelengths;
(2) bandwidth; or
(3) other current or future technological capacity;
used to provide the video service.
(b) The term does not include a system that transmits video service to subscribers without using any public right-of-way.
As added by P.L.27-2006, SEC.58.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @02:06PM
I don't see how it does by that definition. The issue is it is clearly talking about purpose build hardware in a public right of way that ONLY does video delivery. How does that describe Netflix.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @02:10PM
(b) The term does not include a system that transmits video service to subscribers without using any public right-of-way.
So, if they use public internet with encryption they should be fine?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @03:53PM
It doesn't really matter if Netflix is a video service under the definition or not, because the fee was already paid by the ISP.
The analogy would be going to the cable company for the fee, and then getting a list of the channels they carry, and then going to them and trying to collect the fee again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Friday August 21 2020, @11:48AM (3 children)
So, they're not content to just collect money from the people that operate the service that runs the physical cable. No, they want a piece of the pie from everything that comes down it. ISPs want to double dip, cities want to double dip. Everyone's gotta get paid, and we all know who pays in the end: us.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @02:17PM (2 children)
This was covered in the 1990s. Should websites such as yahoo have to pay all over the world?
The answer is no.
Both parties pay for their internet access. Done.
No third party has a cut. Imagine applying this to all services on the internet.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 21 2020, @04:10PM (1 child)
Good thing Ajit Pai repealed Net Neutrality, eh?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 21 2020, @10:01PM
Back in the '90s, every local municipality piled taxes and fees on cellular phone traffic, politically the measures were popular because it was seen as a "luxury tax" - some places went so far as to try to tax any cellular phone traffic that passed through their county - shades of the silk road.
In the '00s, I looked into the idea of buying some land in East Nebraska and building a windpower farm. Similar problems confronted that endeavor, not just in Nebraska. They call it "spinning fees" but, basically, it's a local shakedown to ensure that any energy development investment in the local area spreads some of that money around to the local governments.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Friday August 21 2020, @07:53PM (1 child)
Netflix et. al. should block all service to those cities and replace the web page with one telling people they are blocked, why they are blocked, and giving the date, time, and place of the next relevant meeting (with a map) as well as phone numbers for the various city officials.
The video services aren't using any right-way that wasn't already paid for in full by local ISPs and telcos.
The only right-of-way like thing DirecTV uses is regulated at the federal level.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 21 2020, @10:03PM
Nothing is ever paid in full when politics is involved. New taxes and fees can be imagined at any time.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/