Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Cities sue Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, claim they owe cable “franchise fees”
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/cities-sue-netflix-hulu-disney-claim-they-owe-cable-franchise-fees/
126 comments
> 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 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.
It wasn't saying that the reasoning is actually sound. It's just, can be comprehended.
They may "own" it, but their customers rent it, for a cost. It's no longer "their" bandwidth, it's the bandwidth their customers gave them money for, because those customers wanted Netflix.
Also, an interesting twist to ponder: arguably the data packets "belong" to Netflix and the customer.
Arguably, it's the empty "capacity" that's being owned and rented by the Internet carrier and its customer, who can then have pricing discussions around how much capacity.
Welcome to being an ISP.
Also, an interesting twist to ponder: arguably the data packets "belong" to Netflix and the customer.
Arguably, it's the empty "capacity" that's being owned and rented by the Internet carrier and its customer, who can then have pricing discussions around how much capacity.
Welcome to being an ISP.
Why get paid once when you can get paid twice? This isn't about right, it's about might... let's see where this shakes out. The corporations have much more national political power but the cities can run a backhoe through your fiber uplink and then say "oops." I don't think the outcome is at all guaranteed to come out in favor of the streaming services.
> 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.
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 jurisdiction.
> 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?
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?
>>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
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
Where I live, all new taxes or tax hikes have to be approved by ballot measure. I believe it's true of the last place I lived as well (different state). So if you live somewhere that the government has the ability to unilaterally levy taxes and does not even pretend to act on the behalf of its constituency, I think the problem goes beyond Netflix.
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?
How are traditional TV Station different form Netflix and such?
Arguably Netflix is structurally and goal wise closer to any traditional TV station (who would owe that taxes) than to any individual using the internet.
The biggest point IMO is that they sell stuff film producers make to show ads — which is precisely the same thing TV stations did for decades.
Arguably Netflix is structurally and goal wise closer to any traditional TV station (who would owe that taxes) than to any individual using the internet.
The biggest point IMO is that they sell stuff film producers make to show ads — which is precisely the same thing TV stations did for decades.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. A traditional TV station is not subject to these franchise fees. Traditional stations receive their radio frequency allocations from the FCC.
A cable provider who lays physical cables in the ground pays a franchise fee to the community for the right to lay those cables on public land. The justification for this fee was that it increased community costs (it's more expensive to lay and maintain water and sewer pipes, for example, and digging up part of the road to lay the lines will result in the roads needing to be redone sooner even if they're patched).
Netflix, Hulu, and satellite providers do not use public right of ways. Sure, you may watch Netflix over DSL provided by your cable provider, but the cable provider has already paid the fee.
A cable provider who lays physical cables in the ground pays a franchise fee to the community for the right to lay those cables on public land. The justification for this fee was that it increased community costs (it's more expensive to lay and maintain water and sewer pipes, for example, and digging up part of the road to lay the lines will result in the roads needing to be redone sooner even if they're patched).
Netflix, Hulu, and satellite providers do not use public right of ways. Sure, you may watch Netflix over DSL provided by your cable provider, but the cable provider has already paid the fee.
> How are traditional TV Station different form Netflix and such?
They paid for (read, "bribed politicians to give them", but that's beside the point) exclusive use of particular RF spectrum, which then cannot be used for other purposes. Netflix routes over existing common-carriage infrastructure, and so does not impose any costs on people who don't use Netflix (assuming non-corrupt management of said infrastructure, but y'know, caveats, caveats, caveats...).
They paid for (read, "bribed politicians to give them", but that's beside the point) exclusive use of particular RF spectrum, which then cannot be used for other purposes. Netflix routes over existing common-carriage infrastructure, and so does not impose any costs on people who don't use Netflix (assuming non-corrupt management of said infrastructure, but y'know, caveats, caveats, caveats...).
> Netflix routes over existing common-carriage infrastructure, and so does not impose any costs on people who don't use Netflix
I don’t think that’s strictly true, since the available bandwidth on that infrastructure is not infinite.
That’s why Netflix supplies CDN appliances free of charge to ISPs - both to improve customer speeds, but also reduce bandwidth across the entire network.
I don’t think that’s strictly true, since the available bandwidth on that infrastructure is not infinite.
That’s why Netflix supplies CDN appliances free of charge to ISPs - both to improve customer speeds, but also reduce bandwidth across the entire network.
Uh, what Netflix have you been using?
So you mean the difference is that it is a website where you may choose the films?
That is a difference (of course) — however from a film makers perspective they are still trying to sell my film to the audience.
I am just sick of modern silicon valley companies doing the same thing as traditional companies while additionally deploying "one crazy trick" that let's them argue they are exempt to all existing regulations.
That is a difference (of course) — however from a film makers perspective they are still trying to sell my film to the audience.
I am just sick of modern silicon valley companies doing the same thing as traditional companies while additionally deploying "one crazy trick" that let's them argue they are exempt to all existing regulations.
While I, for one, am sick of regulations that hurt everyone except the budgets of incompetent bureaucrats or incumbent monopolies.
I mean the "ads" part. Netflix doesn't have ads...
Ever talked to filmmakers who made stuff for/with netflix? Product placement is a real thing. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/media/netflix-co...
> And at some point advertisers are going to wake up and realize the premium that broadcast and cable operators are charging per 1000 viewers is not really worth that much more than what YouTube pays Jake Paul.
Tangential: I was watching free to air last night with my 7 year old (we both never watch TV) and she innocently asked “does everyone watching this show see the same ad”. I said yes and the look on her face said it all. Even at 7 she knew that non-targeted ads are stupid
Tangential: I was watching free to air last night with my 7 year old (we both never watch TV) and she innocently asked “does everyone watching this show see the same ad”. I said yes and the look on her face said it all. Even at 7 she knew that non-targeted ads are stupid
Did you duly educate her as to the privacy concessions she'll have to make to avoid targeted advertising?
Did you duly educate her that she already has a user profile being built within whatever apps and services you allow her to use?
There's surely a middle ground, but where we are ain't it.
Edit: I see you've already answered the similar reply. In that case, you're saying that non-targeted ads are stupid, but you're educating your children to input fake data. That doesn't compute...
Edit 2: First sentence should read "as a result of targeted advertising" rather than "to avoid targeted advertising". Sigh.
Did you duly educate her that she already has a user profile being built within whatever apps and services you allow her to use?
There's surely a middle ground, but where we are ain't it.
Edit: I see you've already answered the similar reply. In that case, you're saying that non-targeted ads are stupid, but you're educating your children to input fake data. That doesn't compute...
Edit 2: First sentence should read "as a result of targeted advertising" rather than "to avoid targeted advertising". Sigh.
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!
That's definitely a valid individual choice, but from a systemic perspective it's way stupider than non-targeted ads. Also, be warned that mistargeted advertisements might introduce adult topics. "Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
>be warned that mistargeted advertisements might introduce adult topics. "Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?"
Is that a bad thing? I was perfectly capable of understanding what a viagra ad is and ignoring it when I was in elementary school. It doesn't take much. Imo all this parental control around sex is more about parents feeling uncomfortable than it is about kids being unable to understand it or somehow get "scarred" from it.
Is that a bad thing? I was perfectly capable of understanding what a viagra ad is and ignoring it when I was in elementary school. It doesn't take much. Imo all this parental control around sex is more about parents feeling uncomfortable than it is about kids being unable to understand it or somehow get "scarred" from it.
I can solidly get behind a parent who chooses to have "the sex talk" very early in the child's life, but if that's not done, then I think it's important to keep them from getting unvetted information. If they do bump into something, coming straight to a parent with questions is a best case scenario.
I bumped into multiple "somethings" as a kid and I didn't really discuss anything with my parents. I figured it out myself. It's not that hard for kids to do and I know most of my friends did the same.
In some situations, not everyone watches the same ads. If you are watching a local rebroadcaster, the ads can be (and in my experience, are) replaced with more relevant ads to your town/city.
"A television re-broadcaster may sell local or regional advertising for broadcast only on the local transmitter. Rarely, they may air limited programming distinct from their parent station. Some "semi-satellites" broadcast local newscasts or separate news segments in part of a newscast."[0]
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 hammers. They presumably want to sell the stuff they make with hammers and may lie to you about how awesome those products are. But lie about hammers? Why?
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 hammers. They presumably want to sell the stuff they make with hammers and may lie to you about how awesome those products are. But lie about hammers? Why?
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.
Just because someone believes it works doesn't mean it does.
I really don’t understand your confusion over this:
Ad companies sell ads.
Advertisers purchase ads.
Users see ads.
That’s it.
Ad companies sell ads.
Advertisers purchase ads.
Users see ads.
That’s it.
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/Poster didn't say it was wrong, they said it was phrased in a funny way.
The only discussion if current laws /FCC guidelines allow this taxation. There's no logic in a lot of taxes, they just add them cause they need revenue. If one day we all move away from home internet, they'll tax mobile internet to make up for the loss.
> eating up all their local bandwidth.
This is the city governments suing, so I don't think they're concerned about the ISPs' bandwidth being used up. That's not really their problem.
This is the city governments suing, so I don't think they're concerned about the ISPs' bandwidth being used up. That's not really their problem.
It's the capitalistic viewpoint that these people have that grieves me; internet should be considered a utility, everyone should have access to it, it should be affordable, and net neutrality should be guaranteed.
I mean you don't get multiple water lines for different purposes... actually don't quote me on that, they could have a 'grey' water line to use for flushing toilets and the like. But my point is, you get a connection to the water mains, as long as you don't use excessive water (and even if you do, you "just" pay for your usage), what you do with it is nobody's business. Same with electricity.
I mean you don't get multiple water lines for different purposes... actually don't quote me on that, they could have a 'grey' water line to use for flushing toilets and the like. But my point is, you get a connection to the water mains, as long as you don't use excessive water (and even if you do, you "just" pay for your usage), what you do with it is nobody's business. Same with electricity.
This has given me about 1000 ideas, I think you’re right too! Thanks :-)
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 because I never watched anything on DR but I still had to pay for it (ok I did accidentally see things if I was over at people's houses, it was nothing impressive). The assumption being of course that it was a public good.
Anyway - sub-regional pricing for Netflix etc.
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 because I never watched anything on DR but I still had to pay for it (ok I did accidentally see things if I was over at people's houses, it was nothing impressive). The assumption being of course that it was a public good.
Anyway - sub-regional pricing for Netflix etc.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
It's unclear they even exist..or work..our could even theoretically work now we have digital. Their true enforcement strategy is to harass the small minority who don't pay the license fee.
For young people it's not a small minority. Young people have gone off transmitted TV and they havent adapted yet.
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 like Netflix, with regular subscription (which would be a bit of a disaster, since it would basically mean the end of the BBC as we know it).
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 or non commercial stuff it produces could be paid for by tax or a much smaller license fee.
The money i save could be spent a couple of books or rentals instead which I would get value from.
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 or non commercial stuff it produces could be paid for by tax or a much smaller license fee.
The money i save could be spent a couple of books or rentals instead which I would get value from.
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!
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!
And those are the minority of shows. So in reality i'm paying a lot of money for things that are commercial quality and not educational and don't use.
That's as about as selfish of not wanting to pay for a gym membership i don't use.
That's as about as selfish of not wanting to pay for a gym membership i don't use.
Well, yes. It's literally a protection racket, what do you expect from making that legal?
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
[0] https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/temc2013-tv.pdf
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/2020/06/27/national/crime-...
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/2020/06/27/national/crime-...
Happy to hear this might help you out! :)
I read this in Murakami's books. Was surprised at Japan doing this to her citizens!
In Finland there is a media tax that is taken out of everyone's salary. I don't think it's optional. I've never paid close enough attention to care. I think it subsidises our state broadcaster YLE and perhaps some other things. Maybe a Finn can chip in and explain...
> The public broadcasting tax, also known as the Yle tax, replaced the license fee in 2013. The tax ranges from 50 euros to 140 euros per person and per year, depending on income. Minors and persons with low income are exempt from the tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yle#:~:text=Yle%20tax,-Main%20....
> The public broadcasting tax, also known as the Yle tax, replaced the license fee in 2013. The tax ranges from 50 euros to 140 euros per person and per year, depending on income. Minors and persons with low income are exempt from the tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yle#:~:text=Yle%20tax,-Main%20....
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.
> You have to explicitly refuse any cable service from your ISP in order not to pay it
Legally, you have to pay if you have a television in you home and you are subject to paying the residence tax (which will soon be applicable to less than 20% of homes anyway).
> And it's significant
No, it's not. It's like less than 0.5% of the tax you are paying (considering income tax, social tax, residence/homeowning tax, VAT...). They just keep it because they can rile up /distract people when they increase the TV tax by 5 euros.
And it is a way for the government to pressure public TV/radio into some obedience (since the government can basically cut a large part of their funding of these TV/radio by removing this tax).
Legally, you have to pay if you have a television in you home and you are subject to paying the residence tax (which will soon be applicable to less than 20% of homes anyway).
> And it's significant
No, it's not. It's like less than 0.5% of the tax you are paying (considering income tax, social tax, residence/homeowning tax, VAT...). They just keep it because they can rile up /distract people when they increase the TV tax by 5 euros.
And it is a way for the government to pressure public TV/radio into some obedience (since the government can basically cut a large part of their funding of these TV/radio by removing this tax).
> No, it's not. It's like less than 0.5% of the tax you are paying (considering income tax, social tax, residence/homeowning tax, VAT...). They just keep it because they can rile up /distract people when they increase the TV tax by 5 euros.
You don't know my income,monthly expenses, how many kids I have to feed, whether I have a mortgage, an alimony to pay or not... You have no idea what my budget is.
So less than 0.5% of what disposable income I have exactly? Tell me.
I'm not paying a flat tax (the tax doesn't depend on household income as you are insinuating) for something I have no use for at first place.
You don't know my income,monthly expenses, how many kids I have to feed, whether I have a mortgage, an alimony to pay or not... You have no idea what my budget is.
So less than 0.5% of what disposable income I have exactly? Tell me.
I'm not paying a flat tax (the tax doesn't depend on household income as you are insinuating) for something I have no use for at first place.
For context, it's 138€/year.
I just wanted it to be financed through taxes as it used to be.
It was completely ridiculous; after switching to a licensing model, DR’s costs for raking in money went up by about 15 million DKK just in fees to lawyers, if memory serves correctly.
It was completely ridiculous; after switching to a licensing model, DR’s costs for raking in money went up by about 15 million DKK just in fees to lawyers, if memory serves correctly.
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'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.
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.
Reuters does a pretty good job.
Well, in Denmark, government officials are part of the board of directors, so it's not independent either way.
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.
One reason might be that it's much easier to take a law changing the structure of the public broadcasting financing infront of the supreme court than it is to do so with regular budgeting.
This is what's happening in Australia to the ABC right now.
ive always thought this is a very moot argument. if the government decides to remove their backing from this scheme they still can. it really should be a tax, dependent on income. this whole apparatus for hunting people costs millions for nothing really...
Norway switched back to a tax-based model this year, where everybody above a certain income gets deducted between 150€ and 300€ more yearly.
The cost to the average person went down, I assume that is mostly because there will be more total payers now.
They also closed a 70-people office previously responsible for collecting the license fee.
Because of the shift in how people use TV and public access channels, in the Netherlands they simplified the whole scheme, got rid of the TV license entirely and just pay the public broadcasters through the regular state budget - e.g. "regular" taxes. It just saves a ton of headaches and complexity. I'm not "smol government" or whatever, but I do think laws and the like can be simplified by a lot.
In a similar vein, they simplified tax brackets for last year, instead of four brackets, there's now just two, and most people ended up paying less taxes (see https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/belastingplan/belas... for an infographic; keep in mind that while the lowest incomes do pay a little more taxes, they also get more money back from the government in stipends and subsidies for e.g. rent, health insurance, and a fixed 'discount' on taxes)
In a similar vein, they simplified tax brackets for last year, instead of four brackets, there's now just two, and most people ended up paying less taxes (see https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/belastingplan/belas... for an infographic; keep in mind that while the lowest incomes do pay a little more taxes, they also get more money back from the government in stipends and subsidies for e.g. rent, health insurance, and a fixed 'discount' on taxes)
Note, before the tax change we had 3 brackets, not 4.
Also note: technically we have, and have always had 4 brackets. They just merged the tax brackets by setting limits and rates weirdly.
Also note: technically we have, and have always had 4 brackets. They just merged the tax brackets by setting limits and rates weirdly.
In Swedish 90s, there was a public information campaign series with vigilante kids putting a snail on the eye of people who don't pay their TV license.
I think everyone who was around then recognize the reference "Do you want a snail on your eye?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0R-N0w8-Q
I think everyone who was around then recognize the reference "Do you want a snail on your eye?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0R-N0w8-Q
That is still the case in Ireland. It’s called a TV license. It’s an annual fee, that you have to pay as long as you have a TV, regardless of whether you use it for watching terrestrial TV or not. They even have a crew of inspectors who go around randomly knocking on doors to check if people are paying it.
Germany had TV or Radio, (every car got a radio...). Today it is per household, independent what you own.
As a student, unemployed or otherwise paid from the state it isn't a problem, you let them pay it. But if you are single, you have to pay the 210€/yr on your own.
As a student, unemployed or otherwise paid from the state it isn't a problem, you let them pay it. But if you are single, you have to pay the 210€/yr on your own.
In Italy the TV tax is now auto-included in the facilities bill. You have to explicitly declare that you don't have a TV and repeat it each year.
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.
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.
Kinda reminds me a bit of how Milwaukee wanted money from Pokémon Go because the players was playing in the local park and some even went off the path so they were arguing the app is responsible for plants and stuff being damaged. The city lost but had to pay $83,000 in attorney fees. I think it's a bit of a overreach that a city in Indiana is trying to regulate a company in California.
I know Ohio cities can have franchise fees for cable too, wonder if the regulation is city by city or all based around the same state law... If Netflix had to follow that, I guess they'd have to have a army of lawyers review each city one by one keeping a database, filing paper work, etc. 50 states, multiplied by hundred of cities. Sounds like a massive mess. Maybe if you are the only person in a town of a few thousand watching Netflix, wouldn't be worth all the extra administration work. So wonder if maybe only the big cites would get Netflix then?
Satellite has also faced the problem of being treated differently too. I know in Florida Satellite they charge a higher tax rate compared to cable but that's state wide from my understanding, since they don't have the local equipment and as many employees to maintain the infrastructure. Well both cable and satellite has installers, etc but they could very well be contractors but still putting people to work locally.
Then I know some areas try to require a permit for satellite TV and the FCC sued cities over that because of the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (“OTARD”) rule or limit the number of satellites to 1. I have Dish at home and for some reason they installed 2 satellite dishes pointing at a slight different angle than the other one. I guess some cities and HOAs think satellites are ugly too. Some still have these ordinances on the book, so surprised cities haven't removed them... Then again in some states same sex marriage is still illegal on the books too like Ohio and Tennessee, but you know they can't enforce that anymore either because of the supreme court. I guess the problem is in Ohio marriage is defined in the state constitution, so it'd take a convention to change it but I guess not a priority even though it's kinda symbolic even if no longer law. Virginia did the same, but 2020 they passed updates at least - 5 years after the ruling.
I know Ohio cities can have franchise fees for cable too, wonder if the regulation is city by city or all based around the same state law... If Netflix had to follow that, I guess they'd have to have a army of lawyers review each city one by one keeping a database, filing paper work, etc. 50 states, multiplied by hundred of cities. Sounds like a massive mess. Maybe if you are the only person in a town of a few thousand watching Netflix, wouldn't be worth all the extra administration work. So wonder if maybe only the big cites would get Netflix then?
Satellite has also faced the problem of being treated differently too. I know in Florida Satellite they charge a higher tax rate compared to cable but that's state wide from my understanding, since they don't have the local equipment and as many employees to maintain the infrastructure. Well both cable and satellite has installers, etc but they could very well be contractors but still putting people to work locally.
Then I know some areas try to require a permit for satellite TV and the FCC sued cities over that because of the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (“OTARD”) rule or limit the number of satellites to 1. I have Dish at home and for some reason they installed 2 satellite dishes pointing at a slight different angle than the other one. I guess some cities and HOAs think satellites are ugly too. Some still have these ordinances on the book, so surprised cities haven't removed them... Then again in some states same sex marriage is still illegal on the books too like Ohio and Tennessee, but you know they can't enforce that anymore either because of the supreme court. I guess the problem is in Ohio marriage is defined in the state constitution, so it'd take a convention to change it but I guess not a priority even though it's kinda symbolic even if no longer law. Virginia did the same, but 2020 they passed updates at least - 5 years after the ruling.
That's a BS ruling; it's the people that would be responsible for damages, and only if they moved into areas they're not supposed to.
Parks are public spaces and they should both applaud and put a bit more money into them for what Pokemon Go managed to achieve.
Parks are public spaces and they should both applaud and put a bit more money into them for what Pokemon Go managed to achieve.
The ruling was in favor of Pokemon Go.
I kinda see the argument of the city. But only if organizing an event in the park would normally have cost a fee. Because then pokemon go organized an event in the park, but because the organizers did not have a physical presence, they didn't need to pay.
I kinda see the argument of the city. But only if organizing an event in the park would normally have cost a fee. Because then pokemon go organized an event in the park, but because the organizers did not have a physical presence, they didn't need to pay.
This can only be the first step. Since this is a political move, why not change the law and restructure taxes? It's difficult for cities to tax value creation if that value is created globally, in a data centre, somewhere on the planet.
Why should the city that just happens to host the data centre be able to tax the profits that are created in that data centre? Or worse, why should a company choose any city for its headquarters and pretend that the value is created there?
On a global scale, which society or political entity should have the right to tax profits that are created on the internet? How should cities be financed if most of the commerce in the city happens on the internet, outside of the city limits?
Why should the city that just happens to host the data centre be able to tax the profits that are created in that data centre? Or worse, why should a company choose any city for its headquarters and pretend that the value is created there?
On a global scale, which society or political entity should have the right to tax profits that are created on the internet? How should cities be financed if most of the commerce in the city happens on the internet, outside of the city limits?
Cities need to start using technology to constrain their costs rather than just stabbing at anywhere that has revenue they can tax.
Any specific suggestions for how technology can cut municipal costs?
Most of the fat in municipal spending tends to be political (pork) or criminal (public corruption and/or organized crime), rather than due to process inefficiencies that could be remedied through better use of technology.
Municipal spending tends to be dominated by the kinds of inherently labor-intensive services that can't readily be automated. Automation isn't going to have much of an impact in the number of people needed for firefighting, garbage collection, or to run and maintain urban water, sewer, electrical, and road networks anytime soon. Automation in policing is another huge civil liberties problem best left untouched.
Urban government costs money and municipal tax grab attempts like this are either evidence of greed (and/or corruption) or inadequate funding models. These are political, rather than technological, problems.
Most of the fat in municipal spending tends to be political (pork) or criminal (public corruption and/or organized crime), rather than due to process inefficiencies that could be remedied through better use of technology.
Municipal spending tends to be dominated by the kinds of inherently labor-intensive services that can't readily be automated. Automation isn't going to have much of an impact in the number of people needed for firefighting, garbage collection, or to run and maintain urban water, sewer, electrical, and road networks anytime soon. Automation in policing is another huge civil liberties problem best left untouched.
Urban government costs money and municipal tax grab attempts like this are either evidence of greed (and/or corruption) or inadequate funding models. These are political, rather than technological, problems.
But so much can be automated to a point. For example, garbage collection: Cities have already been saving money by putting in 'smart' cans/compactors (that are solar powered). No one needs to check every can, they just go along and get the ones that are full enough. Cities have also done things like standardize trash can so the machine takes care of the dumping. So many places now only have 2 people per truck instead of the 3 when I was younger.
We use sensors for water treatment plants (and possibly for water delivery), software for some public transport when they do such a thing, devices to measure road traffic, and machines that automate much of road building. I'm going to guess that there are lots of these sorts of small things these.
You can also simply start doing more of it as a city instead of contracting it out, but I suppose this isn't really technological.
We use sensors for water treatment plants (and possibly for water delivery), software for some public transport when they do such a thing, devices to measure road traffic, and machines that automate much of road building. I'm going to guess that there are lots of these sorts of small things these.
You can also simply start doing more of it as a city instead of contracting it out, but I suppose this isn't really technological.
6 figure pensions for public "servants" cannot be payed by tech. They are ridiculous when SS recipients receive about $20k a year.
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.
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.
Didn't striking down net neutrality rule that internet lines are NOT public utilities?
Simple: turn off the services for residents of those cities. The "public servants" will need to find a new line of work.
Why would you turn them off? Just make their prices 5% higher than other regions.
Because Netflix & Co. are financially stronger than most cities, or even a small collection of cities (those not named NYC or Los Angeles etc). They can push back against this abusive tax chase if they do it early. You have to break the move in its infancy, otherwise you'll have a tag team of hundreds of cities demanding you pay a tax merely for the right to deliver bytes to the citizens that the cities claim ownership over (which is what this de facto is, they're saying: we own those bodies and a toll must be paid for any bytes flowing to and from those bodies).
Followed to its proper logical conclusion, Wikipedia must pay a tax, Reddit must pay a tax, Imgur must pay a tax, and so on. This is extremely authoritarian in its nature.
Followed to its proper logical conclusion, Wikipedia must pay a tax, Reddit must pay a tax, Imgur must pay a tax, and so on. This is extremely authoritarian in its nature.
One reason to turn cities off is to see if you can turn the people against the city government and get them to back down. If that tactic works, then other cities might think it's not worth trying.
That sounds an awful lot like a tax
I don't think most people will notice an extra 48 cents on their bill every month.
You could outline it in red with a note.
So then, what's the problem?
So according to them, they should get paid for any video watched in their city?
Sounds kind of pathetic, tbh.
Sounds kind of pathetic, tbh.
Yeah, what next Spotify tax for music broadcast? Freaking city mafias and the politicians running them, tax anything that has revenues. A political upheaval is impending.
Several countries have a mandated tariff on any kind of digital media storage (HDDs, memory cards, etc) and yes, there have been lobbying and talks on imposing this on cloud services as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
So nice to see companies offload their dirty work onto government. Crony capitalism at its finest.
Porn tax. They can combine it with cute cat video taxes as well if need be.
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!
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!
Is it like video watching tax? So what about people watching personal videos, and those shared through messaging apps or any video. The cities are looking for pathetic ways to tax its citizens, next what Anyone listening to music on radio or Spotify would be taxed?
Good ol’ cable dying a slow painful death.
Traditional cable TV you would sit on a sofa and flip through channels with a remote control, yes, but your typical Comcast/Charter/Wave/RCN type cable multiservice operator is morphing into a DOCIS3/DOCSIS3.1 or GPON fiber based last mile DIA ISP.
The cable tv operators care about their municipal franchise agreements and aerial pole+underground right of way very much, since it gives them an incumbent ISP operating position over a large geographical area.
I should note that cable TV operators in a given city might have many different types of last mile architecture. Some of which can be taxed by the city, and some of which cannot. There's cable TV operators with their wholly-owned wood utility poles installed in the ROW (right of way), there's operators where they occupy a strand on a municipal electrical grid operator's poles, there's operators which are on poles shared 3-way between electrical grid operator, local telco, and cable TV. In newer housing developments some might occupy their own fully underground ducts between handholes and manholes with the ducts in the ROW. Or the ducts might be in land owned by HOAs. It depends very much on the history of how the analog cable TV system in a city got built out in the 1970s and 1980s and other factors.
In places that are unfortunate enough to lack real competition between the cable TV operator and the local phone company for last-mile, it can give an operator a near monopoly advantage. For instance you might be able to get 200 Mbps downstream service from Comcast while the local phone company can only offer 10Mbps ADSL2+.
Some smart people at the local phone company probably have your area on a map targeted for a single-strand to the home GPON FTTH overbuild, but accomplishing that in the near future is either limited by budget concerns or lack of manpower/bucket truck, lineman and splicer crews to accomplish it.
On the part of the city that might be bringing in 450,000 dollars a year in cable TV franchise tax revenue, it's such a short sighted move. Yes, maybe your cable TV franchise tax will continue to drop, as more people disconnect cable tv (taxed) and move to pure internet services (not taxed).
But the economic benefit to a city of having multiple, overlapping competing gigabit-class services to the end user is greater than the tax revenue. For instance the parts of Seattle right now where you can work from home and have your choice of centurylink (telco ILEC) GPON 1Gbps FTTH, or 1Gbps DOCSIS3.1 or GPON from Wave or Comcast.
The cable tv operators care about their municipal franchise agreements and aerial pole+underground right of way very much, since it gives them an incumbent ISP operating position over a large geographical area.
I should note that cable TV operators in a given city might have many different types of last mile architecture. Some of which can be taxed by the city, and some of which cannot. There's cable TV operators with their wholly-owned wood utility poles installed in the ROW (right of way), there's operators where they occupy a strand on a municipal electrical grid operator's poles, there's operators which are on poles shared 3-way between electrical grid operator, local telco, and cable TV. In newer housing developments some might occupy their own fully underground ducts between handholes and manholes with the ducts in the ROW. Or the ducts might be in land owned by HOAs. It depends very much on the history of how the analog cable TV system in a city got built out in the 1970s and 1980s and other factors.
In places that are unfortunate enough to lack real competition between the cable TV operator and the local phone company for last-mile, it can give an operator a near monopoly advantage. For instance you might be able to get 200 Mbps downstream service from Comcast while the local phone company can only offer 10Mbps ADSL2+.
Some smart people at the local phone company probably have your area on a map targeted for a single-strand to the home GPON FTTH overbuild, but accomplishing that in the near future is either limited by budget concerns or lack of manpower/bucket truck, lineman and splicer crews to accomplish it.
On the part of the city that might be bringing in 450,000 dollars a year in cable TV franchise tax revenue, it's such a short sighted move. Yes, maybe your cable TV franchise tax will continue to drop, as more people disconnect cable tv (taxed) and move to pure internet services (not taxed).
But the economic benefit to a city of having multiple, overlapping competing gigabit-class services to the end user is greater than the tax revenue. For instance the parts of Seattle right now where you can work from home and have your choice of centurylink (telco ILEC) GPON 1Gbps FTTH, or 1Gbps DOCSIS3.1 or GPON from Wave or Comcast.
Centurylink has pulled quite a bit of fiber in Seattle over the last 3 years, but their expansion plans are erratic (eg: putting a 12 port GPON aerial terminal in the middle of blocks of 4 story MDUs that aren't allowed to use it) and the serviceability database often has said GPON ports misallocated due to incorrect identification of the number of units in a particular property.
I think Centurylink is hard up for cash at the moment, as they just dropped gigabit fiber with a free modem & install down to $49 a month for life in most areas. Frontier did similar offers for the 2 years prior to selling the Pacific Northwest division to Ziply Fiber.
Ultimately the City of Seattle struck a bad franchise agreement with Centurylink that didn't mandate universal fiber coverage like more sparsely populated suburbs did (eg: Lynnwood, Kenmore, etc). The effectiveness of these agreements was middling though, only the litigious cities were able to ensure the franchise agreement was enforced.
Poorer townships like Kenmore have universal fiber service available to every property by 2005 written in as a hard requirement of their franchise agreements with the telco, but without enforcement action the fiber will not be built.
I think Centurylink is hard up for cash at the moment, as they just dropped gigabit fiber with a free modem & install down to $49 a month for life in most areas. Frontier did similar offers for the 2 years prior to selling the Pacific Northwest division to Ziply Fiber.
Ultimately the City of Seattle struck a bad franchise agreement with Centurylink that didn't mandate universal fiber coverage like more sparsely populated suburbs did (eg: Lynnwood, Kenmore, etc). The effectiveness of these agreements was middling though, only the litigious cities were able to ensure the franchise agreement was enforced.
Poorer townships like Kenmore have universal fiber service available to every property by 2005 written in as a hard requirement of their franchise agreements with the telco, but without enforcement action the fiber will not be built.
One of the things that distinguishes the 1Gbps to the home market in Seattle is the number of MDU specialists, and percentage of 35+ unit apartments or condos that have at least one gigabit provider in the building. I'm thinking of the AS54858 network (CondoInternet/WaveG), independent smaller player Atlas Networks, in addition to Comcast and Centurylink.
The WaveG MDU network is in a lot of places in the city which are not Wave cable incumbent territory. It started as its own independent network in areas that are traditionally Comcast/Centurylink territory around the core of downtown, capitol hill, south lake union etc and was later acquired by Wave. The Wave cable TV network was historically its own distinct thing in a different set of franchise territories within the city boundaries.
The origins of what we would call Wave in the City of Seattle are with Broadstripe. The same guys who acquired Broadstripe out of bankruptcy and glued it together with a bunch of other acquired small to medium cable MSOs on the west coast, are the ones who formed Northwest Fiber (now Ziply) to acquire the PNW assets of Frontier.
https://www.multichannel.com/news/broadstripe-writes-its-las...
Ultimately for a full understanding of what Clink and Ziply are doing and where their last mile and midddle mile networks are the strongest, one needs to have a historical understanding of the Pacific Northwest Bell network (-->USWest-->Qwest-->Clink) and the areas that were historically GTE territory (GTE-->Frontier-->Ziply).
On the topic of the city government of Seattle and its franchise agreement with CenturyLink. I don't think a city government ever has much negotiating leverage with an ILEC such as this. The clink network in Seattle is the result of 100 years of incumbent copper phone line dialtone service, clink setting its own poles in many places, and is a core part of municipal infrastructure. The city can't reasonably force the company to vacate the right of way or cease services without causing a severe impact on the residents of the city. There's no plausible scenario in which a new franchise agreement won't put be into place...
The WaveG MDU network is in a lot of places in the city which are not Wave cable incumbent territory. It started as its own independent network in areas that are traditionally Comcast/Centurylink territory around the core of downtown, capitol hill, south lake union etc and was later acquired by Wave. The Wave cable TV network was historically its own distinct thing in a different set of franchise territories within the city boundaries.
The origins of what we would call Wave in the City of Seattle are with Broadstripe. The same guys who acquired Broadstripe out of bankruptcy and glued it together with a bunch of other acquired small to medium cable MSOs on the west coast, are the ones who formed Northwest Fiber (now Ziply) to acquire the PNW assets of Frontier.
https://www.multichannel.com/news/broadstripe-writes-its-las...
Ultimately for a full understanding of what Clink and Ziply are doing and where their last mile and midddle mile networks are the strongest, one needs to have a historical understanding of the Pacific Northwest Bell network (-->USWest-->Qwest-->Clink) and the areas that were historically GTE territory (GTE-->Frontier-->Ziply).
On the topic of the city government of Seattle and its franchise agreement with CenturyLink. I don't think a city government ever has much negotiating leverage with an ILEC such as this. The clink network in Seattle is the result of 100 years of incumbent copper phone line dialtone service, clink setting its own poles in many places, and is a core part of municipal infrastructure. The city can't reasonably force the company to vacate the right of way or cease services without causing a severe impact on the residents of the city. There's no plausible scenario in which a new franchise agreement won't put be into place...
Centurylink did not have a franchise agreement with the city prior to them offering TV service over fiber FYI
[deleted]
Are the cities charging the same taxes to ISPs carrying the actual data delivered by these services?
If so the court is probably going to frown on double dipping.
If so the court is probably going to frown on double dipping.
It probably depends on the type of ISP you have and whether or not they use the public right-of-way. I'm going to guess that most ISPs pay it in the US simply because most folks get their internet from the phone or cable company. If you happen to have satellite internet of any sort, though, or another form of wireless, probably not.
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.
I guess it all comes down to the intention behind the action, and then what opportunities are offered as a result of the action down the track. Do you trust them now? Can you trust them in the future? Are they more or less likely to screw you than the big comms mono/duo-poly?
Municipality A may have initiated ISP infrastructure contract for the actual benefit of it's constituents against the comms mono/duo-poly. Hurrah for Municipality A sticking it to the man and looking out for the constituency.
X years down the track, Municipality A needs funding for corrupt members yacht or office chesterfield reupholstering. Hey, we're practically giving away broadband compared to the comms mono/duo-poly and prices have increased way below CPI the last few years, let's bump it up to (artificial) market-competitive, woo!
Municipality A may have initiated ISP infrastructure contract for the actual benefit of it's constituents against the comms mono/duo-poly. Hurrah for Municipality A sticking it to the man and looking out for the constituency.
X years down the track, Municipality A needs funding for corrupt members yacht or office chesterfield reupholstering. Hey, we're practically giving away broadband compared to the comms mono/duo-poly and prices have increased way below CPI the last few years, let's bump it up to (artificial) market-competitive, woo!
> 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.
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.
Funny thing about net neutrality is that even the greatest propo
Funny thing about net neutrality is that even the biggest proponents of laissez-faire capitalism think it's a great idea.
Citation needed; cable / internet companies LOVE the idea of them being able to get money from both consumers and content providers like Netflix. Facebook wanted to make its own internet in areas with low internet penetration where people had to pay for non-Facebook traffic. I'm sure it's the same with a lot of other tech companies.
It's kinda obvious that the few people who'd gain from net neutrality are proponents of it. My point of course, was about the 99,999% (or so) other people.
While I think net neutrality is very popular, I think there are quite a few people not voicing their reservations against it because of that.
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 by individual creators.
And at some point advertisers are going to wake up and realize the premium that broadcast and cable operators are charging per 1000 viewers is not really worth that much more than what YouTube pays Jake Paul.