7 ms·

By that reasoning, I'm using the "Public right of way" to make this comment. Therefore, I'm a defendant. Listen, I get it. They want some compensation from Net

By that reasoning, I'm using the "Public right of way" to make this comment. Therefore, I'm a defendant. 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.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> 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?
- ponker 6y ago
  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.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    > 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.
    - ponker 6y ago
      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.
      - oarsinsync 6y ago
        > 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?
        rolph 6y ago
        >>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
        bagacrap 6y ago
        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.
- atoav 6y ago
  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.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    Uh, what Netflix have you been using?
    - atoav 6y ago
      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.
      - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
        While I, for one, am sick of regulations that hurt everyone except the budgets of incompetent bureaucrats or incumbent monopolies.
      - johncolanduoni 6y ago
        I mean the "ads" part. Netflix doesn't have ads...
        atoav 6y ago
        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-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/media/netflix-co...
- powersnail 6y ago
  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.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    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.
- panpanna 6y ago
  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?
andy_ppp 6y ago
This has given me about 1000 ideas, I think you’re right too! Thanks :-)
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
> 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
- tallanvor 6y ago
  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.
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    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!
    - emiliobumachar 6y ago
      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?"
      - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        >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.
adrianmonk 6y ago
> 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.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
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.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
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.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> 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?

ponker 6y ago
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.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > 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.
  - ponker 6y ago
    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.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      > 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?
      - rolph 6y ago
        >>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
      - bagacrap 6y ago
        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.
atoav 6y ago
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.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Uh, what Netflix have you been using?
  - atoav 6y ago
    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.
    - SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
      While I, for one, am sick of regulations that hurt everyone except the budgets of incompetent bureaucrats or incumbent monopolies.
    - johncolanduoni 6y ago
      I mean the "ads" part. Netflix doesn't have ads...
      - atoav 6y ago
        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-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/business/media/netflix-co...
powersnail 6y ago
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.
- Terretta 6y ago
  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.
panpanna 6y ago
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?

andy_ppp 6y ago

This has given me about 1000 ideas, I think you’re right too! Thanks :-)

alfiedotwtf 6y ago

> 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

tallanvor 6y ago
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.
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  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!
  - emiliobumachar 6y ago
    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?"
    - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
      >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.

adrianmonk 6y ago

> 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.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

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.

onetimemanytime 6y ago

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.