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 Ne

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!