Netflix not a video service provider

Netflix Tells Court It Isn't a Video Service Provider

"The streamer — no quarrel there — is looking to avoid paying a portion of subscription fees to Missouri towns.
"Netflix is not a video service provider because it does not provide video service."

"This powerful argument comes from a memorandum submitted in Missouri federal court on Thursday by Netflix, which along with Hulu faces a lawsuit from the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri."


This pisses me off.
Cities decide they want some money so we are just going to take it from you.

"But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."


Netflix will just raise subscription fees to cover the loss.

The whole lawsuit comes down to the courts interpretation of "video service"

Opinions?

www.hollywoodreporter.com...



I didn't mention it but if this works for these towns every town in the country will want a piece of the action. By by Netflix,

a reply to: Bluntone22

Missouri isn't the most populace place, it's not going to break the bank if video providers just pull out of the area and let the population flip out on local law makers.

Sounds like extortion to me on the part of local governments, 5% of video providers revenue? That's just insane.

a reply to: Bluntone22

What about 'advertisers'? Can't they cover the costs? The viewer seems to be the one who always have to fork out... it's like here in the UK, you're supposed to pay for a tv license to watch TV, even if you watch on the internet, on a phone or PC! It's just another way to take cash from the peple who already don't have much..

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that Missouri residents wil have to buy a license to watch TV.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Netflix Tells Court It Isn't a Video Service Provider

"The streamer — no quarrel there — is looking to avoid paying a portion of subscription fees to Missouri towns.
"Netflix is not a video service provider because it does not provide video service."

"This powerful argument comes from a memorandum submitted in Missouri federal court on Thursday by Netflix, which along with Hulu faces a lawsuit from the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri."


This pisses me off.
Cities decide they want some money so we are just going to take it from you.

"But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."


Netflix will just raise subscription fees to cover the loss.

The whole lawsuit comes down to the courts interpretation of "video service"

Opinions?

www.hollywoodreporter.com...


I didn't mention it but if this works for these towns every town in the country will want a piece of the action. By by Netflix,

Can only say it's a site not server.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree 5% is ridiculous.
Especially considering they bare no cost to justify the charge.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Netflix Tells Court It Isn't a Video Service Provider

"The streamer — no quarrel there — is looking to avoid paying a portion of subscription fees to Missouri towns.
"Netflix is not a video service provider because it does not provide video service."

"This powerful argument comes from a memorandum submitted in Missouri federal court on Thursday by Netflix, which along with Hulu faces a lawsuit from the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri."


This pisses me off.
Cities decide they want some money so we are just going to take it from you.

"But according to Creve Coeur, which has a code of ordinance that requires a video service provider fork over five percent of its gross revenues, Missourians have shifted to subscription-based streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. And those companies aren't paying these fees, which states the lawsuit, "deprives Missouri municipalities of much-needed revenue."


Netflix will just raise subscription fees to cover the loss.

The whole lawsuit comes down to the courts interpretation of "video service"

Opinions?

www.hollywoodreporter.com...


I didn't mention it but if this works for these towns every town in the country will want a piece of the action. By by Netflix,

Can only say it's a site not server.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree 5% is ridiculous.
Especially considering they bare no cost to justify the charge.

Honestly it sounds like double jeopardy with taxes, nothing new with governments.

Companies that build the infrastructure to deliver the content pay their taxes and any fees associated with building permits ect.

And then the local government just wants to skim a bit more off the top after all that is said and done.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Netflix doesnt have advertisers. Its a subscription service.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Pretty much.
Private companies pay for the fiber optic lines and usually pay the cities rent to hang wires on the utility poles.

Now they want to charge a fee on what's going thru the lines.

When I was a kid, a town we lived in (1970s) had a TV tax. You had to pay it and have a sticker on any television you had in your home, the town had people that would come and knock on your door and demand access to your home to check to see if your televisions had the most recent stickers on them. My mother thought it was ridiculous and refused to pay and ordered the person off the property.

Decades later this thread made me remember that, and think not much has changed.

just stop all Netflix service in misery I mean Missouri.
Then see what happens the people will decide.

a reply to: Bluntone22

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm not sure where you are from, but, where I live the utilities own the poles. They charge each other rent to use the poles. The electric and phone companies pretty much even out, but, the cable company pays everybody. The City taxes the poles and charges the companies for the right to do business. That's the "Franchise Fee" that you see on your bills.

Netflix is NOT a video provider. It is a video rental service. You technically "rent" a show for the time that you are watching it.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Pretty much.
Private companies pay for the fiber optic lines and usually pay the cities rent to hang wires on the utility poles.

Now they want to charge a fee on what's going thru the lines.

It's getting relentless, if you think about it, half of the money we make just goes towards taxes.

We all pay federal income taxes, most pay State income, and some pay local income. Then there is social security which is mishandled and doesn't bring near the return it should. Medicare which is again mishandled and bloated. Then the fun part, most of us pay sales tax on most everything we buy.... And if it's worth enough, property taxes, every year.

I wouldn't mind so much if their wasn't proof all the time of blatant misuse/mishandling/mismanagement.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yes, the city owns the poles in my area.
Yes they charge rent to phone and telephone companies to use the poles.

Northern Indiana

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm in Western Pennsylvania. Who is responsible for repair and replacement?

a reply to: JIMC5499

The city's electric utility.

I hope Pirate bay and other p2p sites, and Kodi is paying attention.

Netflix just gave them ALL a get out of jail free card, and are owed the monies paid back for fines.

charging a tax on things like TV is insane. i always thought that the British were insane with the TV taxes they apparently have always had to pay, even when there was no cable but antenna service only. forcing a company that broadcasts over the internet is just insane in my opinion. if they want said tax, then it should be charged on ISP service, pretty much as if it were a cable service.

i rather agree with another poster. that if Missouri wins, then things like Netflix and hulu, (and should i assume youtube would also be affected? after all they are also showing videos), should just put a general block on ISP's in the affected areas and just not let anyone there watch any videos on the net. see how long it takes those affected areas to back down when most of their populace starts to protest (and i just bet people on welfare, who don't have jobs watch far more videos on the net than most other people, and without access to those videos, they will have plenty of free time to protest, possibly even riot over it), they will soon change their minds.

originally posted by: neo96
I hope Pirate bay and other p2p sites, and Kodi is paying attention.

Netflix just gave them ALL a get out of jail free card, and are owed the monies paid back for fines.

No they didn't. Netflix provides licensed content, they didn't.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Irrelevant.

They are a video service.

They get paid for said service. Unlike the others.

Which means they owe taxes.

Just like everyone else.