![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
That was the question before the Ohio Supreme Court during a Wednesday hearing, as the court debates whether streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu<\/a> are covered by a state law that would require them to pay to play.
The argument is similar to one in several other states, where cities are trying to force streaming service companies to pay cable operator fees.
At issue in Ohio is the state's 2007 Video Service Authorization law, which directed the state Commerce Department<\/a> to determine what entities must obtain permission to physically install cables and wires in a public right-of-way. Companies deemed video service providers must pay a fee to local governments under that law.
Officials with Maple Heights in suburban Cleveland contend that streaming services are subject to the fee because their content is delivered via the internet over cables and wires.
In Tennessee, the state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next month brought by Knoxville against Netflix and Hulu. A similar case brought by the city of Creve Coeur is pending in Missouri. In 2020, four Indiana cities sued Netflix, Disney, Hulu, DirectTV and Dish Network<\/a> to require them to pay the same franchise fees to local governments that cable companies must pay.
In related lawsuits brought in Arkansas, California, Nevada and Texas, Netflix and Hulu won their arguments last year that they can't be treated the same as video providers.
Streaming companies argue their distribution method is different from traditional video providers. They also say in the Ohio case, it's up to the Commerce Department to label them a video service provider, a process they say can't be done through a lawsuit.
The state is siding with the streaming companies, contending that Ohio's law only covers companies building infrastructure to carry cables.
\"This is about those who dig, they must pay,\" Mathura Sridharan, the Ohio deputy solicitor general, told justices on the state Supreme Court during oral arguments Wednesday. \"If they don't dig, then they don't pay.\"
A court decision isn't expected for months.
Attorneys for Maple Heights argue that nothing in the 2007 law requires a video service provider to own or physically access wireline facilities in public rights-of-way to be subject to video service provider fees.
Without that equipment, streaming services \"could not deliver their video programming to their subscribers,\" Justin Hawal, an attorney representing Maple Heights, said in a December court filing.
The \"modest 5% video service fee\" is not burdensome but instead represents a small return on billions of dollars in benefits that the streaming services receive nationwide from network infrastructure, Hawal said.
Justices seemed skeptical of Maple Heights' arguments, in particular questioning whether the argument was even one for the court to decide.
\"Shouldn't you be up at the Statehouse a block and a half away instead of at a courthouse trying to get the law changed?\" Justice Pat Fisher asked Hawal Wednesday.
Hawal said Maple Heights is trying to apply existing law to a new technology.
Attorneys for Netflix say the company doesn't have physical wires and cables and doesn't need them under its internet streaming business model.
Unlike broadcast TV stations, \"users can watch content anywhere, anytime, and in any amount, so long as they have an internet connection,\" Amanda Martinsek, an attorney representing Netflix, said in a November filing.
Netflix argues a growing number of courts nationally have reached the conclusion that companies like Netflix and Hulu don't owe provider fees because they're not video service providers.
<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":90833189,"title":"Lots of broadband money, but US expansion finds speed bumps","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/lots-of-broadband-money-but-us-expansion-finds-speed-bumps\/90833189","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":90833225,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Cities ask Netflix, Hulu, stream services to pay cable fees","synopsis":"At issue in Ohio is the state's 2007 Video Service Authorization law, which directed the state Commerce Department to determine what entities must obtain permission to physically install cables and wires in a public right-of-way. Companies deemed video service providers must pay a fee to local governments under that law.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/cities-ask-netflix-hulu-stream-services-to-pay-cable-fees","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":137,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":626000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"AP","artdate":"2022-04-14 07:52:32","lastupd":"2022-04-14 07:54:35","breadcrumbTags":["Netflix","commerce department","Hulu","video streaming","video streaming services","MVAS\/Apps","netflix, disney, hulu, directtv and dish network"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/cities-ask-netflix-hulu-stream-services-to-pay-cable-fees"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2022-04-14" data-index="article_1">
- Telecom乐动扑克News
- 3分钟阅读
城市问Netflix, Hulu,流服务支付有线电视费
问题在俄亥俄州州2007视频服务授权法律,指导国家商务部确定的实体必须获得许可上安装电缆和电线在公共通行权。公司认为视频服务提供商必须支付费用给当地政府的法律规定。
读到
这个问题是在俄亥俄州最高法院在周三的听证会之前,法庭辩论是否如Netflix和流媒体服务Hulu受国家法律,要求他们去玩。
参数类似于一个在其他几个州,地方城市正试图迫使流媒体服务公司支付有线电视运营商费用。
问题在俄亥俄州州2007视频服务授权法律,这指示状态商务部确定实体必须获得许可上安装电缆和电线在公共通行权。公司认为视频服务提供商必须支付费用给当地政府的法律规定。
枫山庄在克利夫兰郊区的官员认为,流媒体服务受到交付的费用,因为其内容通过互联网在电缆和电线。
在田纳西州,州最高法院定于下月听到参数带来的诺克斯维尔对Netflix和Hulu。类似的案件的Creve心还有待在密苏里州。2020年,印第安纳州四个城市起诉Netflix,迪斯尼,Hulu, DirectTV和菜网络要求他们支付相同的地方政府特许经营费用,有线电视公司必须支付。
相关诉讼在阿肯色州,加利福尼亚,内华达和德克萨斯州,Netflix和Hulu去年赢得了他们的论点一样,他们不能把视频提供者。
流公司认为他们的分布方法不同于传统视频提供者。他们还说在俄亥俄州的情况下,由美国商务部将他们列为视频服务提供商,他们说一个过程不能通过诉讼。
国家支持流媒体公司,声称俄亥俄州的法律仅覆盖公司基础设施建设进行电缆。
“这是对那些挖,他们必须支付,“马图拉曾经,俄亥俄州副检察长,告诉法官周三在州最高法院口头辩论。“如果他们不挖,那么他们不付钱。”
法院的判决没有预期好几个月了。
枫叶山庄的律师认为,2007年的法律中没有要求视频服务提供者的公共权利之内或物理访问有线设施受到视频服务提供商费用。
没有设备,流媒体服务”不能提供他们的视频编程用户,”贾斯汀Hawal,律师代表枫叶山庄,在12月法庭文件中说。
“5%视频服务费”不是负担,而是代表一个小数十亿美元的收益回报,流媒体服务接收来自网络基础设施的全国,Hawal说。
法官似乎怀疑枫叶山庄的参数,尤其是质疑这个论点甚至一个由法院来决定。
“你不应该在州议会的一块半了,而不是在一个法院试图让法律改变吗?”Justice Pat Fisher asked Hawal Wednesday.
Hawal说枫山庄是试图运用现有的法律,一项新技术。
Netflix的律师表示,该公司没有物理电线和电缆,不需要他们在其互联网流媒体的商业模式。
不像广播电视台,“随时随地用户可以看到的内容,在任何数量,只要他们有一个网络连接,“阿曼达Martinsek,律师代表Netflix,说11月申请。
Netflix认为全国越来越多的法院得出结论,像Netflix和Hulu这样的公司不欠供应商的费用,因为他们不是视频服务提供商。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动