Massachusetts Lawmakers Eye a 'Netflix Tax' To Fund Community TV Channels (bostonglobe.com) 103
A proposed state tax in Massachusetts on streaming video services could increase prices for popular platforms like Netflix and Hulu, as the 5 percent fee would support approximately 200 community access cable channels struggling due to declining cable subscriptions. The Boston Globe reports: In July, the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology held hearings on legislation filed by Democratic State Representative Joan Meschino and Republican Representative Mathew J. Muratore, both of Plymouth. Their bill would require streaming video companies to pay a 5 percent fee on the gross revenues generated in the state. The estimated $65 million a year raised by the fee would support roughly 200 community access channels, the most in any state. The community channels are run by nonprofit organizations or town governments, and funded by cable TV companies, which are assessed a fee by local governments for the right to run their cables through city property. The cable companies pass the cost on to subscribers.
But subscriptions are plummeting as US consumers abandon pay TV for streaming services. Cable and satellite subscribers now number about 70 million, down more than 25 percent from 95.5 million a decade ago, according to Leichtman Research Group, a New Hampshire research and analysis company specializing in media, entertainment, and broadband industries. "The next three to five years it's really going to dry up even more so," said Muratore. Meschino said citizens can't afford to lose access to community media channels, because so many local newspapers have shut down. "There's literally no other way to consume that sort of hyperlocal programming," Meschino said.
About a dozen US states levy sales taxes on consumers' streaming video bills. But Meschino said that sales tax money goes into each state's general fund. Instead, she wants the streaming fee to be dedicated entirely to support for community media services, just like the fee paid by traditional cable TV companies. Some or all of the fees would likely be passed on to consumers. Gauthier estimates that a typical household's costs could rise about $2.40 a month, spread among several streaming networks. "Maybe it'll be 75 cents for your Amazon," he said. "Maybe it'll be 80 cents for your Disney."
But subscriptions are plummeting as US consumers abandon pay TV for streaming services. Cable and satellite subscribers now number about 70 million, down more than 25 percent from 95.5 million a decade ago, according to Leichtman Research Group, a New Hampshire research and analysis company specializing in media, entertainment, and broadband industries. "The next three to five years it's really going to dry up even more so," said Muratore. Meschino said citizens can't afford to lose access to community media channels, because so many local newspapers have shut down. "There's literally no other way to consume that sort of hyperlocal programming," Meschino said.
About a dozen US states levy sales taxes on consumers' streaming video bills. But Meschino said that sales tax money goes into each state's general fund. Instead, she wants the streaming fee to be dedicated entirely to support for community media services, just like the fee paid by traditional cable TV companies. Some or all of the fees would likely be passed on to consumers. Gauthier estimates that a typical household's costs could rise about $2.40 a month, spread among several streaming networks. "Maybe it'll be 75 cents for your Amazon," he said. "Maybe it'll be 80 cents for your Disney."
Get offa my lawn! (Score:3, Funny)
And then tax them newfangled radios to support telegraph lines. What would we do if the telegraph system failed?!
Re: Get offa my lawn! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest we tax TV channels to fund community radio shows.
And then tax them newfangled radios to support telegraph lines. What would we do if the telegraph system failed?!
While I agree that propping up old technology is a bad idea (you don't want to stop the march of progress), there is value in propping up local services so that they aren't lost in our mad rush towards globalization.
Whether it's weather, crime reports, gardening advice, or simply updates about business openings and closures, having local services available that provide local information is valuable and worth protecting. The fact that it makes use of old technology is incidental and unavoidable for the time
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Then have them move off of cable and create their own YouTube channels - why is that so hard?
As someone who, during the pandemic, led our nonprofit’s efforts to (thankfully temporarily) transition from in-person to online, including helping a large contingent of technically illiterate people in our target demographic navigate YouTube for the first time in their lives, I can assure you from personal experience, the problem is far harder than you think.
Many of them lacked an Internet connection by choice. They had lived their whole lives without it, so we had to explain ISPs and other basic Int
Re: (Score:2)
Open letter to all Massachusetts legislators ...
There is this thing called YouTube. Yes! your constituents can post local news, local weather, and local PSAs on YouTube for free!
Tax It Till It's Dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then await the next victim.
Re: Tax It Till It's Dead. (Score:1, Troll)
If it moves, tax it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
If it's ubiquitous, ban it.
If it doesn't exist, mandate it.
-The Democrat Platform
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Tax It Till It's Dead. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are worse times and places than 1950s America. Some of those times are right now and some of those places aren't that hard to find on a map.
I'll take 50s America over my childhood in in 80s Soviet Union, to name one example. It'd've been a step up along many dimensions.
Pretending it was some kind of irredeemable shithole, as seems to have been in vogue among the left since...the 1950s, I guess...is ahistorical.
I'd rather be alive now, of course, but back then wouldn't have been bad either.
Re: (Score:1)
the joke is the 1950's top marginal rate was 91% (over 400k which is about $4.5m today)
but hey, bring up socialism i guess? nobody said anything about anywhere being a shithole but i guess you were thinking it?
reboot your response script, its busted
Re: (Score:2)
All they can afford? TFS calls these "community access cable channels".
I'm not familiar with Massachusetts, but most places cable TV costs a lot more than Internet plus Netflix.
But who's going to watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cord cutters being taxed to fund channels they can never see because they cut the cord?
As fewer and fewer people watch linear TV at all, the desire for these "community" cable channels - never very high to begin with - will dwindle, dwindle, dwindle.
Sometimes, an idea whose time has come must also face the fact that it's time has "went."
Re:But who's going to watch? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about Massachusets but in my part of the country all the public access, school broadcasts, city council, county stuff, etc is streamed on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For sure but the idea that "cord cutters cannot access these channels" usually is not true, they can just watch via youtube, which is actually way better for them since they can time-delay watching these things.
God knows I've watched more city council meetings on YT then i ever watched on actual public access
Re: (Score:2)
Bro, memery aside Youtube is still at over a 75% marketshare for online video.
There is no comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube has a lot of that stuff anyway, but it is hard to find as they operate at a national rather than local level. Community TV relies on commercial broadcast partners to send the OTA signal out anyway, so the only real difference is the level of discoverability.
Re:But who's going to watch? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cord cutters being taxed to fund channels they can never see because they cut the cord?
As fewer and fewer people watch linear TV at all, the desire for these "community" cable channels - never very high to begin with - will dwindle, dwindle, dwindle.
Sometimes, an idea whose time has come must also face the fact that it's time has "went."
I'm sorry, you must be unacquainted with the concept of "government".
If the government thinks that local TV is good for you, then you WILL have local TV, citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Cord cutters being taxed to fund channels they can never see because they cut the cord?
As fewer and fewer people watch linear TV at all, the desire for these "community" cable channels - never very high to begin with - will dwindle, dwindle, dwindle.
Sometimes, an idea whose time has come must also face the fact that it's time has "went."
I agree with the idea that "cord cutters" shouldn't be punished, but I do tend to agree with the idea of public broadcasting (I'm not from the US). Public broadcasters tend to take more risks on original content than the traditional players, now that Netflix is becoming that risk adverse (they never really weren't, they just got to the good books before HBO) that's the only place where you might see shows that will never be on broadcast or pay TV because the audience was deemed to be too small to attract ad
Re: (Score:2)
Cord cutters being taxed to fund channels they can never see
They need to add a compulsory requirement that each streaming service carry a specified amount of local programming hours per week and Display that programming prominently when users within their area login to access the service.
Re: (Score:2)
In the old days when I had cable, the local community and municipal channels were often of interest.
What I don't get is taxing people who don't use cable to support stuff that is only on cable? Just tax the cable users -- let them pay for what they are getting. Which is damn little.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken and Egg Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
youtube, the place these community access "channels" should go, or some other streaming service. "public access" cables is no longer needed since everyone has access to stream their shit content to a much larger audience to boot.
Re: (Score:3)
This ought to drastically reduce their costs, since those stations won't need transmitters etc anymore, And after receiving their revenue from Youtube Ads and possibly viewer contributions, they ought to be profitable without having to collect taxes -- just like any other Youtuber or commercial network.. If they can't profit because people aren't watching or needing local media, then they've outlived their utility.
Re: (Score:1)
Youtube isnt the solution for community access channels.
How can I get on this teat (Score:1, Interesting)
Stuff like this makes me wonder if I could just film random nonsense to be shown on "public cable" and get a steady flow of delicious free Netflix money.
Re: (Score:2)
UHF - Weird Al
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
yeah, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
why don't those failing public access channels broadcast on youtube? they'd reach an even greater number of disinterested non-viewers.
but this idiotic prog nonsense of "you can't opt out of, mommy's still going to pick your pocket" is great.
Re: (Score:2)
"why don't those failing public access channels broadcast on youtube?"
Why do you think that public access channels aren't streaming?
Re: (Score:2)
then why does the gov't feel the need to steal from their constituents to prop up the on-air broadcast?
Re: (Score:1)
1. Youtube isnt a broadcast medium, the internet cant broadcast.
2. Youtube is not properly regulated, in fact they self regulate!
3. they'd reach an even greater number of disinterested non-viewers. Less I think you'll find.
Community TV channels - On YouTube! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems wrong to ask money for tv you'll never see (Score:5, Insightful)
About 20 years ago.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
Most community access programs were built by cable companies as compensation for the monopoly they ended up with when they got their franchises in citys and towns. I don't know which city/town was the first to negotiate the idea, but the companies were quick to expand it. It was a great deal for them and they knew it.
"Hey, we'll give you a couple of local channels and equipment to fill them, just give us the right to monopolize street poles for the next gazillion years!"
Of course, we are the ones really pa
Benefits of Local TV Stations (Score:2)
I live in Massachusetts, so this impacts me directly. Most towns around here have three channels: Government, Education, and Public. Of course, they're SD. But of course, the put up almost all the content on YouTube or Vimeo, so the channels and bad resolution don't matter. What matters is that you can see all the major public meetings, many of the various high school sports games, school concerts, and lots of various things going on in the community. Want to vote in a town election? Watch the debates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting yet funny how a local access TV service is considerd old fashioned and obsolete yet the solution suggested using an even more old fashioned and even longer obsolete idea in the form of "The Library".
I'm actually genuinely surprised that libraries seem to be clinging on somehow. I see in the US some kind of different culture surrounding them, here in the UK most libraries are closed most of the time, only open for a couple of hours on a saturday etc. Some no longer exist, instead having been re
Re: (Score:2)
It just sounds like taxing people to pay for nothing. So, maybe the solution has nothing to do with the State's tax policy. Maybe municipalities should tax citizens directly to pay for the A/V equipment and people to run it, and just throw it up on the internet.
Of course, the reason these politicians want to tax Hulu instead of the citizens directly is because they figure people won't want to pay for it u
Re: (Score:2)
"why waste money on broadcasting via cable to no-one"
The money isn't to distribute on cable, it's to produce the material in the first place. Do you really think the cable companies were paying a fee merely to be given the same exact amount back to provide distribution?
Re: (Score:1)
In the UK we dont have the mass of streaming everyone in the US seems to have.
We have Netflix, NowTV, Disney+, Amazon Prime and Britbox (which nobody I know has ever bothered with).
All the other streaming options are actually streaming versions/VOD services of the broadcast channels. You can watch the live TV via the service plus use the VOD features to catch up or stream. In fact newish TV's will offer to stream a live programme from the start should you come in a bit late.
ALL the TV channels get funded
I guess I am kinda ok with this with exceptions (Score:2)
That this is excluded from non-US customers, I mean, we should not be funding US community legacy content providers, Why not have those community led stations gather revenue via traditional methods like most radio stations do through commercial advertising? or even Government grants?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there are many people streaming from in Massachusetts yet outside the US . . .
Another Reason... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I've been re-evaluating streaming too. I avoid audio streaming in general, it doesnt work how I like it to work, they always find additional ways to extract more money out of you etc. But mostly, they pay the artist practically nothing! Artists getting millions of plays yet a fraction of the amount of money they would get with even less radio plays and CD/vinyl sales. Thats why so many like to put out CD's still, and Vinyl. They get a HUGE profit that eclipses the royalties (they call them "residuals",
Charge for access (Score:4, Insightful)
Just charge people who watch the "community channels" for doing so. Then you'll find out exactly how much the public values them.
Outdated thinking? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As we dont have a concept of community free internet access where everyone has a free amount of bandwidth there is nothing outdated about it.
ISP's should be forced to level up and provide free bandwidth for this purpose before anyone can say there is an alternative.
Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you already pay state sales tax on your Netflix|Hulu|Amazon Prime subcriptions ?
They can take it out of that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't you already pay state sales tax on your Netflix|Hulu|Amazon Prime subcriptions ?
They can take it out of that.
You think these companies pay "tax"? Thats cute, you think they're like you.
Personally conflicted about this (Score:2)
Many years ago I was the chief engineer of a pair of cable access channels in a mid to large market city. The good was that a lot of local people were able to express themselves and show their creativity. We also had great informational shows including some produced by and addressing the LGBT community and marginalized groups We had groups that worked with inner city children and they got to make their own shows.
The negative side, IMHO, came from groups that were there to promote divisive agendas.
Almost
Re: (Score:1)
> There are so many places to show your material now that you don't need dedicated channels.
Thats the problem. Every few months someone invents a new place added to the pot, nobody knows where to go looking for this stuff. At least with the dedicated channles you knew *exactly* where everyting was. It was on the box. Just switch it on.
Here in the UK there is nothing like these "community" stations. You do find the odd small radio station set up in a college or a hospital from time to time but thats i
We need to fill this gap (Score:4, Funny)
Community cable needs to be supported until an alternative arises. One day it'll be possible to broadcast Internet video via numerous video sharing services, some of which will allow broadcasters to share in ad revenue. There may even be ways of allowing viewers to subscribe to financially support such things. This'd allow anybody interested to watch and financially support this content.
Until then taxing everybody, regardless of their interest in community cable is the only way to go.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: We need to fill this gap (Score:2)
Not a bad idea. It certainly works with reports in the corporate world.
Re: (Score:1)
You may have no care about anything that happens outside your front door, like many people you probably have no clue about anything going on in your state unless its national news or forced into your eyes and ears by the very people you meet who actually know whats going on around town because, get this, they watch that shit.
But of course, turning it off and looking to see if anyone notices is your tounge in cheek idea. Well, how would you determine that result then? Wait, you turned off the medium needed
Re: (Score:2)
>Community cable needs to be supported until an alternative arises.
I can get a quart of paint for about $20, and a brush for another couple of bucks.
I could then put it either on the nearest patch of wall, or the television that only gets community access.
And of I slap it on thick, my friends and eye can bet on which drip gets to the bottom fastest!
ok, next problem?
Are they proposing a TV license to fund PBS? (Score:1)
Havin a tax to fund a private corporation that has a dying business model seems to me weird, in the self prolaimed land of the free.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are they proposing a TV license to fund PBS?"
No. This is about community access channels, not PBS. Which is why the article says "community access channels", not "PBS".
Re: (Score:1)
I dont know about mainland Europe but we have no concept of community access TV in the UK.
Simply doesnt exist.
Re: (Score:2)
As a fellow European, just plain no. Entertainment is not a social necessity. It's an optional market. If YOU want it, YOU pay for it. I'm not subsidising your entertainment.
If you think that's unfiar then how about you start giving me £ 10 a week towards my visits to my local pub ?
Same principle.
Re: (Score:1)
> Entertainment
Who said we were talking about entertainment?
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. I'm in the UK and we have just this.
The BBC license fee mostly funds the BBC, all of it. The channels, the radio, the local radio, the website, the digital TV services, the streaming services. It's just a little less than subscribing to Netflix and Amazon Prime, neither of which show any BBC shows. You cant watch any Dr Who for example on anything other than the BBC, although Britbox (streaming service) may have older shows. The license fee also helps fund the other national broadcasters, althou
Have they heard of YouTube? (Score:2)
“There's literally no other way to consume that sort of hyperlocal programming”
Local broadcasters can move to YouTube. Probably less revenue, but also in some ways fewer costs. On the off chance someone really wants to consume that content, they can do so. Get over it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Youtube is not community access. It is a private commercial system.
It appears as such and can be used as such but it still isnt at it's core. Whether that causes an issue is for a debate, but how many community access channels need the viewers to agree to a license agreement and run proprietary software?
What do you do if you disagree with youtubes license agreement? What do you to when youtube eventually requires you to make an account and sign in? What do you do when Elon buys it and asks $8 a month fo
Charity... (Score:2)
.... with extra steps and a little totaliniarism thrown in for flavor
You failed. Just go out with a little dignity. If you produced something of value you would have sufficient consumers. You did not. They left. Deal with it.
True capitalism - the american way! (Score:1)
Similar to the UK License Fee in its effect (Score:2)
Similar to the UK License Fee. This is a tax on the ownership and use of a TV set, currently about 160 Sterling a year. The proceeds are paid to the BBC as a public service broadcaster.
Same effect. In this case they tax the most common used streaming services and use the proceeds to fund a community broadcast service. In the UK case they tax having and using a TV, so watching any programs broadcast live, and pass the proceeds to the BBC.
The same basic idea: there are some services people want, so you
Re: (Score:2)
The licence fee is an utter disgrace. It's *EXACTLY* like saying you have to pay for 4 tins of Heinz beans every time you go shopping. Even if you only ever eat Branston beans once or twice a year. It's like some sort of antiquated window tax and needs to go.
As far as I'm concerned the BBC should be forced to move to a subscripton model like Sky. If you want it, you pay full market price for it. Their "news" is a pathetic, uninformed and uninformative agenda pushing joke, their "original" programs are
Theres's hope! (Score:2)
> It's like some sort of antiquated window tax and needs to go.
cheer up!
It only took until 2006 to repeal the telecom tax imposed in the US to pay for the Spanish-American war.
OK, so the war had been over for more than a century, but . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Its not a tax.
People call it that, but a tax is non-optional. Well some are I suppose, you dont pay road tax if you dont drive a car.
The TV license is a fee paid to watch LIVE TV only. That includes LIVE uk football on Amazon Prime. Non-live and you dont pay.
Like if I drive a car I must pay road tax, yet nobody moans about that in the same way as the TV license fee. If I dont wnat to pay road tax, I dont drive a car, specifically I dont have a car on the ROAD. I can own as many cars as I like, and drive
Re: (Score:1)
> The licence fee is an utter disgrace. It's *EXACTLY* like saying you have to pay for 4 tins of Heinz beans every time you go shopping
No it isnt.
Its less than a Netflix + Amazon Prime subscription, with way more content, way move. Streamed and live. Amazon Prime do some live coverage of some football matches but if you want to see all of them, you have to have a live TV too.
As the license fee ONLY applies to LIVE TV and certain sreaming services that SHOW LIVE TV, it is essentially optional. If you do
Re: (Score:1)
> In the UK case they tax having and using a TV,
No they dont.
You can have and use as many TV's as you like and not pay the license fee. The licens fee is only needed to watch LIVE tv and access BBC services like iplayer. It funds everything from BBC channels to radio (dont need the license to listen) to iplayer to the website. It pays all the salaries, all the costs all the actors all the writers. It also funds some of the cost of maintaining the freeview/freesat/radio network and other national broad
Glaringly obvious flaw - there's no point. (Score:2)
At some point the only people have cable will be the community access broadcasters, being paid millions in tax dollars to watch each other.
Re: (Score:2)
"..and you need to carry these channels"
Why doe these *specific* services need to carry them? The bars for *distribution* in the streaming era is much lower than for cable, which required a dedicated physical plant. The production, on the other hand, still needs funding, which is what this proposal seeks to address.
Hell no (Score:2)
Absolutely not. If people actually wanted/needed these "community channels" they'd be popular and funded.
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody watches public channels (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody you know does...
How many do you know?
A: 20 people.
B: 100 people.
C: 1500 people.
I bet it probably is less than A, those you actually KNOW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Summer of Love / Mostly Peaceful Protests $2.2B in property damage.
https://fee.org/articles/georg... [fee.org]
Re: (Score:2)