Illinois House Bill 5440

[goaliebob99]

You all are behind the times... This is going to pass without any lobby from the satellite industry! WOW Charlie must not care anymore! Effectively this puts a 5 percent satellite tax "franchise fee" on your satellite bill in Illinois. Effective immediately once signed into law.

Happy New Years and Cheers!

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=65709&SessionID=84

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Creates the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service Providers Fee Act. Imposes a fee on the act or privilege of providing direct broadcast satellite service to a subscriber or customer in this State at the rate of 5% of the provider's gross revenue. Provides that the proceeds from the fee shall be deposited into the Education Assistance Fund. Provides that the Act is operative on July 1, 2012, and applies to the provision of direct broadcast satellite service on or after that date. Effective immediately.

 

[costanzas_wallet]

Basically, it's the same tax that traditional cable-co's pay but Satellite services have been exempt from since Satellite providers do not use the cities infrastructure to deliver their service.

 

[riffjim4069]

Basically, it's the same tax that traditional cable-co's pay but Satellite services have been exempt from since Satellite providers do not use the cities infrastructure to deliver their service.

My feeling is that satellite (DBS) should not have to pay these illegal taxes since, as you mentioned, they do not use public infrustructures to deliver services and they lease their spectrum from the FCC. Conversely, I do feel that subscription satellite providers should have to pay franchises fees and taxes on VOD and PPV services. If AT&T U-Verse (IPTV) has to pay them then so should satellite...for only for packets being delivered that use public rights of way. Additionally, I want to see freeloaders (services) like Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu, etc. start paying their fair share of sucking up massive gobs of bandwidth.

 

[bcbarlow7737]

"...Additionally, I want to see freeloaders (services) like Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu, etc. start paying their fair share of sucking up massive gobs of bandwidth.

Those providers do pay their fair share. They have to pay for the bandwidth that their huge server farms are using to provide us with those services. If they pay more in taxes and fees they'll just pass that along to the end users. This bill hurts consumers and helps big government.

 

[sparc]

Illinois is in a major budget crisis. They've pushed through a number of different tax increases in the last few years which have been controversial. Just add this one to the long list...

 

[riffjim4069]

Those providers do pay their fair share. They have to pay for the bandwidth that their huge server farms are using to provide us with those services. If they pay more in taxes and fees they'll just pass that along to the end users. This bill hurts consumers and helps big government.

...but they are not paying local franchises fees and taxes which, IMO, they should be paying like all other subscription video services. Just this past quarter 400,000 homes severed ties with cable/satellite in favor of alternative subscription video services like Netflix and Hulu. It's only a matter of time before these subscription services/customers start paying their fair share to ride public and private networks. Comcast, Cox and Time-Warner pay these fees and taxes, and Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse pay these taxes...so Netflix, Blockbuster and Hulu customer should also pay them ~or~ level-the-playing field and stop requiring cable/telco customers to pay them. We all know the latter ain't gonna happen, and as more and more household terminate thier cable service the local governments will create other means and methods to fill their coffers.

I'm all for fewer taxes and smaller government...except, it's not fair that Netflix and the like are getting a free ride; tax 'em all equally or tax none equally. Anyway, as more people cut their ties with cable, you can bet your sweet bippy that state and local governments are going to pursue this issue with vigor. Additionally, as much as I hate this idea, it's only a matter of time before various government entities try to tax people on their Internet usage.

The way in which video service is being deliever to customers is changing...and how these services will be taxed in the future is going to change to keep up with the times.

Scenario: I watch episodes of NCIS and Criminal Minds, and rent four PPV movies through Comcast. I wind up paying cable franchase fees and taxes for these video services. Meanwhile, you terminate your Comcast account and signup with a new Streaming (IPTV) startup called Netflunks. You watch the same episodes of NCIS and Criminal Minds and download/view the same four PPV movies...and you pay nothing, nodda, nil, zip in cable franchise or taxes.

Q&A:

Q: Is it fair that I pay taxes while you don't for watching the exact same subscription based video services?
A: No, it is not...and there is no other interpretation.

Q: Do you feel the state/local govenments are going to stand by at watch thier taxes base is eroded?
A: No, cable fees are now going to be called video fees and viola !

Q: What about network abusers Top 5% of customers sucking up more than 50% of the bandwidth.
A: It will be assumed they are encrypting a great deal of video via SSL/VPN. I'm all for these bandwidth abusers being taxed at a much higher rate than 95% of normal users.

 

[Hall]

Check which senator or rep sponsored this bill then cross-check how much they rec'd in donations from the cable companies (or cableco lobbyists).

 

[The Fat Man]

I can label several ways that the state and local governments can generate revenue, but I would be starting a political firestorm. So instead I'll jump to the bottom line and say that when I put a satellite dish on my roof and use it to receive a TV signal, without using and town property cables to receive the signal, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes to receive this signal. It is fair. My dish is blown down, then I pay to get it repaired. The town or state doesn't send someone to fix it. So why should I be helping out the town or state in this means? Then again, I also live in a state that believes that I shouldn't have to pay taxes to buy what I want. This is just another example of over spending. If you don't have the funds then you need to stop spending so much. Not bend over your constituents for more to fund your broken check ledger.

 

[Claude Greiner]

Those providers do pay their fair share. They have to pay for the bandwidth that their huge server farms are using to provide us with those services. If they pay more in taxes and fees they'll just pass that along to the end users. This bill hurts consumers and helps big government.

Actually the problem is that they also use up alot of bandwith also on the receiving end. I read somewhere that netflix uses 30% of all the traffic on the internet.

Where this comes into play is that the bandwith used by netflix costs your internet service provider money, which means higher rates and bandwith caps like we are now seeing on cellular data plans.

 

[Yespage]

I'm all for fewer taxes and smaller government...except, it's not fair that Netflix and the like are getting a free ride; tax 'em all equally or tax none equally. Anyway, as more people cut their ties with cable, you can bet your sweet bippy that state and local governments are going to pursue this issue with vigor. Additionally, as much as I hate this idea, it's only a matter of time before various government entities try to tax people on their Internet usage.

We are already taxed based on the internet package used. Besides, can they even monitor usage these days? AT&T threatened it at one point, but don't seem to be doing it. Additionally, there is the issue of interstate commerce. Internet companies transactions aren't taxed unless in a home state. The Federal Government would need to create a tax to cover the interstate sales. This would cover the likes of Amazon and Netflix.

Scenario: I watch episodes of NCIS and Criminal Minds, and rent four PPV movies through Comcast. I wind up paying cable franchase fees and taxes for these video services. Meanwhile, you terminate your Comcast account and signup with a new Streaming (IPTV) startup called Netflunks. You watch the same episodes of NCIS and Criminal Minds and download/view the same four PPV movies...and you pay nothing, nodda, nil, zip in cable franchise or taxes.

Q&A:

Q: Is it fair that I pay taxes while you don't for watching the exact same subscription based video services?
A: No, it is not...and there is no other interpretation.

Not when public infrastructure goes unaffected by the method of transmission. Poles, underground cables, trenches in roads affect public infrastructure. Sat TV does not. There is no reason why there should be a tax to cover those sorts of expenses. It'd be like charging a cyclist for miles on a road equal with a tractor trailer. If one wants to create an entertainment television tax, so be it, but that applies to all comers.

Q: Do you feel the state/local govenments are going to stand by at watch thier taxes base is eroded?
A: No, cable fees are now going to be called video fees and viola !

Oddly, state governments have been cutting taxes all by themselves, to the point of needless austerity. Local governments have been raising taxes to pay for stuff that the Fed and State cut funding for.

Q: What about network abusers Top 5% of customers sucking up more than 50% of the bandwidth.
A: It will be assumed they are encrypting a great deal of video via SSL/VPN. I'm all for these bandwidth abusers being taxed at a much higher rate than 95% of normal users.

Odd, how cable companies are for selling their uber speeds, yet at the same time are outraged at piracy... which is the only reason for getting 50 Mbps connections.

 

[Mochuf]

Actually the problem is that they also use up alot of bandwith also on the receiving end. I read somewhere that netflix uses 30% of all the traffic on the internet.

Where this comes into play is that the bandwith used by netflix costs your internet service provider money, which means higher rates and bandwith caps like we are now seeing on cellular data plans.

Bandwith caps are there to "convince" people not to substitute traditional tv delivery with internet entertainment. If there was really a crunch, you wouldn't have seen Comcast, the originator of caps, raising caps recently. All while providing higher speeds with minimal price increases for internet service (at least minimal compared to nearly every other types of services).

 

[John Kotches]

Odd, how cable companies are for selling their uber speeds, yet at the same time are outraged at piracy... which is the only reason for getting 50 Mbps connections.

Nevermind the rest of your post, this is asinine.

We have more and more devices using bandwidth at home that weren't around even 5 years ago. More and more functions are served by internet connections rather than local storage.

Many people telecommute and with the bandwidth intensive business environment, higher sped connections are necessary to handle the workload.

Pirates will pirate, regardless of their bandwidth available.




Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[satjay]

I am a bit surprised the posting did not discuss Full time RSN's

 

[whitewolf8214]

I am a bit surprised the posting did not discuss Full time RSN's

So am I but they will be soon

 

[Yespage]

Nevermind the rest of your post, this is asinine.

We have more and more devices using bandwidth at home that weren't around even 5 years ago. More and more functions are served by internet connections rather than local storage.

Many people telecommute and with the bandwidth intensive business environment, higher sped connections are necessary to handle the workload.

Pirates will pirate, regardless of their bandwidth available.

Almost all households don't need more than 10 Mbps, and that includes two or three simultaneous streams.

Pirates would find it tedious to download blu-ray files on a 3 Mbps connection.

 

[John Kotches]

Almost all households don't need more than 10 Mbps, and that includes two or three simultaneous streams.

Then thank god you aren't in charge of allocating bandwidth. Check some actual required bandwidths on streamed connections sometime.

10 mbits is not enough when streaming HD on a single stream from available legitimate sources.

Pirates would find it tedious to download blu-ray files on a 3 Mbps connection.

Pirates will pirate regardless of bandwidth. They figure out ways around these limits. So this is a red herring.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[Yespage]

Then thank god you aren't in charge of allocating bandwidth.

Yes, let us thank god.

Check some actual required bandwidths on streamed connections sometime.

10 mbits is not enough when streaming HD on a single stream from available legitimate sources.

Yes it is. According to Vudo, 5 Mbps will get you 1080p. So, 10 Mbps would be 2 streams... at least in theory.

Pirates will pirate regardless of bandwidth. They figure out ways around these limits. So this is a red herring.

You are mistaking hackers for pirates.

 

[mike123abc]

Illinois is in a major budget crisis. They've pushed through a number of different tax increases in the last few years which have been controversial. Just add this one to the long list...

They do not really need any legitimate reason to tax something. If they think they can get away with it, they will do it. It does not have to be fair.

 

[John Kotches]

Yes, let us thank god.
Yes it is. According to Vudo, 5 Mbps will get you 1080p. So, 10 Mbps would be 2 streams... at least in theory.

Theory is theory, seldom does theory equal practice.

But just to play along, great 2 1080p streams from Vudu and you've now nailed down all 10 of your 10 mbits.

Now one of the kids needs to do something for a school project, and complains that the internet is extremely slow. It works, but there's so little of the 10 mbit left that other is impractically slow.

10 mbits doesn't cut it without pirating being part of the equation when you start adding streaming in. That you don't have the foresight to see this isn't my problem.

You are mistaking hackers for pirates.

I'm not confused on this. People that pirate will pirate. Going slower for the pirates that are out there is another variation on punishing the masses for the crimes of the few.






Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[mike123abc]

Theory is theory, seldom does theory equal practice.

But just to play along, great 2 1080p streams from Vudu and you've now nailed down all 10 of your 10 mbits.

Now one of the kids needs to do something for a school project, and complains that the internet is extremely slow. It works, but there's so little of the 10 mbit left that other is impractically slow.

10 mbits doesn't cut it without pirating being part of the equation when you start adding streaming in. That you don't have the foresight to see this isn't my problem.

I have to agree 1 stream is about it for 10mbit. 2 streams really needs around 15 mbit.