The cable companies do, why shouldn't the satellite companies?The cost the state charges Dish to operate their Television service in. Unfortunately this one comes down from your elected officials, thinking the companies(Dish and DTV) would not charge it's customers the fees for this.
I've never looked at the cable fees(just know they are ridiculous unless triple play), what kinds of taxes do they get/charge as they operate locally and not nationally(even companies like Comcast has Comcast-town A, Comcast-town B). I'd imagine they would have different taxes since they already "give back to the local economy".The cable companies do, why shouldn't the satellite companies?
Well if anyone can charge because we CAN fees, it is surely the state and the federal governments.Talk about "because they can" fees!!
They were never supposed to be a tax. That is what they became essentially. Franchise fees are intended to pay for municipal right-of-way leasing, recovery of costs associated with regulating and maintaining the cable presence, and providing local content (Public, Educational, Government) access TV for the community it serves. They were also intended to pay for independent arbitration of disputes between local individuals and the cable company including billing disputes, and property disputes. It is supposed to be a fee for service. However, since all the franchise fees and cable agreements were made more than two generations ago, most people forgot their intended purpose and elected officials either see it as a revenue stream or in the case of state governments that do not directly benefit from the fees, an unnecessary relic thereby killing the last remnants of truly local TV slowly but surely.They pass along their franchise fees to the subs.... In any world, franchise fees are a tax...