I’ve been covering in this blog how cord-cutting has been accelerating, especially this year, and cities are seeing a huge drop in cable franchise fees. These fees are generally levied against the fees charged for traditional cable TV service and are ostensibly to compensate the cities for using the public rights-of-way to deliver TV service.
These fees are a significant source of tax revenues for many communities, and that’s not hard to understand when you realize that the fees range from 3% to 6% that’s added to the cost of every traditional cable TV bill. Most big cable companies say that average cable bills are trending towards $100 per month.
Cities have gotten spoiled by these fees because for the last decade the amount of franchise fees collected has skyrocketed. For over a decade cable companies raised cable rates by 9% or more per year, and those rate increases automatically meant franchise tax revenue increases for cities. While franchise fees might have been relatively small when first imposed, the tax revenues have gotten gigantic as the average cable TV bill approaches $100 per month just for cable.
In a recent blog, I talked about how homes are doing more than just cord-cutting. A survey by Roku showed 25% of TV subscribers are now cord-shavers who have trimmed the size of their cable bill by downgrading packages or dropping extras like movie channels. Cord-shaving also trims franchise tax collection and franchise revenues at cities have to be in a free fall.
Taxes that are imposed unevenly usually eventually are challenged. The cable industry has complained about franchise fees for years, but never seriously tried to eliminate the fees. However, big cable companies are recently yelling foul about competing with online video services that don’t have to collect the franchise fees.
The franchise fees have always been hard to justify from a fairness perspective. If a telephone company or a fiber provider uses the same rights-of-way but doesn’t carry cable TV, then their customers are not charged this same expensive tax. Cities could have more fairly charged a franchise fee on some other basis, such as per mile of cable installed in their cities. But cities latched onto a cable tax at a time when cable TV was a growing industry.
These Indiana cities are treading into dangerous legal waters because if the courts decide that Netflix doesn’t have to charge the franchise fee, that might provide a legal basis for the cable companies to claim that they also shouldn’t pay.
It would be a disturbing ruling if the online video companies end up having to pay a franchise fee. If Netflix has to pay to use the rights-of-way to reach homes, then why wouldn’t this apply to every other online subscription like newspapers, sports boards, etc. There is nothing particularly different about Netflix’s video signals compared to the numerous other sources of video on the web. Bits from online video data areidentical to every other bit of data delivered across ISP networks. From a functional perspective, if the cities win this lawsuit, they will be imposing a tax on some, but not all bits passed between an ISP and a customer. That’s a line that I hope we don’t cross.
It’s not hard to understand why cities are unhappy about a drop in cable franchise tax revenues. But any tax that is specific to a given technology is going to change over time. Traditional cable TV as we’ve known it is fading away and could even completely disappear over the next decade. A tax on cable might seem as strange in a decade as a tax in the pass on the proverbial buggy whips.