Florida TV tax fight taken to U.S. Supreme Court

bluegras · Oct 17, 2017

TALLAHASSEE — Pointing to “protectionism,” a major satellite-television company is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a constitutional challenge to a Florida law that sets different tax rates for cable and satellite TV services.

Dish Network in September filed a 39-page petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, nearly five months after the Florida Supreme Court sided with the state and the cable industry in upholding the law.

The long-running battle focuses on the state’s communications-services tax, which is 4.92 percent on the sale of cable services and 9.07 percent on the sale of satellite-TV services. Dish Network contends the different tax rates are a form of protectionism that violates the “dormant” Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars states from discriminating against interstate commerce.

Florida TV tax fight taken to U.S. Supreme Court

NYDutch · Oct 17, 2017

When we're heading to Florida for the winter in our RV, we leave our service address at our last stop in St Mary's, GA as long as possible just because of that excessive tax. St Mary's gets the Jacksonville, FL locals...

bobvick · Oct 17, 2017

Thats a ridiculous amount of tax, especially the disparity with cable.

AZ. · Oct 17, 2017

I have zero faith anymore with this ridiculous Supreme Court.....This is a toss up because its one giant company compared to another....If it was a little guy like you or me, we know we would lose hands down!

Corporations are people!......What a flippen joke!

The Fat Man · Oct 17, 2017

One would think that the tax should be reversed, as Satellite subscribers are not benefiting from the service coming in from the poles or underground. Basically, those who don't use the cable service are kicking in more for the upkeep of the infrastructure. Florida should be paying back the almost 5% tax that they have been robbing from Satellite subscribers. They're ripping off the customer, as cable is lining the politicians pockets.

Voyager6 · Oct 17, 2017

AZ. said:
I have zero faith anymore with this ridiculous Supreme Court.....This is a toss up because its one giant company compared to another....If it was a little guy like you or me, we know we would lose hands down!

Corporations are people!......What a flippen joke!

Without getting into a political discussion, that is not a new concept.

These are personal rights accorded to corporations. To many, the concept of corporations as people seems odd, to say the least. But it is not new.

The dictionary defines "corporation" as "a number of persons united in one body for a purpose." Corporate entities date back to medieval times, observes Columbia law professor John Coffee, an authority on corporate law. "You could think of the Catholic Church as probably the first entity that could buy and sell property in its own name," he says.

Also, here is some additional relevant information.

In addition, the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment provided an opportunity for corporations to seek further legal protection, says Moglen, also a Columbia University professor.

"From the moment the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for corporations — particularly railroad companies — wanted to use that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection to make sure that the states didn't unequally treat corporations," Moglen says.

ekilgus · Oct 17, 2017

While we're on the subject of unfair disparities between cable and satellite, cable is permitted to carry broadcast channels from more than one dma but satellite is prohibited from doing the same thing. This seems irrational as well as unreasonable.

comfortably_numb · Oct 18, 2017

ekilgus said:
While we're on the subject of unfair disparities between cable and satellite, cable is permitted to carry broadcast channels from more than one dma but satellite is prohibited from doing the same thing. This seems irrational as well as unreasonable.

Here, here!

NYDutch · Oct 18, 2017

ekilgus said:
While we're on the subject of unfair disparities between cable and satellite, cable is permitted to carry broadcast channels from more than one dma but satellite is prohibited from doing the same thing. This seems irrational as well as unreasonable.

I agree completely, even though I'm currently parked in a rare area that does get two markets via satellite.

Tampa8 · Oct 18, 2017

ekilgus said:
While we're on the subject of unfair disparities between cable and satellite, cable is permitted to carry broadcast channels from more than one dma but satellite is prohibited from doing the same thing. This seems irrational as well as unreasonable.

That happens mostly for Significantly viewed situations which Satellite can do too, DISH does in Tampa for instance. At one time it was also done because in the early days Cable was not able to block one area of the service area and not another or at least not easily. That was the case in Eastern Ct. Not all of the Cable company's service area were supposed to get some channels from Boston or RI but some is. All got it. I have not kept up but I assume Charter can now block where needed.

ekilgus · Oct 18, 2017

Tampa8 said:
That happens mostly for Significantly viewed situations which Satellite can do too, DISH does in Tampa for instance. At one time it was also done because in the early days Cable was not able to block one area of the service area and not another or at least not easily. That was the case in Eastern Ct. Not all of the Cable company's service area were supposed to get some channels from Boston or RI but some is. All got it. I have not kept up but I assume Charter can now block where needed.

In my area of western South Carolina the Augusta GA locals are forced upon us even though the Columbia SC channels spot beam covers this area. This is so because someone declared this area to be part of the Augusta DMA. I remedied this situation via antenna which allows me to receive both Columbia SC and Augusta GA locals, an arrangement that comes in handy during the NFL season in the form of more game choices.
I believe these DMA's were set up many years ago and technology has pretty much obsoleted them. But then there's always that money thing.

NYDutch · Oct 18, 2017

ekilgus said:
I believe these DMA's were set up many years ago and technology has pretty much obsoleted them. But then there's always that money thing.

The 210 DMA's (Designated Market Areas) are defined by Nielsen Media Research and do not overlap. DMA's are important because of the FCC-sanctioned idea of exclusivity, which says that if you own a TV station, you have the right to demand that no other station in your DMA show the same programming. The only reason Bennington and Windham counties in Vermont get dual market locals is a special law put through by US Senator Pat Leahy to allow them to get the in-state locals even though they're outside that DMA. Bennigton County, VT is in the Albany, NY DMA, and Windham County, VT is in the Boston, MA DMA, so they both get the Burlington, VT DMA as well.

navychop · Oct 18, 2017

Corporate whores. Surprised?

brejust · Oct 19, 2017

hmm 6 percent tax where i live. like 2.88 month in tax for my satalite dish bill
when i had cell phone bill with taxes via att it was almost 11 dollars and other bogus fees.
and with verizon almost 15 to 20 bucks a month in bogus fees just for regular internet and phone. crazy.
...........
i take my 2.88 a month in satalite tax versus what those other evil basterds charge. *hmm
my current internet provider i pay 74.95 per month tax and fees included for 50 meg down connection.
hmm and the other internet provider use to be verizon and they suck a$$

comfortably_numb · Oct 19, 2017

My Verizon Wireless service address is in Oregon. No cell phone tax in Oregon

Bobby · Oct 19, 2017

comfortably_numb said:
My Verizon wireless service address is in Oregon. No cell phone tax in Oregon

No sales tax at all in Oregon...

Claude Greiner · Oct 19, 2017

13.9% tax. I actually agree with Dish on this one

Claude Greiner · Oct 19, 2017

Got://www.Dishretailer.com/csr

Go to bottom for tax rate info

NYDutch · Oct 20, 2017

navychop said:
Corporate whores. Surprised?

The FCC implemented the exclusivity parts of the communications laws put in place by Congress, as they are required to do.

david_jr · Oct 20, 2017

NYDutch said:
The 210 DMA's (Designated Market Areas) are defined by Nielsen Media Research and do not overlap. DMA's are important because of the FCC-sanctioned idea of exclusivity, which says that if you own a TV station, you have the right to demand that no other station in your DMA show the same programming. The only reason Bennington and Windham counties in Vermont get dual market locals is a special law put through by US Senator Pat Leahy to allow them to get the in-state locals even though they're outside that DMA. Bennigton County, VT is in the Albany, NY DMA, and Windham County, VT is in the Boston, MA DMA, so they both get the Burlington, VT DMA as well.

So are you telling me that if I "move" 14 miles up the road to Pownal, I would keep my Albany locals and pick up Burlington and Boston? Seems like a no-brainer if true!!

Florida TV tax fight taken to U.S. Supreme Court

SatelliteGuys Pro

SatelliteGuys Master

Pub Member / Supporter

SatelliteGuys Master

aka. Dr. Fat Man

*Cancelled*

SatelliteGuys Pro

Dogs have owners, cats have staff

SatelliteGuys Master

Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so

SatelliteGuys Pro

SatelliteGuys Master

Member of the Month - July 2014!

SatelliteGuys Pro

Dogs have owners, cats have staff

Publican

SatelliteGuys Master

SatelliteGuys Master

SatelliteGuys Master

SatelliteGuys Pro

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Cancelled