Starting Sept. 1, Chicago residents will be paying 9% more for everything from Netflix to income tax filing as city officials impose a recently reinterpreted entertainment/use tax on almost every online subscription content provider, even those peddling adult entertainment.

The Chicago Tribune reports the city’s Finance Department has vastly broadened the reach of Chicago’s amusement and personal property lease transaction taxes to apply the 9% tax to virtually any content that a customer borrows, leases, or subscribes to that is not purchased outright. Buying a CD on Amazon.com would not be subject to the tax but a Spotify subscription allowing you to listen to that same CD as long as your subscription is maintained will be taxed. Buying a digital copy of a movie will not be taxed, but watching it through a subscription service like Apple TV, Amazon, or Netflix will be.

Although some are dubbing it the “Netflix Tax,” it will also apply to cloud storage, paid television programming — including satellite, cable, telephone, and online-delivered content, financial and investment services, and almost anything else accessed online with a paid subscription. Even paying to host a website (or having someone manage it for you) will be subject to the tax.

The expanded tax is part of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s strategy to deal with Chicago’s huge budget shortfall with fees, fines, and broadening taxes. The city predicts the expanded tax will capture up to $12 million a year from Chicago residents and businesses.

“In an environment in which technologies and emerging industries evolve quickly, the City periodically issues rulings that clarify the application of existing laws to these technologies and industries,” mayoral spokeswoman Elizabeth Langsdorf said in a statement issued Wednesday. “These two rulings are consistent with the City’s current tax laws and are not an expansion of the laws. These ensure that city taxation is uniformly and fairly applied and that businesses are given clear guidance on the applicability of the City’s tax laws to their operations, and they clarify that the amusement tax and personal property lease tax apply to digital services.”

Chicago residents have paid the amusement tax on movie tickets, local concerts and sports events since at least 1998. The city collects 5% on live theatrical, musical, and other live cultural performances held in an auditorium, theater, or other space whose maximum capacity (including balconies) is more than 750 persons. A 9% tax applies on all other events, but no tax is collected on religious, charitable, and not-for-profit organizations holding events for fund-raising purposes as long as they limit them to two events per year.

A Netflix spokeswoman confirmed that the company will pass the additional cost to subscribers but said no other details were available.

Critics of the tax contend it will be very easy to avoid through the use of payment services like PayPal, which allow customers to specify an out-of-state address — any out-of-state address, valid or not — in the payment details box, allowing residents to avoid the tax. Others are adding the addresses of out-of-state relatives to their credit cards and will use those addresses when placing orders for online content.

“Since they are not mailing you anything, it doesn’t really matter what address you use, as long as it is outside of the city of Chicago,” one anonymous commenter noted.

Wynne

That is exactly what Michael Wynne, a partner and attorney in the Chicago office of the law firm Reed Smith, predicted would happen, noting Chicago is already replete with high taxes and fees and adding more of them would encourage tax dodging. He assumed businesses will also actively avoid the tax, either by moving their offices out of the Chicago city limits or more likely renting a post office box in the suburbs and using it as a billing address.

“Let’s say I sign up for streaming business data in the city but I have offices throughout the country,” Wynne told the newspaper. “I will definitely make sure my billing goes through a different office.”

Wynne believes many Chicago residents may not understand the 9% tax will apply to a lot more than just Netflix. He called the expansion staggering in its breadth in his analysis, excerpted below.

The Unamusing Amusement Tax: It Could Apply to Almost Anything

The Amusement Tax ruling will extend the tax to streaming services for music, movies, games, and the like, as well as satellite TV delivered to a customer located in Chicago. However, the ruling does not impose the Amusement Tax on the same content when it is permanently downloaded by a consumer. The Lease Transaction Tax ruling extends the tax to the online procurement of real estate listings, car prices, stock prices, economic statistics, and “similar information or data that has been compiled, entered and stored on the provider’s computer.” In addition, under the ruling, the Lease Transaction Tax will apply to the online procurement of “word processing, calculations, data processing, tax preparation” and “other applications available to a customer through access to a provider’s computer and its software.” In the ruling, the Department expressly notes that these “examples are sometimes referred to as cloud computing, cloud services, hosted environment, software as a service, platform as a service, or infrastructure as a service.”

The Amusement Tax is imposed on patrons of every amusement within the city. “Amusement” is broadly defined, and it includes “any entertainment or recreational activity offered for public participation or on a membership or other basis,” and “any paid television programming, whether transmitted by wire, cable, fiber optics, laser, microwave, radio, satellite or similar means.”

The Amusement Tax ruling specifically taxes charges paid for the privilege of the following amusements delivered to a patron in the city: (1) “watching electronically delivered television shows, movies, or videos”; (2) “listening to electronically delivered music”; and (3) “participating in games, on-line or otherwise.” As a consequence, streaming a movie, listening to streaming music, or playing a game on a smartphone or tablet will now trigger a 9% tax on the subscription charge for those services if those activities are done at a location in Chicago. Furthermore, the ruling addresses “bundled” transactions, by providing that “unless it is clearly proven that at least 50% of the price” is not for the amusement, the entire charge, except for any separately stated non-amusement charges, is subject to the Amusement Tax. That suggests great care must be paid to invoicing services when including any item that might be construed to be an amusement. The ruling does not differentiate between news, current events, sports, movies, music or other types of television programming. As a consequence, an establishment that charges patrons for access to television programming of any sort, plus other goods and services (e.g., a bar that imposes an admission charge for a pay-per-view event that includes food and beverages) may have to navigate the bundling rules.

The Computer Lease Tax Ruling = 9% on Everything You Borrow, Subscribe, Rent, Lease, or Pay-Per-View Online

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced H.R. 235: the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which passed in the House of Representatives on June 9th and is heading to the Senate.

The ruling provides examples of when the tax applies, such as when performing legal research or similar on-line database searches, to obtain consumer credit reports, or “real estate listings and prices, car prices, stock prices, economic statistics, weather statistics, job listings, resumes, company profiles, consumer profiles, marketing data, and similar information or data that has been compiled, entered and stored on the provider’s computer.” In the ruling, the Department specifically identifies taxable leases of personal property to include “cloud computing, cloud services, hosted environment, software as a service, platform as a service, or infrastructure as a service.” This is quite an expansion for a concept evolved from taxing agreements for time-sharing on mainframe computers, and that has only been judicially tested once, involving legal research in the city on terminals provided by the legal search provider, in days that preceded the creation of the World Wide Web, and the expansion of fiber-optic networks that made possible the Internet networks relied on to deliver many of the services the ruling now targets. See, Meites v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. App. 3d 887 (1989). The rulings represent a further evolution of the city’s approach under the Lease Transaction Tax to disregard contract terms and recharacterize transactions to fit its tax code definitions; it is doubtful that any consumer or provider of subscription Internet streaming services thinks they are contracting to lease tangible personal property.

Wynne says Chicago officials have expanded the scope of its tax ordinances to their absolute limit, if not further. He also fears Chicago could give other cities and states ideas for new taxes.

“If any state or local governments were wondering how to tax transactions occurring in the Cloud when legislative authority for such taxation is absent, the Department has just sketched a roadmap,” he wrote.

Wynne believes the time to stop these kinds of taxes is now, before they have a chance to spread, or worse, start being collected.

He writes there are strong arguments that Chicago’s creative reinterpretation of its 9% tax is illegal, running afoul of the Federal Telecommunications Act, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and federal and Illinois constitutional limits on taxation. But while the rulings are likely to be challenged in court, Chicago officials still expect providers to start handing over the 9% tax proceeds beginning this fall. Those that don’t will run into Chicago’s tax penalty buzzsaw – 12% interest on delinquent taxes, a 25% penalty, and a lengthy bureaucratic process (bring your attorney) dealing with the city’s administrative hearings office.

Customers paying $7.99 a month for what used to be called Hulu Plus will be able to add Showtime to their Hulu subscription for an extra $8.99 a month — two dollars less than what Showtime will charge Apple TV and other online video customers.

Showtime Networks’ online streaming service will launch in early July for $10.99 a month, $4 less than HBO Now, which charges $14.99. But Hulu customers will get an extra 18 percent discount if they bundle Showtime with Hulu’s premium option.

Hulu customers who subscribe to Showtime will have access to every Showtime original series ever produced along with Showtime’s full catalog of the same movies, documentaries, specials and sports programming available to cable television customers. Hulu will also carry the east and west coast feeds of Showtime’s primary channel for those who want to watch live events.

The partnership is designed to strengthen Hulu’s competitive position against Netflix and Amazon’s video services.

Showtime CEO Matt Blank doubts Showtime’s online streaming service will cannibalize its existing subscriber base, although most satellite and cable providers charge at least $5 more per month for the premium movie channel ($13.99-16.99 through most cable/telco/satellite providers).

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Showtime CEO Broadband-Only Customers Are an Opportunity 6-4-15.flv[/flv]

Showtime CEO Matt Blank explains to Bloomberg News why selling Showtime online for $10.99 a month ($8.99 for premium Hulu customers) will not hurt existing distributors like cable and satellite providers. (4:22)

Cablevision has conceded online video is now increasingly challenging its cable television package, so instead of trying to put a lid on “over the top” video, the Long Island, N.Y.-based cable company is embracing it with a deal to offer the streaming service Hulu to its customers.

“There is a new generation of consumers who access video through the Internet, and whatever their preference, Cablevision will facilitate a great content experience,” said Kristin Dolan, chief operating officer of Cablevision, in a statement.

The deal covers the service’s entire catalog of on-demand television shows and movies and will be available to Cablevision broadband customers online and possibly through set-top boxes for traditional cable television customers.

The arrangement is unlikely to prove compelling to current broadband customers who can enroll in Hulu free of charge and Hulu + for $7.99/mo, without Cablevision’s help. But if the cable operator bundles the service into existing packages at no extra charge or offers the advertiser-supported pay service at a discount, it may provide a useful option for customers considering cutting Cablevision’s cord.

Hulu has not proved as popular with online video fans as Netflix, perhaps because it forces viewers to sit through a very heavy ad load, even with its premium service. Even with the announcement this week Hulu acquired the streaming video rights to all 180 episodes of Seinfeld, a show that aired its last original episode in 1998, Hulu is unlikely enough to seal a deal with subscribers.

Cablevision may also be interested in Hulu to bolster its new broadband-only “cord-cutting” packages (shown below), which Cablevision hopes will help it save a customer’s business if they are ready to drop cable television. Hulu is often a “must-have” by cord-cutters who enjoy first-run network shows.

CEO Jim Dolan even admitted there may come a day when Cablevision exits the cable TV business completely and relies entirely on selling broadband service.

Verizon Wireless: The Neiman Marcus of mobile providers

A customer retention call with Verizon Wireless is short and to the point: enjoy the coverage you get from us now at the prices we charge or cancel and live with inferior cell phone service from one of our competitors.

Verizon chief financial officer Fran Shammo waved goodbye to 138,000 Verizon Wireless customers in the last three months and he could care less.

“If the customer who is just price-sensitive and does not care about the quality of the network—or is sufficient with just paying a lower price—that’s probably the customer we’re not going to be able to keep,” he said in the company’s quarterly earnings call today.

The wireless industry’s price war has not yet inflicted much damage on Verizon, which considers itself above the fray.

Average revenue per customer has started to significantly decline for the first time in wireless industry history, despite efforts to bolster earnings with expensive data plans and bundling services, including unlimited voice calling most cell phone users no longer care about. Both T-Mobile and Sprint are resorting to slashing prices and reducing the fine print to pick up business, with T-Mobile being the more successful of the two pulling it off. But the combined market share of Sprint and T-Mobile remains a fraction of what AT&T and Verizon Wireless have captured.

Verizon believes it has a premium product and expects to be paid for it. Like a Neiman Marcus of the wireless industry, customers can expect a superior level of service, if they can afford to pay for it.

To keep customers dazzled, this summer Verizon Wireless is planning a new wireless video service featuring content from the NFL and likely more. Verizon hopes customers without unlimited data plans will be willing to pay several dollars extra for the new streaming service. But perhaps not too many extra dollars. Verizon executives have discovered a loophole in the FCC’s new Net Neutrality regulations allowing video content to be sponsored by Verizon or its advertising partners and exempt from usage allowances or caps.

Known as “zero-rating,” the practice is much more common overseas, where content providers pay for customer’s usage of their applications. Critics call the practice an end run around Net Neutrality. The FCC has continued to avoid the issue of broadband usage caps and usage-based billing, which ISPs have interpreted to mean a green light on the practice. In fact, some earlier comments from the FCC suggest the agency believes subsidized Internet traffic might be beneficial to consumers. Verizon pockets the money in either case.

Tim Berners-Lee, who created of the World Wide Web, called zero-rating “positive discrimination,” giving too much power to Internet providers.

“Zero-rated mobile traffic is blunt anti-competitive price discrimination designed to favor telcos’ own or their partners’ apps while placing competing apps at a disadvantage,” added Antonios Drossos, managing partner of Rewheel. “A zero-rated app is an offer consumers can’t refuse.”

Verizon Wireless has not yet priced its forthcoming video offering, but it could be marketed as a monthly add-on feature or as a pay-per-view option.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Verizon Bids Good Riddance to Customers Leaving for a Cheaper Deal 4-21-15.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg reporters talk about Verizon’s disinterest in competing with other carriers in the ongoing price war, and is fine with letting price-sensitive customers leave. It won’t be cutting prices anytime soon. (2:01)

Staff attorneys that have reviewed details of the Time Warner Cable/Comcast merger proposal are prepared to make a recommendation as early as next week that the Department of Justice should block the deal because it is anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

The staff in the Justice Department’s antitrust division have spent more than a year reviewing documents submitted by both cable companies to determine what impact the merger would have on the cable television and broadband landscape.

Bloomberg News today reported the attorneys did not like what they saw and believe the merger would harm consumers. For the first time, a cable company merger deal was reviewed not so much for its impact on cable television programming, but on broadband.

When the Federal Communications Commission redefined broadband as an Internet connection of at least 25Mbps, Comcast suddenly found itself the largest broadband provider in the country. If the merger with Time Warner Cable is approved, Comcast will have a 56.8 percent market share of U.S. broadband customers, far exceeding any other provider.

In upstate New York, Comcast would have more than a 75% market share — nearly 9o% if you just consider non-Verizon FiOS areas. In California, Comcast would control more than 80% of the market, not only picking up Time Warner Cable customers, but Charter customers in Southern California as well. 

Comcast and Time Warner Cable have argued competition is not affected because the two companies never compete with each other. But a de facto broadband monopoly could allow Comcast to raise rates at will and bring a return to usage-related billing. It would also discourage new competitors from entering the market – particularly those relying on broadband to deliver video services, and hand Comcast more leverage to force compensation from online content companies like Netflix.

Under consideration by the Justice Department:

• Whether the combined entity would have too much control over nationwide broadband Internet delivery;
• whether Comcast could use its financial influence to strike exclusive cable deals that could keep programming off other platforms;
• whether Comcast could limit how programming is delivered through video streaming services (usage caps, etc.);
• if Comcast complied with terms under a previous merger deal with NBCUniversal.

Renata Hesse, a deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust, will take the analysis and ultimately decide, along with the division’s top officials, whether to file a federal lawsuit to block the deal. Bloomberg reports lawyers at the Justice Department have contacted outside parties to collect evidence to strengthen their potential case against the merger.

Another clear sign the merger is not being received well inside the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission is a complete lack of negotiations with Comcast over possible concessions to make the deal less anti-competitive. That also happened with the AT&T/T-Mobile merger where negotiations to ease anticompetitive concerns never seriously got off the ground before the Justice Department sued to block the deal. The FCC quickly announced its own opposition later that same day.

A lawsuit does not necessarily kill the merger deal. Comcast could take its case to federal court to win approval over the objections of the Justice Department. The company might also counter-propose new concessions to address concerns raised by the lawsuit. 

After learning of today’s Bloomberg News story, spokespeople at both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are either confident or in denial:

“There is no basis for a lawsuit to block the transaction,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, a Comcast spokeswoman. The merger “will result in significant consumer benefits — faster broadband speeds, access to a superior video experience, and more competition in business services resulting in billions of dollars of cost savings.”

Time Warner Cable spokesman Bobby Amirshahi said “we have been working productively with both DOJ and FCC and believe that there is no basis for DOJ to block the deal.”