51�Թ�

Messages seeking comment on the decision were left Wednesday for the companies and for attorneys representing Maple Heights.

Attorneys for Maple Heights argued that nothing in the 2007 law requires a video service provider to own or physically access wireline facilities in public rights-of-way to be subject to video service provider fees.

Officials with Maple Heights in suburban Cleveland contended that streaming services are subject to the fee because their content is delivered via the internet over cables and wires.

Without that equipment, streaming services “could not deliver their video programming to their subscribers,” Justin Hawal, an attorney representing Maple Heights, said in a December court filing.

Justices seemed skeptical of Maple Heights’ arguments, in particular questioning whether the argument was even one for the court to decide.