Why shouldn't all service providers benefit from the tax break? Is it ethical to give a tax break that unfairly gives one corporation a competitive advantage against another?
The idea is that service providers that provide gigabit internet benefit, as an incentive to build out gigabit internet. So Comcast offers gigabit internet (actually 2 gbps) at an outrageous price, just so they can qualify for the tax break. While the article says it's meant for Google Fiber, it is clearly for any provider who wants to start providing fast internet to people. This would all be fine if the tax break was for companies providing gigabit internet for under a certain price.
Would the law really be better if the government set a certain price? Sounds like a lot of hassle to determine what a "fair" price is and keep it updated over time. The price for gigabit will certainly go down over time.
> Why shouldn't all service providers benefit from the tax break? Is it ethical to give a tax break that unfairly gives one corporation a competitive advantage against another?
They should. As the law is written there's nothing wrong with what Comcast is doing. There's no shame in taking advantage of tax breaks, whether by a large heartless corporation, a different large heartless corporation, or a small time individual.
The answer to this isn't to rail on Comcast for taking advantage of tax breaks. It's to get lawmakers to fix the law by adding a price cap or equivalent on it so it has its intended purpose.
"But the rule change didn't specify that companies have to offer gigabit service at any particular price in order to qualify for the tax break"
The idea for the tax break was to bring affordable high speed to the state whereas Comcast is qualifying by offering anything but 'Comcast's 2Gbps service costs $300 per month, with $1,000 in startup fees.'
comcast doesn't always deploy gigabit even to people willing to pay the $300 / month (like me). Don't know anyone in houston who has been able to get it successfully. Does anyone actually have comcast gigabit anywhere ?
No. I tried to sign up in SoMa San Francisco (and the site says "San Francisco Bay Area") and was told it was unavailable. The reps were unable to tell me anywhere in SFBA that could get service, or where the backbone is so I can figure out where is within the stated range.
Not sure you read the article. Comcast as expected created a new tier of service to qualify that was grossly expensive. They abused the system and the intent to spur investment in infrastructure was sidestepped.
I have a hard time seeing this as "abuse." If the people who wrote this law were so completely stupid that they didn't even specify a price requirement, well, what did they think was going to happen?
What's more, $300 for 2Gbps is not bad at all. It's not super cheap like Google's offering, but it's about what Verizon charges for 500Mbps, for example.
I propose an alternate headline: "Oregon legislators attempt to spur investment, fail to think through legislation, accidentally grant tax break to incumbent."
Right, but you can't really anticipate all the ways that people might technically comply with a law while eviscerating the purpose of it. So let's say they specified a minimum price. And then Comcast "complies" by offering the cheap gigabit service, but in order for it to work more than just on Tuesday and Thursday, you have to pay a huge premium.
Okay, so you say it has to be available 24/7 to comply, but then even Google can't meet that so you add another requirement. Or maybe you have to anticipate legitimate cases of hyperinflation...
At some point you have to just step back and say, "stop being a dick, that's pretty clear not what the law meant and you're just abusing it".
You may not be able to anticipate all the ways people might abuse the law, but you could at least try.
It's not hard to realize that if you say that a company can qualify for a tax break by offering a service, and you don't say what sort of price that offer must have, that the company might "qualify" without really offering the service by offering it at a really high price. That doesn't require being psychic, that just requires sitting down and thinking like the "enemy" for five seconds.
I agree that at some point you have to step back and say "you're just abusing this," I just think that failing to specify price requirements is way, way, way before that point. And thus I can't agree with calling Comcast's behavior here "abuse." Especially when their price is actually not all that unreasonable.
At the same time, Comcast is also run by adults who are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their actions. They knew exactly what they were doing, so it's perfectly valid to also be angry at them for clearly abusing a loophole.
I was expecting to see a far higher figure. 2Gbps for $300 is certainly high, but not a joke in and of itself. What was the main intention of this law? If it was to spur higher bandwidth connections, it did so. If it was to lower costs, it seems obvious there should have been a cost factor to the law.
I'm not one to defend Comcast, but $300/month for 2Gbps fiber is NOT "grossly expensive." It's the exact same product (minus SLA) they sell business customers for thousands. I'm paying $210 a month for gigabit-that-isn't from a WISP, and would jump at the chance to pay Comcast instead.
The law should absolutely apply equally to everyone. However, given the purpose of the law, it should have been written along the lines of "offering gigabit Internet service for less than $100/month". Because gigabit Internet access has been possible for a long time, if you paid enough; the innovation is making it available to everyone.
It may not have been legal for them to set a price cap.
That said, I'm absolutely convinced that all laws must be written with the assumption that someone will try to abuse them, and after a law is written, a completely separate and independent group should "audit" it to find flaws/loopholes and fix them. Basically, treat it like security: never trust the user (i.e. the people and entities who must follow the law).
> Why shouldn't all service providers benefit from the tax break? Is it ethical to give a tax break that unfairly gives one corporation a competitive advantage against another?
Agreed, though I think this is a case of the headline being misleading. The issue is that the tax break is being provided to a company that's doing no actual investment in fiber or providing fiber at an affordable consumer price (which is what the tax break was intended to encourage).
In other words, the lawmakers didn't think this one through properly. That, or they knew exactly what they were doing, and Comcast lent a hand.
I agree with your sentiment, and as much as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the action taken thus far does seem correct.
I'd focus my gaze on the legislators who wrote a tax break with holes so large you could drive a metaphorical truck through; frankly this is an issue (badly written tax and other code that allows sophisticated parties take advantage of the system in a way that wasn't semantically intended even if it is literally permissible) FAR more broad than just this one instance, and underpins a lot of the discussion I've seen on here lately.
Since I'm not a resident of that state, I don't know their laws but in my state, we regularly give competitive advantage to one company over another.
Municipalities restrict which companies can offer cable TV service within their boundaries based on which company is willing to pay the most money for the privilege of doing business there.
In general, you're probably right. But this is Comcast. I can't seem to imagine getting worked up about them being excluded from something like this after all they've done to fuck consumers.
