Comcast gets big tax break that was designed for Google Fiber

That was a really interesting read, but I'm not familiar with a lot of the terminology so it was a bit hard to follow. Any chance you might be able to explain a bit more of what was happening there?

I get that they found a loophole that rewarded them for producing more of the less efficient energy, but I'm a bit unclear on what the actual rules were, the roles of the various players in this, and how the transactions were taking place.

It's very logical "someone" payed for this loophole to exist in exactly this form.

Another article on this actually mentions a bit more detail about the tax break, and the hilarity that ensued. They built the tax break specifically for Google, so Google would build there. Problem is... the law they wrote excluded Google.

So they had to go back and REWRITE the law, to ensure Google, the company they made the break for, qualified for it. And then they're getting upset another provider is trying to get the advantage they wrote for Google to use.

When tax laws are being written specifically for a company, our government has a problem.

Sauce: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2016/02/o...

Because then some construction company would lay fiber and not hook it up. Or hook it up, but put a 10/100 switch on the other end. Or hook it up, but throttle everything coming through it. Or ...

They're incentivizing "offering a service", and it's better for that to come as a discount on existing revenue rather than free money.

The link in the very first paragraph of the article explains what's going on: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/04/oregon-changes-tax-r....

> The bill, signed yesterday by Gov. Kate Brown, "exempts 'gigabit' Internet service like Google's from a thorny property tax that dates to the 1970s and was originally intended for microwave towers," The Oregonian reported. Until the change, there was "an unusual Oregon tax methodology that values companies based—in part—on 'intangible' assets such as the value of their brands.

> Oregon's first attempt to change the rule backfired, when Google told lawmakers that proposed legislation would only provide relief temporarily and that "after a certain time period tax rates would return to approximately double what they are in other states." Lawmakers said they would change the bill to address Google's concerns, and they did.

> Portland has approved a Google Fiber franchise "that exempts the company from some of the fees and service requirements Comcast faces" and "reworked transportation regulations to allow Google Fiber to put 200 utility cabinets along big city streets," The Oregonian article said.

The intention wasn't to create a general incentive for laying fiber in Oregon. The purpose was to get rid of a weird property tax quirk that was standing in the way of getting Google Fiber to Portland.

Occasionally, an industry insider may write a bill, email it to the legislator as a .doc, and then it gets voted on and becomes law.

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.

> 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.

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.

The only issue I can see with it is this part -

"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.'

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

I'd be more than happy to pay for this if it was available in the Bay Area! Instead I pay, what, 1/3 the cost for 1/40 the bandwidth?

It's to encourage Google to build their gigabit service in that area first, rather than elsewhere in the US.

>Wake up, People! The government is not here to fix your problems.

And private firms with monopoly power aren't either.

"For the life of me, and for this exact reason, I can't understand the net neutrality movement."

We don't want a company deciding what we can and cannot view on the internet.

"It's a bunch of people arguing that we have a problem and the most likely party to fix it is the government."

They're the only party with enough power to do so.

"But this article is an example of exactly what the government does when you give them power to control things. They write in loopholes, pork, or they just flat out do a half assed job of drafting legislation. And then we see the deluge of unintended consequences"

And Comcast is blameless in this? Are they not run by adults, who know exactly what they're doing, and can take responsibility for their actions?

"Wake up, People! The government is not here to fix your problems."

Actually, that's kinda their entire purpose for existing.