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.'
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."
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".
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.
This is monumentally stupid as they not only have no firm commitment from Google, furthermore they are losing money now because of the tax break.
<tinhat> One almost wonders if this was what Comcast wanted in the first place via lobbying. If so, that's quite some submarining.
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.
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).
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'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.
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.