Lawmaker logic astounds me. If they wanted to spur fiber laying in Oregon, why not (wait for it) incentivize fiber laying in Oregon. Nah, let's just introduce a wacky indirect property tax loophole.
> 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.
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...
The government could've pursued the alternative: build out municipal broadband, and allow anyone to provide you service (competitively) at the CO/meetup room. But that's "socialism!"
The problem is not government. The problem is apathetic, uneducated, uninvolved knee jerk voters. And voters get what that deserve for being so.
> Nobody in my building subscribes to FiOS because Verizon doesn't have a TV license here.
> for licensing reasons couldn't access Facebook, nobody would subscribe to it.
And that's a damn shame. Let them eat cake.
It's hard to care about the policy details of broadband providers. My internet from Time Warner is pretty cheap, it almost never breaks, and it's plenty fast enough for Netflix to work. Why should I care much beyond that?
"I have healthcare. Why do I care about those who don't?"
$15/mo gets you 3MBPS. $30/mo gets you 10. $35/mo gets you 50.
These two sentences seem to contradict each other.
They're incentivizing "offering a service", and it's better for that to come as a discount on existing revenue rather than free money.