5 ms·

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

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.

RealCasually 11y ago
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.
mikeash 11y ago
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."
- SilasX 11y ago
  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".
  - someone7x 11y ago
    Well put. The edge cases are endless, we need to take a holistic view sometimes.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    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.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      Fair enough, I agree with that.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  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.
- zf00002 11y ago
  geez, $300 for 2Gbps seems expensive to me. I can get 10Gb for $399 in Minneapolis.
newman314 11y ago
They should have at least tied it to usage numbers of said tier. 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.
envy2 11y ago
> grossly expensive 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.

RealCasually 11y ago

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.

mikeash 11y ago

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."

SilasX 11y ago
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".
- someone7x 11y ago
  Well put. The edge cases are endless, we need to take a holistic view sometimes.
- mikeash 11y ago
  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.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Fair enough, I agree with that.
st3v3r 11y ago
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.
zf00002 11y ago
geez, $300 for 2Gbps seems expensive to me. I can get 10Gb for $399 in Minneapolis.

newman314 11y ago

They should have at least tied it to usage numbers of said tier. 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.

envy2 11y ago

> grossly expensive 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.