5 ms·

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

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.

qaq 11y ago
It's very logical "someone" payed for this loophole to exist in exactly this form.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
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/oregon_created_a_tax_break_for.html http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2016/02/o...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > When tax laws are being written specifically for a company, our government has a problem. 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.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Voters just don't care as much about wired internet as people on where would like to believe. My parents contemplated getting rid of their FiOS internet and going back to cable because the latter has a better selection of indian channels. Nobody in my building subscribes to FiOS because Verizon doesn't have a TV license here. If you had a rock-solid 50 mbps LTE-A service here in the U.S. that for licensing reasons couldn't access Facebook, nobody would subscribe to it.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Voters just don't care as much about wired internet as people on where would like to believe. > 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.
      - harryh 11y ago
        Is it really a damn shame? I can only care about so many things. When it comes to local government I care about crime. I care about taxes. I care about overcrowding on the subway. I care about public schools. 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?
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > 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?"
        ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        Actually, a pretty large portion of our country (US), in fact, do not give a crud about healthcare beyond the notion that they, themselves, have it. People are incredibly selfish. Welcome to Earth. :)
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Just because America is so terribly broken doesn't mean it can't be fixed.
        harryh 11y ago
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    Consumers don't view it as "socialism". If they did, the measure wouldn't have succeeded in the very-right-wing bastion of northern Utah (UTOPIA fiber).
  - jdminhbg 11y ago
    > The problem is not government. The problem is apathetic, uneducated, uninvolved knee jerk voters. These two sentences seem to contradict each other.
trjordan 11y ago
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.
rayiner 11y ago
The link in the very first paragraph of the article explains what's going on: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/04/oregon-changes-tax-rules-to-lure-google-fiber 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.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
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.

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.

qaq 11y ago

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

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

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

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> When tax laws are being written specifically for a company, our government has a problem. 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.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Voters just don't care as much about wired internet as people on where would like to believe. My parents contemplated getting rid of their FiOS internet and going back to cable because the latter has a better selection of indian channels. Nobody in my building subscribes to FiOS because Verizon doesn't have a TV license here. If you had a rock-solid 50 mbps LTE-A service here in the U.S. that for licensing reasons couldn't access Facebook, nobody would subscribe to it.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Voters just don't care as much about wired internet as people on where would like to believe. > 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.
    - harryh 11y ago
      Is it really a damn shame? I can only care about so many things. When it comes to local government I care about crime. I care about taxes. I care about overcrowding on the subway. I care about public schools. 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?
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > 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?"
        ocdtrekkie 11y ago
        Actually, a pretty large portion of our country (US), in fact, do not give a crud about healthcare beyond the notion that they, themselves, have it. People are incredibly selfish. Welcome to Earth. :)
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Just because America is so terribly broken doesn't mean it can't be fixed.
        harryh 11y ago
- lotharbot 11y ago
  Consumers don't view it as "socialism". If they did, the measure wouldn't have succeeded in the very-right-wing bastion of northern Utah (UTOPIA fiber).
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  > The problem is not government. The problem is apathetic, uneducated, uninvolved knee jerk voters. These two sentences seem to contradict each other.

trjordan 11y ago

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.

rayiner 11y ago

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

jsprogrammer 11y ago

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.