El Reg reports
The US state of Oregon says it will charge Comcast tens of millions of dollars in taxes after revoking a tax break the cable giant had claimed on its broadband service.
The state's Department of Revenue (DOR) has denied a request by Comcast that it be granted an exemption reserved for companies that offer gigabit internet service in the state.
Written to lure Google's Fiber service to Portland after years of courtship, the tax break would give exemptions to reward the installation of high-speed fiber broadband.
Comcast [claimed] its "Gigabit Pro" service tops out at 2Gbit/s and thus made the cable giant eligible to claim the same breaks as Google.
The DOR, however, did not agree, and it ruled earlier this week that Comcast will have to pay the taxes.
[...] Critics of Comcast have previously argued that the Gigabit Pro service is prohibitively expensive (up to $4,600 a year) and only reaches a small number of Oregon residents.
[...] Both Google and Frontier also had their applications denied because neither has an active gigabit service in the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:40PM
In the summary, I should have included the title of the EL Reg page:
"Comcast slapped with eight-figure tax bill after package fails to impress"
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:51PM
Can't bribe the tax auditor with sex when you have a tiny dick?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:10PM
Score: -1 naive
Big companies don't pay big tax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:38PM
Expect Concast to raise their fees.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:02AM
The Register links to an article with related news:
[...] the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed Thursday that Comcast must pay a license fee on its cable modem service in Eugene, a fee the company has been fighting for years.
[...] Google Fiber has said previously that if it has to pay this unusual tax, known as "central assessment," it won't come to Oregon.
—http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2016/05/comcast_loses_key_oregon_tax_r.html [oregonlive.com]
A fee for every Internet line in Eugene, and Google staying away from Oregon, mean that everybody wins.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 29 2016, @04:38AM
Google Fiber doesn't permit servers. I just don't see the point of Google Fiber if you can't run servers. There's only so much pr0n that one can watch during one's entire life.
Comcast's business class cable really only has one restriction, that one not resell the service. It's somewhat expensive but the bandwidth is fixed - there are no download caps. I had it for a while and thought it just dandy.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday May 30 2016, @12:16AM
I'd like to have Comcast business class cable as out here their service is order of magnitude better than the local phone company. However, Comcast's business class internet and phone is twice the price than the phone company's business class DSL and phone service. The only real complaint I have with the phone company is shoddy dial tone service/noisy line when the ground is wet. However, 2 years of complaints seems to have fixed the phone company's cabinet issue.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 30 2016, @08:19PM
send them dead-tree snail mail, not a phone call, not email. Get all your neighbors to do the same.
I have a close friend who writes to the California PUC on a regular basis. She also gets lots of letters to the editor printed in the San Jose Mercury News.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:49PM
How many years has it been since the feds gave away billions of dollars to encourage that "last mile" development of broadband internet? And, what happened to all that money? I'll tell you what happened to that money - it was pissed away in the major markets, and all those "last miles" out in the boondocks were forgotten. Worse, a lot of people in densely populated areas seem to suggest that their service hasn't improved any.
It is at least a decade late in coming, but SOMEONE needs to hold the telcos accountable.
In 2016, there should be just about nowhere in the US where people can't get reliable cell phone coverage, AND "high speed" internet. By "high speed" I mean at least 10 MB service. My own provider is a joke. Recently, our internet offering has been increased to 4 Mb for $90/month. 4 freaking Mb - just barely adequate for a single user to stream movies. If two or more people want to watch movies at the same time, a second DSL line is necessary. That doesn't even account for the fact that distance from the server degrades service, so most people can't even stream movies adequately.
There are third world countries with better internet than we have in the United States. We need to hit the providers where it hurts - in their wallets.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Sunday May 29 2016, @02:21AM
" We need to hit the providers where it hurts"
yep.
I'm not well informed on this issue, but I applaud any slap-to-the-face of oligopoly or regulatory-captured business 'interests.'
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Sunday May 29 2016, @04:43AM
You mean they gave away money without timescale and measurable results... and they gave it away before the job was done? I'm somewhat reminded of the old adage about fool and his money...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 29 2016, @06:01AM
Yup. It should have been like, "We want you to provide high speed access to Americans who don't have high speed access. We will pay xx% of the costs, when you provide us with completed project documentation. We expect to see thousands of miles of trenching operations for fiber, and/or a few thousand new cell towers. Satellites don't count because latency. Get cracking - the sooner the tasks(s) are completed, the sooner you'll see some money!"
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday May 29 2016, @09:41AM
There are third world countries with better internet than we have in the United States. We need to hit the providers where it hurts - in their wallets.
Because the nation in question perhaps is a third world country in practical means for many people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @11:42PM
A lack of data caps should also be considered as well. What's the point of having a gigabit connection when all you can download is 100 gigabytes per month which has a maximum average of (100 gigabytes / (2,592,000 seconds per month)) = 0.03858 MB / second = 0.3086 Mb/sec. The data cap essentially negates much of the purpose of having high speed because your maximum average speed per second is the data cap divided by the number of seconds per month.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:51PM
Comcast will appeal, then sue, then drag this out for years and at worst end up paying pennies on the dollar of their tax bill while the state's tax payers get pay for it all, both in taxes and in higher rates from Comcast.
All the while the lawyers will be raking in the billable hours.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:50PM
An earlier Oregonian article [oregonlive.com] makes a case that the law creating the tax break was vague and that Comcast met the letter of it. It said that, prior to a ruling by the public utilities commission, staff there said that Comcast had met the requirements.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday May 29 2016, @01:32AM
the state already has legal representatives working for them full time, so it won't cost the state any additional money. if comcast raises their rates then perhaps you shouldn't pay for their service.
(Score: 4, Informative) by opinionated_science on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:58PM
Seriously, no company can be compelled to tell the truth. They offer the 2Gb/s here (TN). Big fanfare. Can you get it? No. I asked "so where is it installed?" "Err, we don't know. But sign up and we'll let you know!!!".
A very bad joke, and we need Google Fiber to put these non-competitive companies straight....
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:16PM
Love Big Google. Comcast is The Enemy. Your endorsement of commonly-held opinions is so brave.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:30PM
You're such a cute little troll!
The fact is, Google is actually installing fiber, in markets where Comcast and it's ilk see no reason to invest. I can fault Google for not pushing fiber out here in the sticks, where there is no market, but all the same, Google is doing SOMETHING to improve bandwidth in the nation.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:55PM
Are... you seriously suggesting that a notion could be wrong simply because many people appear to believe it?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday May 29 2016, @06:51PM
Well, it's wrong to "Love Big Google" just because it's "Big Google", but this doesn't mean you can't strongly approve of some of the things they do.
I don't know the economics of the ISP business, but they did steal a lot of federal money under false pretenses. And weren't charged. One may guess that they never intended to fulfill their obligations, but that can't be proven. One may guess that they used bribes to get the bill passed, but that hasn't been proven. One can know, however, that they didn't put forth reasonable efforts to extend the service.
So. Google has been rolling out fast internet in various markets. The problem here is that we don't know what happens if they get tired of providing service, but for not it's a bit advantage.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday May 29 2016, @02:44AM
States should offer a tax break to ISP's that will move into single service markets and ACTUALLY compete. In many markets it is not a matter of there being a restriction against 2 telco giants competing, they just won't because they don't think it is profitable enough.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:32AM
What would work better is if the local municipality owned the lines (and did a fibre roll-out), and the ISP compete to sell backbone bandwidth to end-users.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:47AM
Go one step further and the municipality owns the lines, with a fiber roll out to each home and then did a deal with a Tier1 level provider for internet access to every resident in the region via property or parcel tax, at cost of course. It could be sort of like a gentrification project and be used to attract home buyers and businesses. Of course the local bureaucracy and politicians would hose it up and the courts would rule in the corporations favor as a 'right' to profit thing, but I can pipe dream right?
I need to reload the vapor pen and get another cold beer, Have good Saturday night
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday May 29 2016, @09:53AM
There's no need for a special tax. The problem is usually high up front costs for digging mainly and secondarily cables and equipment. The municipality can front these costs and get them back at profit from those that sign up. The advantage is that the municipality can get lower interests on loans or even loan from itself.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday May 29 2016, @06:35PM
I'd like to see them do this as a 'not for profit' thing. Ideally they will recover their installation costs and ongoing maintenance but treat the service as it were a true utility. They could of course extend the service and charge more to commercial businesses that offered the service as an incentive to make more money, but treat private residences as a essential service like sewer, water and power.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday May 29 2016, @09:49AM
This is the case in at least some 1st world countries. Sometimes it's even the local neighbors joining forces instead of the municipality.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 29 2016, @04:23AM
someone just now told me I can get it for $20/month, or $15 if I buy my own DSL modem.
Yeah it's not as fast as Comcast, but then: it's not Comcast. When I'm downloading... uh... Open Source Installation ISOs, I always go to a certain Starbucks. When there's not too many cafe patrons there, I can get 5 MB/sec down.
Get This: when it's crowded, my torrents slow to a crawl.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:17AM
Just one tiny problem with DSL: need land line phone service. What does a land line cost? Another $20/month or so, isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 29 2016, @06:09AM
Depends on the area. Walnut Hill basic telephone service, $14.95. Extra fees apply for caller ID, and other services. There are NO long distance services provided in this package - long distance is a separate deal with a long distance carrier, such as AT&T - but you can choose any carrier you wish.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday May 29 2016, @10:51PM
I my jurisdiction I was able to get "dry copper" (no dial tone) for about $10/month. You still technically get a phone number. You just can't really use it.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 30 2016, @08:25PM
Y'all pay a tax so people like me can get phones for free.
If I didn't need to talk so much I could even get a cell phone for free.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @05:48PM
I live in a rural area.
There is, nominally, DSL. I had it for a while. It steadily got worse and worse until it would, without prior announcement, simply be offline for days at a time. Initially, when they installed the line, it was great, but they never maintained it.
I'm sure they got their tax breaks and incentives for providing a service, but I ended up going satellite because it doesn't depend on a landline being maintained.
I am thoroughly opposed to any subsidies that do not also stipulate a percentage of market penetration coupled with an SLA, independently audited, over a given timeframe. All figures to be publically available.