SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.