Oregon will start charging service providers for undersea cables using its sea floor  millions accrued over years will go toward state schools 58%

By Bruno Ferreira85%

7/23/2026, 10:20:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Loss Aversion, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 707 faulty-reasoning hits from 428 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,211 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

After decades of charging only a one-time fee for undersea cables along its coast, Oregon's lawmakers have recently been discussing a missed opportunity for tax revenue. 
The state is set to charge cable operators a one-time fee for cable installations within three miles of its coastline, and will be funneling that money into its Common School Fund. 
The currently existing fee structure dates back to 2001 (25 years ago), and is simply a $5,000 application fee. 
The new pricing is still undergoing discussion, but the simplified version is $3 per linear foot of cable, plus $7 per each section of bore pipe  the protective structure that covers the portion closest to shore. 
Oregon's Department of State Lands (DSL) estimates that on a 20-year lease, this would bring in millions per undersea cable over that time span. 
The DSL did some rough math with Amazon's Bitfrost cable, and came up with a grand total of $1,450,380 for two decades, paid in one lump sum. 
It's worth noting that the aforementioned rates were revised from an earlier, more expensive proposal that would take bore cross-section into account (a calculation that was dismissed as too complicated and, presumably, too onerous). 
The state wants to continue attracting investment to its tech sector, which includes around 140 datacenters and 16 undersea cables of various types. 
Oregon also doesn't have sales tax, and its enterprise zoning incentives has made it an attractive location for players like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. 
The DSL calls the revised rate "competitive-to-low," reinforcing the notion that Oregon is trying to stay competitive with its southern neighbor, California, which charges an estimated $5 per cable foot on an annual basis. 
It's worth noting that spending a million or two over two decades is peanuts compared to the initial outlay required to put an undersea cable down in the first place, especially one coming from across the world. 
These reportedly ring in at around $250 million for a transatlantic connector  and a whopping $400 million to cross the Pacific. 
Although it's not set in stone, it seems that already-approved cables might be almost entirely exempt from the new fees. 
Some recent contracts, such as the one for Amazon Bifrost, did include a clause that said that any fees applied by new state laws must be paid for. 
However, the contract also included a specific $300,000 "out" for this clause  which Amazon paid at the time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Bruno Ferreira: 4.1%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 4.4%Bruno Ferreira: 3.2%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 14.3%Bruno Ferreira: 8.6%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Availability Heuristic14.3%This article: 8.6%Bruno Ferreira: 2.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 4.7%Bruno Ferreira: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.7%This article: 5.6%Bruno Ferreira: 4.6%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 13.3%Bruno Ferreira: 16.0%Tom's Hardware: 9.2%Framing Effect13.3%This article: 13.3%Bruno Ferreira: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Loss Aversion13.3%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.7%Bruno Ferreira: 2.6%Tom's Hardware: 6.0%Optimism Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 5.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Bruno Ferreira: 12.5%Tom's Hardware: 6.5%Negativity Bias11.4%This article: 8.6%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 3.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Bruno Ferreira: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 7.5%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.9%Bruno Ferreira: 3.1%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%False Dilemma7.9%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 3.8%Tom's Hardware: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 13.3%Tom's Hardware: 6.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 7.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.3%Bruno Ferreira: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.6%Anecdotal6.3%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.6%Bruno Ferreira: 2.7%Tom's Hardware: 3.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.6%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Bruno Ferreira: 5.4%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.4%Bruno Ferreira: 20.3%Tom's Hardware: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice5.4%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 2.4%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bruno Ferreira: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Bruno Ferreira: 1.4%Tom's Hardware: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

428 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker14%attributed speech370writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of State Lands • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of State Lands • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Department of State Lands: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Department of State Lands: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Department of State Lands: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.