For the past year the city of Seattle has been hyping "gigabit seattle" as the solution. The idea is that a private group would get access to city fiber at/near cost and manage the actual service. The private group in this case is Gigabit Squared.
As far as I can tell Gigabit Squared is a sham. They have no previous completed projects. The dates and milestones reported to the press and recorded in the city meetings, like the CTTAB, are woefully different. Event the dates in the press are terribly vauge, and keep slipping anyways. First it was "in 2013", then "late 2013", and now it's "in 2014."
My neighbor has been trying to get implementation details for the past year. The Seattle mayors office said "contact our partner". Emails and phone calls to Gigabit Squared went unanswered. She then went to the mayors office, complaining that the "partner" was unresponsive. The reply? "We cant help you. You have to talk to gigabit squared for any details."
Last I looked they were missing little things like an ASN, network engineers, an operations group, facilities, outside plant techs and trucks. Their jobs page was a generic "ask about exciting opportunities". I find it a bit incredible that they could feasibly be launching a network of this scope inside of a year.
I hope it actually works, I'd love to stop giving money to Comcast. But what I see so far is another Seattle Monorail Project.
The monorail would have succeeded if the Powers That Be wanted it. But none did.
I've heard numerous theories for why the monorail died. (eg Weren't provided an accurate head count, so the projected tax revenue was off, which borked the credit rating, which led to higher cost of capital, which spiked the project. Not that I understand these things.) I'm sure there's some truth to most stories.
The closest I can figure, unlike Sound Transit's light rail and Bezo's fancy new trolley car, the monorail didn't trigger a rezoning, which would have lead to higher property taxes, which is local government's back door way to raise revenue in the face of the anti-tax jihadists. So there was no reason for a sitting politician to put some muscle behind the effort.
A friend from Chicago has joked that the monorail would have happened if Seattle was more corrupt. Big capital expense projects, patronage, pork, jobs for unions, etc.
In that neither the monorail or gigabit have juice behind them, they've very similar.
The fact that it didn't happen means that the people it would have been transporting aren't worth the investment from an economic perspective. In the case of corruption, the city would unwittingly be investing in it's poorest citizens at a deficit to itself. -(-1) is 1.
The monorail, if completed, would have been of dubious value to the city. I mean, c'mon, billions of dollars to transport people from Ballard to West Seattle?
At least the gigabit internet service offers a clear value proposition: 'gigabit internet service for less than you're paying for Comcast or (god forbid) Broadstripe.'
And while we're on the subject, I voted against the tunnel. I think the tunnel is a terrible idea.
All that said, I voted for McGinn and I still think he's going to lose terribly on Tuesday.
Kinda looks like 1/2 of the monorail project plan.
The capital cost of the monorail was ~$1.4b. What killed the project was the finance package, totaling ~$12b. Still less per mile than any surface solution.
Sadly, the monorail is starting to look like a bargain.
Also totally useless...so far. However I think Capitol Hill to Pioneer Square will be nice for me. Big, important difference is that the SLUT cost $50mm. No reason to expect future lines will be much different in price. I'd much rather have a half dozen 50mm projects than a single billion dollar boondoggle.
The Californians in the room are laughing at these numbers because they're used to spending $3.5 million bucks _per calendar day_ on transit projects. Makes Seattle look OK.
I don't fully understand how the decision was made which neighborhoods will be built out. It is obviously not based on demand because the coverage areas [1] include every single one of Seattle's poorest neighborhoods[2] and virtually none of the richest. Even if you don't know Seattle neighborhoods, there are obvious clues in the map. It seems almost gerrymandered to avoid including non-industrial waterfront. Some of those choices make sense to me (the UW, students are poor). Others less so. I would estimate a majority of the area covered is in lower than average income areas -- the U district and southeast Seattle.
It is obvious that there was some non-market-based decision making here. I am OK with that and Seattleites tend to be as well. I don't think infrastructure should be limited to the rich or that a fiber vendor should be allowed to cherry pick neighborhoods. However I wonder if the right balance was struck.
My suspicion is the 'highest bidder' was picked in part by how many low income neighborhoods they were willing to deploy in, and I fear this has resulted in choosing an organization that overbid because they didn't actually understand what it would take to be successful. Or worse yet is not even going to be capable of doing the buildout.
IIRC the choice to favor neighborhoods like central, chinatown, and beacon hill was intentional. The thinking was that the traditional franchise agreements allowed incumbents to choose to compete in the neighborhoods with the greatest disposable income. Other nieghborhoods were left to providers, like broadstripe and clear, that were unable to provide the significant capital outlays required for infrastructure upgrades. Over the past few decades this led to significant divergence of infrastructure, and ultimately capabilities, between neighborhoods.
One of the "funny" things about Gigabit Seattle is that the last mile is actually supposed to be wireless. Much like that other network pioneer of Seattle, Clearwire.
The Seattle monorail was a victim of the hand-wringing, consensus-seeking, do-nothing Seattle process. It came up for a vote four times and won three. If you want that kind of stagnation, Murray's your man.
You can't intelligently discuss cable monopolies without following the money and reading the franchise agreement. As near as Google and I can figure out, you need to read:
Is this the most recent revision? Who knows. That would take more effort than I'm willing to expend.
First of all the agreement I linked to at seattle.gov claims to be in effect until 2016. So until 2016 (or so) you can whine all you want but its just posturing until them. I donno enough about Seattle politics to know if the proposed candidate would be in office in 3 years? Also I don't know enough seattle politics to tell if the mayor really has any input. Some localities are more autocratic than other more anarchistic localities. So the mayor may or may not have much impact at all other than pure PR.
Secondly follow the money. Read section 11.1. Basically for CATV in Seattle there is a 5% sales tax on top of any and all other fees gathered by comcast and paid to the city. You can call it a fee or bribe or compensation or whatever but its basically a sales tax. The feds limit this local tax and there's the usual boilerplate about increasing if legally allowed etc.
You can estimate based on subscriber numbers and bills or the other way around as total comcast revenue times percentage of comcast subscribers located in Seattle, well whatever either way its a substantial amount of money. So, follow the money. Where is the candidate proposing to raise rates, implement new taxes, or cut services if they kick out Comcast completely?
I don't think this nullifies any of what the article discusses. Comcast only has as much of a monopoly as the city gives them, and this franchise agreement explicitly reserves the right to grant similar franchise agreements:
"This Franchise is not exclusive. The Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to grant one (1) or more additional franchises or other similar lawful
authorization to provide Cable Services within the City; provided, however, that no such franchise or similar lawful authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are substantially more favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity than the material
terms and conditions herein."
Sounds like the mayor has decided to grant some other franchises. And, the article also explains in several places that Comcast is being given similar opportunities to work with the city on fiber rollout...satisfying the clause that nobody else gets preferential treatment.
And, this agreement is pretty focused on cable television service; it's an accident of history (and probably a mistake of regulation) that cable television companies are in the internet business, at all.
It sounds, to me, like the mayor is negotiating with any interested party, and is insisting that conduit construction include provisions for fiber. It's all within his purview, and the franchise agreement with Comcast doesn't nullify that.
That said, I think the cable monopolies (and telco monopolies) in the US have been disastrous for innovation and consumers (we have among the worst Internet service at the highest prices in the developed world). But, I am suggesting that the mayor of Seattle may be coming down closer to the right side of the issue than most.
I'm confused, why wouldn't they just tax whatever replaces Comcast? Maybe your argument is that the government has an overall interest in maintaining a monopoly, since monopolies raise prices, and under a fixed tax rate, that means more revenue for government.
I just gave a small donation to his campaign fund. You can donate here: http://mcginnformayor.com. Wish there was a place on the donation to tell them why you're donating.
I really hope that more mayors (especially NYC where I live) make this a focus of their campaign. So sick of the cable company monopolies.
Thanks for the link. Yes I really wish that any of the mayoral candidates in Boston (where I live) would make gigabit Internet a priority rather than just being "tough on crime".
While as a Bostonian I would love gigabit, I do think that fighting crime remains a substantial priority in this city. It's not totally backwards, but there's room to improve.
Indeed, I generally think that there are many priorities a mayoral candidate for this city should have, and alas, super-speed internet access is not at the top of that list. Gigabit is a problem ranking far under crime, poverty, and infrastructural issues in Boston.
When I moved to Seattle, I was very fortunate in that CondoInternet served my apartment building. They offered gigabit internet for $120 a month and 100mbps for $60. All after taxes, too. Coming from years of dealing with Comcast, this was a welcome change.
Increased availability for this level of quality would be great to see.
I'm in support of more fiber, I'm actually considering a move to get it at some of the downtown condos that offer it. However, this feels like the promise of a down in the polls incumbent hoping to turn this into a 1 issue race. Why weren't 4 years enough to get it rolling already? (And don't take this wrong, I likely will vote for McGinn, this just seems opportunistic is all).
In politics, getting anything done from scratch in 4 years is pretty hard.
That said, this is hardly some half-hearted promise. He ran on this promise and worked hard on pushing it through. In fact, when I moved I made sure I was in a coverage area because it's supposed to be become available in Q1 2014:
He didn't quite get it done in 4 years but if it does come out in Q1 it'll have been 4.25 years which isn't bad considering the scale of the project and how many entrenched interests you have to fight.
McGinn frustrates me. Issues like this are highly popular and resonate with everyone, but I haven't been a fan of several of his policies.
He raised public parking rates to pay for street maintenance upgrades, safety at schools, etc. But, a lot of city streets have yet to be repaired, and safety at our particular local school has slowly been getting worse. He has had to deal with a police force in transition after a DoJ investigation, which he's handled rather gracefully, so he's done some things well. I'd say it's largely been a very mixed bag.
But the biggest frustration for me is that it always seems like he will say whatever is popular based on who is in the room. It's not that he is acting like a politician, but rather someone who doesn't really stand for anything. This issue, while he's raising it now, hasn't been a hallmark of his current tenure, so it seems more opportunistic than anything else.
If it weren't an election cycle, I'm not sure we'd be hearing so much about this right now.
The city is massively behind on road maintenance due to decades of deferred maintenance. Raising some parking rates doesn't come anywhere near paying for repaving even the worst road segments in the city.
McGinn isn't a professional politician, which is good because the professional politicians and the "Seattle process" have fucked this city for decades, but it leads to the occasional misstep. The city gigabit fiber initiative was his, though. That and some controversial transportation reforms are parts of his vision that convinced me to vote for him. Too many Seattle politicians are willing to sell themselves out to build consensus. I like having a mayor who stands for something I can believe in.
I've only been here since 99, so I don't yet have the full history. On top of that, my track record is poor -- I have yet to vote for the mayoral winner.
But still, while I know he has his initiatives, I couldn't articulate what McGinn believes in. It just isn't clear to me.
You can't make a statement like that in a vacuum and when compared to his opponent he's more than forthcoming and opinionated. Murray doesn't have a single issue other than being the guy who will be even more of a friend to big business than McGinn is.
Most people voting for Murray are war on cars mouth breathers who have no idea just how little was spent on bike lanes compared to roads.
That's happened in Green Lake and Wallingford as well. And it's really strange, because it doesn't appear to serve any functional purpose. A couple of them now serve to slow down neighborhood traffic (a good thing), but mostly they look like replacements for something that didn't need replaced.
I've been flummoxed by this too, but I think they're installing those textured yellow panels in the crossing ramps. I gather they're a standardized marker to help blind or sight-impaired people navigate the street environment.
In general, corporations do that more or less to hedge their bets. They want the candidate that they support to win, but if the other candidate wins, they will be able to settle with at least some influence on that other candidate through that funding.
Do you have any reliable sources on that? It doesn't make much sense to back both sides in a zero-sum game and both candidates would know that. It seems much more likely that the usual sources who report "Google contributed $X to Candidate A and $Y to Candidate B" are counting employee contributions, either as an honest mistake or as a propaganda tactic to make their point. In reality, Google pays thousands of people a generous salary and each of those people have their own opinions about various issues, and so they're contributing their money, but not on Google's behalf.
In fact, this explains a lot of things. Back in the day when people got long distance telephone service from a different company than their local service, there used to be a pro-life phone company that advertised that all the other long distance companies like AT&T and MCI donated a ton of money to pro-choice organizations so you'd better switch to the pro-life phone company. But why the hell would a phone company care about abortion? They didn't, they just employed a lot of people and some of them happened to make political donations to pro-choice causes.
It's not Comcast's service that's the problem anymore--their service has actually improved a lot over the past few years.
It's their prices and the fact that they have no direct competition to force them to charge a rate any closer to what the service actually costs to provide.
It costs hundreds of dollars per user, per month to consume data over cable only because the cable provider has a monopoly.
Still waiting for Verizon's FiOS and it takes forever. Does Google plan to expand Google Fiber to more cities? Their pricing is simply the best when it comes to $ per bandwidth metirc.
Take "My Internet is provided by Comcast, and I know my family would like better service. I will speak for my gamer son as well." and insert any major cable company and you will get a true statement.
As far as I can tell Gigabit Squared is a sham. They have no previous completed projects. The dates and milestones reported to the press and recorded in the city meetings, like the CTTAB, are woefully different. Event the dates in the press are terribly vauge, and keep slipping anyways. First it was "in 2013", then "late 2013", and now it's "in 2014."
My neighbor has been trying to get implementation details for the past year. The Seattle mayors office said "contact our partner". Emails and phone calls to Gigabit Squared went unanswered. She then went to the mayors office, complaining that the "partner" was unresponsive. The reply? "We cant help you. You have to talk to gigabit squared for any details."
Last I looked they were missing little things like an ASN, network engineers, an operations group, facilities, outside plant techs and trucks. Their jobs page was a generic "ask about exciting opportunities". I find it a bit incredible that they could feasibly be launching a network of this scope inside of a year.
I hope it actually works, I'd love to stop giving money to Comcast. But what I see so far is another Seattle Monorail Project.