dslreports logo
 story category
Seattle Mayor: Broadband Is Too Expensive, Uncompetitive

For much of the last decade Seattle has explored the idea of building their own ultra-fast broadband network. Much of that motivation was fueled by the sub-standard service provided in the region by regional telco Qwest (now CenturyLink), which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working very hard.

Click for full size
After scrapping several fiber plans and shutting down their Wi-Fi network, Seattle (and former Mayor Mike McGinn) tried to launch another effort with broadband consultant shop Gigabit Squared. Unfortunately for Seattle residents that agreement also disappeared in a puff of hype after Gigabit Squared failed to pay the city money owed or do much of any work (something the firm's also now being accused of in Illinois).

While there was some concerns about the campaign cash Murray got from CenturyLink and Comcast last election cycle, the Mayor made it pretty clear this week in a statement he was not pleased with the city's incumbent broadband choices:
quote:
It is incredibly clear to me and residents throughout the City of Seattle, that the City’s current high speed internet options are not dependable enough, are cost prohibitive for many, and have few (if any) competitive options....
Murray then sets forth several options to improve the city's broadband fortunes. Most of them have to do with eliminating bureaucratic roadblocks to deployment, though not all will be popular -- like Murray's recent decision to kill a rule that required incumbent ISPs notify homeowners if utility cabinets are to be placed near or on public easements near or on their property. Murray doesn't rule out the possibility of a citywide network, but only after the city sees if these other approaches work first:
quote:
While we increase competition by breaking down barriers and enhancing infrastructure, we also need to consider the option of building a city-wide municipal high speed internet system that meets the demands of this thriving technology hub. We may learn that the only way we can truly have the internet system this City needs, is by building it ourselves. If we find that building our own municipal broadband is the best way forward for our citizens and for our City, then I will help lead the way.
In other words, lets eliminate the "bureaucratic roadblock" explanation from CenturyLink's arsenal of excuses, and if that doesn't work we'll revisit this conversation down the road.
view:
topics flat nest 
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

Chattanooga

If Chattanooga can make it work, why not a more tech savvy city like Seattle?
political_i
join:2013-11-12

political_i

Member

Re: Chattanooga

The only problem is Seattle City Light could not offer the service and it would have to be a third party providing the service due to state laws.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Best way to handle it.

I would agree with his steps. Remove some of the unneeded hurdles and if that doesn't light a fire under the incumbents butts, then remove them from the equation.

If it comes to that and they still want to provide service, then let them lease the city built lines like everyone else.

I am sure what will happen is they (incumbents) will do 2 things. 1.) Launch a upgrade to the press with no intent on doing anything 2.) Once that wears thin and the city begins to move forward they will begin an assault to actually stop it.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

Umm, Comcast reach virtually every home with a D3 network.
While the speeds haven't yet seen the big bump up the east coast is now getting that probably a matter of a few months off.

So the speeds are available it's the price they don't like, something driven up by the costs imposed by the franchise, high pole fees by city light (a city owned utility) multiple public access channels, studios and production assistance, high franchise fees and taxes on the business all add to that customer bottom line. ie the city could make cable HSI more affordable by not taking such a big chunk for themselves, just as a big chunk of CL expenses are also city induced directly and indirectly.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

For the most part is cost fractions of a penny more to provide 1mbps than it does 1gbps once the equipment is installed.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

And Comcast HSI rates have increase minimally over the years.
People often confuse the rapid rise of CATV (much of it driven by higher content cost on many more channels) as CABLE et al being too expensive.
The other costs I mentioned have been imposed and increased by the cities other needs NOT directly related to actual cable operations, and if they were reduced were possible could balance out some of the future increases in HSI.

But like most previous Broadband initiatives in Seattle this is more about appearing to care, then actually providing solutions.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
"For the most part is cost fractions of a penny more to provide 1mbps than it does 1gbps once the equipment is installed."

Source?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

Real world experience and shear logic.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

So you are senior level employee for an ISP?

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

For the most part is cost fractions of a penny more to provide 1mbps than it does 1gbps once the equipment is installed.

What are you smokin? Maybe for devices in the same room, but not last mile connectivity to large areas and populations.

Maintenance of current service levels as usage goes up becomes pricey on the aggregation of all those 1 Gbps links. How many 1 mbps links vs 1 Gbps links can a 10 or 40 Gbps upstream link support?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

You asking me a trick question or is basic division beyond you?

Again. Once the equipment is installed to support the connections it does not matter if the ISP chooses to limit that connection to 1mb or 1gbps. The cost difference between the 2 is fractions of a penny.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

1 recommendation

DocDrew

Premium Member

Re: ...which in turn resulted in regional cable operator Comcast not working ver

said by Skippy25:

You asking me a trick question or is basic division beyond you?

Again. Once the equipment is installed to support the connections it does not matter if the ISP chooses to limit that connection to 1mb or 1gbps. The cost difference between the 2 is fractions of a penny.

Lets just say both.

Oh great and experienced network guru, please explain your position to one as lowly and ignorant as me. Why is even fractions of a penny to you? Why not less? Why not more? What sort of scale is it fractions of a penny? Who are those pennies going to? Give us some examples so I can understand your amazing insight, real world experience, and undeniable logic. Let me be your student to the promised land of low cost, widely available 1 Gbps network connections.

PacW097
@qwest.net

PacW097

Anon

SubStandard = 911 emergency system failure

It's going to get very interesting in the coming months related to CenturyLink in the Pacific Northwest after what happened this past Thursday April 10.

The emergency services for 911 which the backbone is handled by Centurylink went offline for multiple Pacific Northwest states. (»www.nwcn.com/home/911-se ··· 681.html)

These so called "sub standard services" are now impacting emergency services.
Multiple county and state led investigations might lead to some interesting conversations about incumbencies.

This is an opportunity for local and state government... Hope they use this opportunity wisely.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Seattle

If I recall Seattle had previously made it hell for even incumbents to deploy faster service. It should really be no surprise that it is pricey and uncompetitive when Centurylink has had such a hard time offering even FTTN.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Re: Seattle

What about the suburbs?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Seattle

A large portion of the Seattle suburbs were GTE>Verizon>(and now) Frontier. where the larger cities (in the '50 + '60's) Bellevue seattle Tacoma etc. were AT&T>QWEST>Centerylink
the population increases within the cities have been much more limited while the former GTE areas have tripled or more. during that growth the suburban and rural areas have seen complete cable and telco plant upgrades (fios was being deployed until Verizon left, Frontier has given lip service to restarting the deployment, but nothing has been done.)

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

If I recall Seattle had previously made it hell for even incumbents to deploy faster service. It should really be no surprise that it is pricey and uncompetitive when Centurylink has had such a hard time offering even FTTN.

Yeah Karl missed pointing out a big chunk of what the Seattle mayor said:
quote:
We are looking at a number of policy changes and their impacts that could foster greater competition right now, like testing small neighborhood pilot programs, building off existing fiber, or increasing WiFi access.

We are also considering changes to the SDOT “director’s rule” which makes it nearly impossible for internet providers to expand existing services without an unusually high super majority of support from neighbors. Few other cities in the country demand this kind of approval system, which is in part why service providers are investing in those cities and not here in Seattle. If we determine that changing the “director’s rule” helps achieve our goal of increasing internet speeds and making Seattle a more competitive market for internet providers, my office would then explore developing a more efficient process for community input around how and when utility cabinets are placed in our neighborhoods.

Another possible solution includes granting internet companies access to utility poles at little or no charge, so that building more infrastructure is not cost prohibitive.
It sounds like Seattle policies made ISPs jump through tons of hoops to do anything.
political_i
join:2013-11-12

political_i

Member

Re: Seattle

I know people are questioning this move but I believe this is a good first step in correcting the problem by removing excessive regulations.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto

Premium Member

Re: Seattle

said by political_i:

I know people are questioning this move but I believe this is a good first step in correcting the problem by removing excessive regulations.

And the first regulation they can work towards removing is the one that prohibits public utilities from offering internet service in the state of Washington.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Seattle

said by firephoto:

And the first regulation they can work towards removing is the one that prohibits public utilities from offering internet service in the state of Washington.

The crack in the Wanapum Dam points to why this is not permitted
Grant counties' obligations are already for fish passage (treaties rights among other things) flood control, irrigation, power generation and distribution (federal, state, and county requirements and the basis of their charter) so whatever it costs they HAVE to fix the dam, worse it sitting at low water it's not generating money that allows among other things the slow but steady build out of the wholesale fiber system.
direct retail sales are deliberately NOT one of them to prevent them from loosing focus on those primary obligations.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

firephoto

Premium Member

Re: Seattle

said by tshirt:

said by firephoto:

And the first regulation they can work towards removing is the one that prohibits public utilities from offering internet service in the state of Washington.

The crack in the Wanapum Dam points to why this is not permitted
Grant counties' obligations are already for fish passage (treaties rights among other things) flood control, irrigation, power generation and distribution (federal, state, and county requirements and the basis of their charter) so whatever it costs they HAVE to fix the dam, worse it sitting at low water it's not generating money that allows among other things the slow but steady build out of the wholesale fiber system.
direct retail sales are deliberately NOT one of them to prevent them from loosing focus on those primary obligations.

First off, I promise you that there is no disruption to the electricity service of the Grant County Public Utility District. Every customer is getting their power, getting their new services hooked up, having the power disconnected in the event of a fire, meters being read, bills going to customers, fiber optics being serviced and installed, power poles being maintained, trees being trimmed from right of ways, all of that and then some is being performed just like any other day for the Grant County PUD.

Every dam on the Columbia river is operated, maintained, and serviced by specific people. If the operators have other ventures like power lines or internet or wind farms or solar farms they almost universally have dedicated employees for all those various aspects. They don't just throw their hands up and say "aww shucks, the dam broke, now we have to park all the bucket trucks and send all the men to the dam and get that leak fixed".

I get that the only way you can paint this scenario is to insist that every public utility is subsidizing internet operations with the money generated from other operations but that just isn't true. It doesn't even take a high school arts major to figure that one out. You provide a service and you recoup the cost of that service over time just like every other business on the planet that believes in spending "someone else's money". I challenge you to price out all the parts that provide electricity to just your home that are not installed by you the customer. That big transformer on the pole or on the ground or even in the ground... thousands of dollars. Those big aluminum conductors running hundreds(?) of feet... thousands of dollars. The truck hours spent installing all those things... thousands of dollars. The wages of all the people running those trucks and installing all those things for a few hours... thousands of dollars. And yes, in some cases the customer might have to pay for a good chunk of that but there is a lot they do not pay for...

But guess what, it is impossible to pay enough, to pay it all, to cover any and all costs of having your own public utility provide you with internet service. It is against the law no matter. Exchange the word internet for the word electricity and it's all good. No matter if you need just 200 amp service or you need a huge 10,000 amp industrial service there are no restrictions of having that service provided in full start to finish at any cost. This also applies to irrigation, flood control, power generation, fish friendly measures, there is no limit so long as they keep their filthy public hands of of the magical cable that provides the internet.

I can't count the number of times I've met people that are just enraged at the though of government agencies that have money, all they can think about is using that money to make more money and any thought of using that money to make more infrastructure or lower costing services is just sends them to crazy town. They'd rather see extra money wasted on pure shit so long as the person selling shit is making extra profit. They don't want to see better service equipment or higher quality infrastructure, they just want to see their friends and people like them sucking on the teats of government with little effort put into the making of money. They just want to be another job creating welfare queen that spends more time making sure most people don't know how much handouts they actually get from the government. And the perfect example of this? How many millions of dollars will be made by private companies fixing a leaking damn that belongs to a public utility that has an obligation to fix said dam. Damn that's just messed up.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Seattle

A muni system can be just as bad as a private. If they get some idiot running it or they are never allowed to spend the money to maintain it and do upgrades. Where I live the old part of town is run by the city and the annexed parts are by a big privat power company. The private company is has cheaper rates and the employes have better trucks and tools.
Every time a muni division needs to raise their rates heads roll and the service dies a slow death over a few decades. My suggestion and I have seen others suggest the same thing is to let the government provide the dark fiber to each premise and let any vendor connect their equipment at both ends. If not the local government then the power company provides the fiber. Just separate the content from the last mile transport. You could have several cable companies and even the Dish TV offer TV content and internet. Even local companies could provide service if you want just internet and phone.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to political_i

Premium Member

to political_i
It's a good idea... to examine and remove unnecessary barriers, BUT just as we've seen cities go overboard with Google and the complaints starting over tree pruning/access problems (that REALLY won't fly in seattle) recognize there are real expenses and purposes to SOME of the regulations.
Pole fees SHOULD represent the actual cost of pole replacement/improvement, homeowner access control regs should be gutted, but might need some updating, tree pruning/ removal should be professional and minimal even if construction is somewhat more (deciding this could be 20 years of hearing and votes in Seattle where you need a permit to remove almost any tree, and public hearing on pruning of larger/notable trees unless it's a clear hazard it can take months even years over a single tree.)
They are a long way from being done with this.

Overtkill
Premium Member
join:2005-09-21
Tooele, UT

Overtkill

Premium Member

Indeed....

Same happens here in Utah with both of those companies. Add the "good old boys" mentality to the government, and the moral majority to that situation, and you have the people that make laws here.

The press here is quick to condemn companies like Utopia for being a bad way to run a business. However the problem is squarely with those lawmakers that take the corporate version of law by Century Slink, and Comcrap, and are more interested in the bribes than what is actually good for the population.

Here's hoping that Google gets into the Salt Lake area, and is able to do so without too much BS getting between them and the people. I would dump Comcast Business Class in half a heart beat, for gigabit fiber (if it were made available).

Now if only more Mayors/public officials would open their eyes and see what is happening around them on the digital communications front. much like Seattle's current mayor. But why when they are happy taking the kickbacks from the lobby's that seem to be dictate broadband rules that have a majority of us paying far too much for broadband internet.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Indeed....

said by Overtkill:

I would dump Comcast Business Class in half a heart beat, for gigabit fiber (if it were made available).

I see this posted all the time, but suppoe it was offered (by anyone) but cost twice as much?

Or like iProvo they began charging you for it, but it never reaches you, and you continue to pay when it is given to a private company to profit from?
It's not a matter of kickbacks/bribes or other public legal manipulation that where it was built it NEVER reached a take rate capable of repaying it's debt or even it's own operating expenses.
And in many of the area Google will have to rebuild with current hardware to reach what are now/will soon be common broadband speeds.

Quite a few of those lawmakers were wisely trying to prevent the gov't from over committing and obligating the taxpayers/homeowners from the years of payments they owe whether or not they ever get or want or need the FTTH.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to Overtkill

Premium Member

to Overtkill
It is frustrating to many that Google Fiber has failed to offer business plans for the Kansas City project areas. The fiber is installed within 100 meters of many businesses, but there are no announced detailed plans to provide service to those businesses.
tabernak4
join:2013-08-10

tabernak4

Member

Doesn't seem so bad

I just dumped in a random Seattle address to see what Comcast has available and it seems they have 6/25/50/105 speeds available. Pair bonded DSL would just match those speeds at best, so really the only option would be FTTH to get ahead of the cable there.

I realize since they're a city with the tech behemoth Microsoft in their midst, they'd like FTTH, however they're not suffering in comparison to the vast majority of people. Ironically the fact Microsoft is there probably keeps many companies from being interested.

Seems to me, power companies are best suited to be the next potential fiber broadband providers, they already have infrastructure in place to support the buildouts. I'd love if my electric cooperative would do that.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't seem so bad

We have an electric cooperative here in Georgia that services part of our city. The odd shape of the cooperative's service area makes it unlikely they will decide to provide FTTH without significant subsidies and grants. The other issue is the need to transform an electric power company capability toward service into a high quality ISP service capability. EPB in Chattanooga had executives and employees describing how much change had to be implemented to have the proper support mechanisms and resources in order to be a successful ISP. That amount of change can be somewhat disconcerting to many electricity generation and delivery cooperatives

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas

Anon

Rules governing government run business are notoriously incumbent friendly

Thou shalt not compete with private business, it's not fair, you have bigger tax payer funded pockets our corporate investors can't match, and it's easier for you to run at a loss.