dslreports logo
 story category
Seattle's Plan to Build Gigabit Fiber Network Stuck in Limbo

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).

Enter newer Seattle Ed Murray who has admitted that Seattle needs significantly more broadband competition, but since he took office in 2013 has shot down the idea of a Seattle-owned fiber network as too expensive.

Last fall, some city council leaders proposed spending $5 million on a gigabit fiber build in the neighborhood of North Beacon Hill, then moving forward with a larger, $480 million to $665 million network if the trial deployment showed promise. But the city council voted down the idea, striking a blow for a growing number of Seattle residents who -- tired of CenturyLink and Comcast service -- want to explore the idea of broadband as a utility.

Murray reiterated last week that such an idea remains too expensive for a city that just spent $930 million on a major transportation initiative.

"When I came into office, I was very excited about the possibility of municipal broadband until the study came back and indicated it would be literally the largest tax increase in Seattle,” the Mayor said at a conference this week in the city.

Murray, who critics complain took notable campaign contributions from CenturyLink and Comcast last election cycle, continues to insist that some kind of public/private partnership remains the best path forward for the city. But it remains wholly unclear just what this proposal would look like, and after a decade of trying Seattle remains stuck in limbo in terms of disrupting the city's lagging broadband fortunes.
view:
topics flat nest 
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

-3 recommendations

elefante72

Member

Good

It makes no sense to spend $1b+ (you know there will be cost overruns) to build an overlay network when Comcast/CL are there. They can simply regulate them and say 100/100 @ $50 without caps or I tax you $10/line/month, OR they allow CLEC and force reasonable tariffs. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science.

All I can think about is the billions upon billions that they spent in Boston for 2 roads when I lived there, and today there isn't a lick of fibre in that town--yet another tech hub.

And it's not just Seattle. San Fran and the bay area is a joke too, and lots of it has to do w/ the liberal management in those cities and their priorities.

Nothing
@rr.com

1 recommendation

Nothing

Anon

Re: Good

Except that HSI is an un-regulated product. Cities and states are not allowed to regulate it. It is NOT a telecom product thanks to the FCC and the US Courts and that dates back YEARS and years ago under Brand-X. The FCC and the courts had the option to regulating it and making a required line-share but didn't. Now cities and states aren't even able to regulate it without being sued. Which is a good thing. Seattle should have allowed another company to take over the WiFi network and expand it instead of just scrapping it completely and losing their ass on it.

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

tshirt to elefante72

Premium Member

to elefante72
said by elefante72:

They can simply regulate them and say 100/100 @ $50 without ...

I doubt they can hit those numbers but I agree that for 20-30-40 years Seattle has repeatly considered building a new third party-public private (before the internet, they wanted a CATV network) network while excluding the incumbents.
rather than working with ANY existing player, the chant has always been "We need a NEW choice"
Hardly efficient, and obviously not effective, after all these attempts they have millions in studies and a few bits of fiber that don't connect to any other network (the INTER part of internet was beyond the concept at that time) Millions $$$ wasted treading water over and over in the same small pool, when the oceans are footsteps away
were they assisting the incumbents, the most of unserved spots could be covered by now, and by regulation and gov't subsidy the costs could be closer to the $70 people are willing to pay.
said by elefante72:

the liberal management in those cities and their priorities.

I'm not opposed to the liberal thoughts, except when they mislead people into believe they can somehow make expensive things cheap for the masses because they want it, when it really means someone else should pay.
Being realistic, open and truthful is apparently beyond the pay grade of politicians at either end of the spectrum.

Anybody need some clunky green bicycles? (the cities latest purchase was a bankrupt bike sharing program they "encouraged" someone to build)
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Good

That is the sad part they study and study and study spending a lot of money with nothing to show at the end. This also shows why fiber networks don't get built by big cities. Google fiber in KC and the city power in Chattanooga. ATT is building big networks in Raleigh and Charlotte but they are not 100% build. They are mostly replacing their FTTC network with FTTH.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to elefante72

Member

to elefante72
said by elefante72:

They can simply regulate them and say 100/100 @ $50 without caps or I tax you $10/line/month, OR they allow CLEC and force reasonable tariffs. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science.

Neither the city of Seattle nor the state of Washington is empowered by law to regulate broadband (although there is a question of how much authority Section 706 gives to the states).

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

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Good

said by fg8578:

Neither the city of Seattle nor the state of Washington is empowered by law to regulate broadband

But they can enter joint operating, operating partner public/private agreements which include pricing or tariffs which define how the price is set and a franchise area certainly controls the prices and availability of the catv side(try and get one without the other)

Nothing
@rr.com

Nothing

Anon

Re: Good

And that's if they build their own network. It can't happen on a network they don't operate.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

an addendum with links

a few links to add to the big picture
Seattle cable franchise office
»www.seattle.gov/cable/

a map of existing franchise areas
»www.seattle.gov/cable/do ··· 2013.pdf the area of the proposed test (and years of controversy) is in a few dozen blocks southeast of where I-90 meets I-5, actually in a wave area with Comcast authorized to expand since wave did not.
This area never needed CATV as they had a clear view of the analog broadcast towers. the demand now is for Internet services as century link (citywide telco/LEC) has somewhat limited offerings (see the cable office link for link to CL info)