Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service • Hacker News Board

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#31

Post by philwelch » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 10:26 PM UTC

kibibyte wrote: post #12

philwelch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a corporation, or are you counting their employees?

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#32

Post by philwelch » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 10:27 PM UTC

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#33

Post by SwellJoe » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 10:37 PM UTC

beambot wrote: post #20

backprojection wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 haven't been following this too closely... but a 5% "sales" tax on a free option is $0.

I don't see any mention of a free option in this case.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#34

Post by wiml » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 10:37 PM UTC

cdcarter wrote: post #22

jroseattle wrote: post #8

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…

> 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 of course, Mercer in Lower Queen Anne is getting every single street corner re-done for...no apparent reason.

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#35

Post by specialist » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 10:37 PM UTC

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

Thank you for digging into Gigabit Squared. Very interesting. I'll ask McGinn next chance I get. But I'll wait until after Tuesday, in case its moot.

An acquaintance started a group to promote better broadband. http://uptun.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/uptun/ Looks like he hasn't gotten past the angry yelling phase of organizing.

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#36

Post by aaronbrethorst » Sun, Nov 03, 2013, 11:11 PM UTC

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#37

Post by mattgrice » Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

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.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

[1] http://gigabitseattle.com/areas/ [2] http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/seattle-area/6851...

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#38

Post by specialist » Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #36

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

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…

You may feel different if you commuted Ballard-Downtown. Standing room only, even before the service cuts.

Have you seen the plans for the Seattle Street Car?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Streetcar

Please note the Green and Purple lines.

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#39

Post by AsymetricCom » Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 2:11 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #35

donavanm wrote: post #30

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,…

Thank you for digging into Gigabit Squared. Very interesting. I'll ask McGinn next chance I get. But I'll wait until after Tuesday, in case its moot. An acquaintance started a group to promote better broadband. http://uptun.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/uptun/ Looks like he hasn't gotten past the angry yelling phase of organizing. The monorail would have succeeded if the Powers That Be wanted it. But none did.…

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.

Re: Seattle Mayor: I have Comcast, and I would like better service

#40

Post by kyllo » Mon, Nov 04, 2013, 5:48 AM UTC

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.