
Comcast is donating to defeat mayor who is bringing gigabit fiber to Seattle - coloneltcb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/31/comcast-is-donating-heavily-to-defeat-the-mayor-who-is-bringing-gigabit-fiber-to-seattle/
======
jhspaybar
This is going to be a comment that needs to know a bit about the Seattle area,
so if you're out of town, I'm sorry :).

I currently live near the top of the hill of Queen Anne, my options for
internet are Comcast, or Comcast essentially. Century link is also up there
with a plan for a whopping 7mbps of speed down and less than 1mbps up. Comcast
offers a plan for 50mbps down and 10mbps up, I need more upload speed, but I
can make do with an upload running for hours a day. This wouldn't be bad if
Comcast actually worked, but it doesn't. Probably 2 or 3 nights a week my
internet becomes near unusable during peak times, I resort to putting my cell
phone on LTE and seeing what I need to that way, I can't even keep up with the
buffer rate on the lowest quality Youtube videos.

Downtown though, there are a number of apartment and condo buildings that
offer 100mbps up & down internet for $60 a month (compared to my $75 for
Comcast), or 1gigabit up and down for $120 a month(not available from Comcast
at all). So, we do have _some_ gigabit internet, and I've actually found a few
places I'd consider living and likely will affect my decision when I
eventually move.

At least in my neighborhood, Comcast has terrible(often broken) service with
absolutely no alternative. I suppose maybe the density of Queen Anne can't
justify the cost of gigabit fiber to the top of the hill, but given how many
Microsoft and Amazon people live up here I'd be shocked if there weren't huge
interest. This seems damning as to the economic viability of fiber that a
relatively dense upper income neighborhood can't get fiber without government
subsidy.

~~~
dubfan
Have you called Comcast about the connectivity issues? I was having problems
with connections dropping and packet loss. I called them, they sent a tech out
who replaced a bad wire connecting to the building. Apparently others in the
building had the same problem, but I was the only one who had a tech come out.

~~~
Amadou
When damaged, coax (and POTS-based DSL for that matter) are both susceptible
to environmental changes, so a cool-down in the evening can significantly
change the characteristics of the wire, higher levels of humidity don't help
either.

In other words, yet another reason fiber to the premises is superior.

~~~
voltagex_
Someone better tell the conservative Australian government... our fibre
rollout got canned in the name of saving money.

------
techpeace
If you'd like to donate to the mayor who is fighting for gigabit fiber for
Seattle (and thus cancel out a portion of Comcast's donations), you can do so
here:
[https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.as...](https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=qhuzDOZ0xKqvW9ig8jZCBUcAyUPUT7MgYFFyqKatDIY%3d)

~~~
jsnk
Can Canadians donate to a candidate?

~~~
sb057
How about this: As an U.S. citizen, I'll donate to McGinn, so long as you, as
a Canadian, donate against Rob Ford?

~~~
niuzeta
Deal.

------
sage_joch
Mayor McGinn brought this up in his recent /r/Seattle AMA (worth reading if
you're at all interested in the race):

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ox3gd/my_name_is_m...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ox3gd/my_name_is_mike_mcginn_and_i_want_to_earn_your/)

------
thethimble
I don't see why this is a bad thing? Comcast is contributing to the campaign
that is best in line with its interest. As long as political contributions by
corporations are OK (which is another debate which is out of the scope of this
issue) this seems completely reasonable.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
How is preventing a city from gaining access to gigabit connections anything
other than bad? That statement is completely baffling.

~~~
thekevan
Preventing a company from getting gigabit connections is not bad for you if
you are the company that competes against those gigabit connections. It isn't
wrong or shady of Comcast to donate like this, just like it isn't wrong for
the original poster of this link to post it here and get awareness and
activism for the other side.

As an aside, I despise Comcast, Time Warner and many of their ilk, but they
are completely well within bounds to do this.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
There is a benefit to society getting access to fast and affordable
communications.

There is no benefit to denying society this option.

Therefore, preventing it, especially in the name of your corporate interest,
is "bad". To say what they are doing is good is sociopathic.

Legalities have no relevance to this at all.

~~~
thekevan
I didn't say it was good or bad. It is a legally, ethically and economically
acceptable practice. They are exercising their right to protect their
business.

That being said, I hope they lose.

------
CamperBob2
It may not be a single-issue sort of thing. McGinn has not exactly been
popular across a wide cross section of the local electorate, as anyone who has
spent five minutes walking (or more likely ducking and running) through
downtown Seattle can attest.

Comcast may be trying to kill the fiber project, or they may have some other
reason for opposing McGinn.

~~~
flippyhead
From what are you ducking and running?

~~~
potatolicious
Crackheads, the homeless, and a particularly loud (and occasionally violent)
group of youth that are constantly at the corner of 3rd and Pike. Persistent
(though not apocalyptic levels of) gun crime.

Downtown Seattle can be a bit rough. I wouldn't lay it squarely at the feet of
the mayor though - a lot of it traces back to city planning gone disastrously
wrong.

Just a few off the top of my head:

\- the southern end of downtown is _strictly_ commercial. Little to no mixed
zoning here, meaning that as soon as 5pm rolls by the entire area is a ghost
town. If you're there past 6-7pm you will see that the homeless and addicts
move in to fill the void. There is no residential or leisure traffic to
balance this out. This is US-style single-purpose urban zoning run amok.
_Vast_ portions of the urban core is entirely idle after work hours.

\- downtown Seattle isn't a cultural or entertainment core, unlike the
downtowns of most cities. The actual food scene, nightlife scene, music scene,
etc, are in surrounding neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Ballard, Fremont,
etc. This contributes to low foot traffic after work hours, which contributes
to higher crime and simultaneously a magnified perception of danger.

\- poor urban planning decisions meant an explosion in large-scale development
without sufficient requirement for retail frontage. _Lots_ of buildings that
take up the entire block with little to no ground-floor retail, making it a
pedestrian dead zone and contributing to the feeling of walking down a shady
alley no matter where you are. See: much of Belltown, where the declared
intent was to produce a walkable neighborhood full of restaurants and
nightlife - except few residential buildings wanted to play host to them. This
has resulted in little pockets of activity with vast stretches of nothingness
in between them.

~~~
HelloMcFly
What city do you live in? Have you lived anywhere else?

I work in downtown Seattle and my work takes me a-walking across huge portions
of it, and my bus stop is right by 3rd and Pike. I've certainly never felt
unsafe, and only occasionally have I been accosted by the homeless (or
possibly crackheads) looking for money. There are some problem spots, but
nothing terribly aggressive, certainly not by standards I've come to expect
from my time in other major cities.

It's much, MUCH better than what I saw/experienced while living in Atlanta,
Chicago, San Francisco or Kansas City. Seattle may have some issues with
theft, but violent crime isn't out of control. Play around with this [1]
Wikipedia lin or this [2] comparison tool:

Seattle is 30th in total violent crime amongst cities with a population above
250,000. Not great, but not bad. For Murder Seattle is 67 out of 75. That's,
comparatively, very good.

As for your specific points, I agree with them without regarding them as
contributing as much negative impact as you state. You make it sound like
Seattle is some pedestrian ghost town where you're taking your life into your
own hands by taking a wrong turn. Like any city, some neighborhoods are better
than others for leisure activities, and there are some worth avoiding into the
night. But it's no worse than most other cities, and often considerably
better.

\--

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

[2][http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Seattle&s1=W...](http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=kansas+city&s2=MO)

~~~
potatolicious
I live in NYC currently. Besides living in Seattle (2 yrs) I've also lived in
San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Waterloo, and London (Ontario, not
the cool one).

I've seen a _lot_ worse than what happens in downtown Seattle, and yeah, SF
has it a lot worse. _A lot_ worse.

I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems
uniquely American in my experience. As if having seen/lived through worse
crime is a badge of honor, and that people living/working in elevated crime
areas (just _less_ elevated than some other places) should just suck it up. SF
is the absolute worst in this regard (far worse than Seattle), where any
criticism about the state of poverty and crime in the city elicits a "hurrr go
back to the midwest then hurrrr".

A spade is a spade, even if there are bigger spades out there. The fact that
Seattle's urban planning cockups are less severe than San Francisco's should
come only as a very mild, very cold comfort.

Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on earlier
- is that it feels less safe than it actually is. When it comes to quality of
life though, perception of safety is equally important as actual safety. The
vast stretches of nothingness at night presents a huge perception problem that
I don't think can be conquered by simply telling people "yeah, that nearly
empty street with no businesses and a lot aggressive panhandlers making
catcalls at you isn't so bad, statistically your odds are good!".

Seattle isn't that dangerous of a city - I made that clear earlier. The
downtown is mildly sketchy, the homelessness problem is acute but not as bad
as some other places, but the complete void that fills downtown after work is
a huge problem that prevents any major progress on this front.

By the way, Seattle _is_ a pedestrian ghost town. Even Pioneer Square on a
busy night is ghostly compared to every other urban core in North America I've
ever been to. Downtown Seattle (qualified as Olive/Pine all the way down to
Yesler or Jackson, and west of I-5) is completely f'ing deserted at night.

~~~
HelloMcFly
> I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems
> uniquely American in my experience.

That's fair, but you're talking about normative comparisons, and I'm talking
about relative ones. I think relative comparisons are more useful in a country
that, all things considered, has pretty safe cities. I don't mean to dismiss
all of Seattle's problems, but it helps give perspective.

> Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on
> earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is.

That's fair.

> Seattle is a pedestrian ghost town.

No, it's not. Downtown is, yes, but Seattle as a whole has _many_ options for
a pedestrian's nightlife. Capitol Hill is one of them, and it's an easy walk
from downtown even.

I think that goes back to my last point. I just don't perceive the negatives
of Seattle's "urban planning cockups" in nearly as dramatic of fashion.

I'm not from here, I'm not a homer. I just find much fewer problems here than
I have anywhere else. I know you don't like relative comparisons, but when
choosing a place to live relative comparisons are my most helpful tool.

~~~
potatolicious
IMO relative comparisons are misplaced here. I'm talking about Seattle's
problems, as they pertain to Seattle residents - that SF or Atlanta has it
worse only is a factoid mainly tossed around to try and minimize the problem
or suggest inaction. I am not suggesting that Seattle, on the whole is a bad
place to live - please don't draw the wrong conclusion. I _am_ suggesting that
the city has deep planning problems and despite its relative peace compared to
the rest of the country, needs to aggressively address them.

Seattle's downtown core is horribly planned, in a pattern that is sadly
typical of American urban cores post white-flight. Its urban planning
awfulness is hardly unique to itself, and like every other city that employed
the disastrously myopic single-use zoning strategy, it needs to change.

Or at least, not continue - but before I left Seattle I saw the exact same
pattern in Belltown, South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill. The failure to learn
from the failure of downtown Seattle IMO threatens to turn perfectly fine
neighborhoods into empty, unfriendly, unpleasant shells. Every point I
mentioned - large full-block developments, insufficient requirements for
retail frontage, and little planning around pedestrian dead zones - is
demonstrated in new developments stretching out of downtown.

Note that I am not anti-gentrification or anti-development. I support building
upwards and increased density. I support urban renewal. But the developmental
policy and requirements that have been the city's norm for decades supports
buildings that serve to enlarge the "dead zone". The city - and its voter base
- has evidently not learned its lesson, or hasn't ever been to a long-term
successful urban neighborhood. Now is not the time to compare yourself to
crime hotspots like SF and Detroit and feel good about yourself. There is a
problem, and it needs fixing, even if it isn't the same scale of a problem
like San Francisco's gigantic urban fuckup.

~~~
HelloMcFly
Well I appreciate your perspective, and will think about as I move about the
city and decide where I'm going to five years from now. I do very much
disagree on the value of relative comparisons though.

Ultimately, I just don't see nearly the extent of "urban fuckup" as you do
even in normative terms, which is perhaps why the voters you admonish haven't
responded as you think they should. I won't forget your comments though, and
perhaps a in a year's time I'll be singing a different tune.

------
discardorama
Sorry to divert off topic, though but: I wish local governments would start
treating the Internet as a basic utility; like electricity. You'd have 2
entities involved: the government (PUC) which would, for a very basic rate,
maintain your fiber; and an ISP which would actually route your traffic
to/from the Internet. So, as a consumer, you'd pay a small amount ($5/mo?) for
the fiber; and then depending on your service requirements, pay some gateway
to get out to the 'net. This way, Comcast would just be a gateway provider. GW
providers would offer different types of services to set them apart from each
other (VPN? Movies? Music? etc.).

That's my dream. :-)

~~~
techsupporter
In a large minority of states, they can't. In North Carolina, Arkansas,
Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and 16 other states[1], state law prohibits any
form of municipal broadband, including acting as a common carrier.

The reasoning is that municipal networks can be (but usually aren't) funded by
local tax dollars so it represents a theoretically unfair advantage relative
to private corporations. I find that reasoning specious especially considering
I can look out my window in Texas and see a city water tower standing right
alongside a private water supply company's tower, yet both departments are
funded solely by ratepayers, not out of a general tax fund.

1: [http://www.gwlr.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Stricker1.pdf](http://www.gwlr.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Stricker1.pdf)

------
tlrobinson
"Comcast executive named Janet Turpen contributed $500 to Murray's mayoral
campaign in October 2013"

Errr, in a large company aren't you likely to find individual employees
donating to almost any given cause?

~~~
Amadou
Not in the executive class.

------
firefox
What else could we expect of one of the worst customer service companies in
the world? Fair competition?

~~~
misiti3780
I agree - except i think it is sort of fair competition isnt it ? Anyone can
donate

------
mwnz
Ah, the corruption of democracy.

~~~
veritas20
no...the foolishness of the citizens united decision

~~~
mwnz
Again, this is a corruption of the democratic process. The fact that any
corporation can contribute financially to influence an outcome is corruption
in itself.

~~~
veritas20
it's just the plain corruption of human nature, democratic process or
not....democracy was not structured to work this way

~~~
icelancer
>democracy was not structured to work this way

The laws of economics (Incentives 101) care not for the intent of the
lawmakers.

~~~
mwnz
Regulation can minimize the impact of incentives (economics 101).

~~~
icelancer
And who decides what regulation exists?

------
kodablah
Can someone help me understand how a public-private partnership with Gigabit
Squared for fiber is different that a similar project with Comcast for coax?
Will there be any deregulation of the fiber at any point in time (e.g. a
sunset date) or is this just trading one company for another?

~~~
greyfade
The primary difference is Comcast's indifference to improving their network
and services or lowering prices, despite their astronomical profit margin.

~~~
kodablah
The result is different (because Gigabit Squared hasn't reached city-wide
fiber monopoly yet), but the stage is set the same. This feels so much like
history repeating itself. Wouldn't surprise me if people made the same
argument in favor of Comcast over Southwestern Bell (or other local telco
monopoly).

------
bredren
This article would have been better if it quickly described the donations
against the scale of the campaigns themselves and the size of the PACs.
Looking at this, it appears that all Comcast related donations to McGinn's
opponent total to less than $70k.

This is a serious amount of money, but how does it really factor in against
all other donations? I don't know because the journalist didn't really share
that information.

Outside of PACs, here is the direct total contributions to each campaign:
[http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/sumreps/sumreps.asp?ElCycle=e...](http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/sumreps/sumreps.asp?ElCycle=el13a&n1=contributions&n2=total&n3=amount&n4=campaignbycategory&n5=mayor)

------
aaronpickus
Hey everyone,

I'm a working to help re-elect Mayor McGinn to Seattle. We're in a close race
with our opponent, who has received thousands of dollars from Comcast. I'm
hoping that you will consider helping us out so that we can show the rest of
the country that we can do something about improving internet service. Would
you consider helping us out with $5 or $10 donation? Here's how you can help:
[http://www.mcginnformayor.com/donate](http://www.mcginnformayor.com/donate).

And this isn't the only issue in the race. You can read about the mayor's
positions and his vision for the future of our city here:
[http://www.mcginnformayor.com/why](http://www.mcginnformayor.com/why)

Thank you,

aaron

------
jspaur
Comcast has other serious challengers here in Seattle as well between
CascadeLink (terrible website, but top notch service) and CondoInternet, if
you can get either of those, you'll never look at Comcast again (between
$30-60/month for 30/100mbit)

~~~
icelancer
Those are hardly challengers; they service upscale condos and select buildings
only. I live in the damn city and I can't get CenturyLink/Quest 40mbps (12mbps
max), CascadeLink, CondoInternet, or the future Seattle Gigabit. Ridiculous.

~~~
jspaur
Comcast services only select locations too. A good number of apartments around
the city don't even offer Comcast (and instead the aforementioned and other
services such as 'Wave'). The building I live in (granted, yes, an upscale
condo), had several offerings.

Full on competition? No. But better than a wide majority of cities? Yes. (Try
living in Florida...ugh)

------
tantalor
Here's the page for the fiber project:
[http://gigabitseattle.com/](http://gigabitseattle.com/)

------
detcader
This is how every issue plays out in US politics at the state, local, and
national levels, as law professor Lawrence Lessig explains [1]

[1]
[http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html)

------
a3n
High speed is cool 'n all, but on the other hand do you really want the
government owning or controlling _data_ pipes that you use for personal
business?

Seattle police, for one thing, have a history of hostility toward its
citizens. I'm sure they'd love easier monitoring of, for example, anti-police
groups.

~~~
pktgen
Solution: government runs the fiber to a cross-connect point, private
companies offer services (anything, Internet, TV, phone, or something we
haven't even thought of) over that fiber and pay a small fee for use of the
line.

Right of way is a natural monopoly. There's a limited amount of space on poles
and in conduit. The market can't support having even 4 or 5 providers all
running their own lines (even if they all had equal penetration rates, none of
them would be making a profit).

When it's done this way, you can choose from many different providers (see
UTOPIA and the, what, 9 or 10 providers they have that are all offering 1G for
$65-$70/mo.?) and there's actual competition. Those ISPs can choose to provide
options for L2 encryption as well (supporting it on their end and providing
CPE that supports it).

~~~
Amadou
Yes, let the government own the monopoly on the "pipes" and let private
enterprise compete on the type of "water" that flows down the pipes.

We will never have meaningful competition for pipes anyway so we gain none of
the benefits of the free market by handing them over to private ownership.

------
plink
I was about to make a donation to the PAC of Concerned Good Patriots for
Niceness and Helpfulness. Then I looked into the organization and discovered
it was run by nonagenarian ss officers intent on converting welfare recipients
into soylent-green. Imagine my astonishment!

------
mVChr
I know it's a public-private partnership, and I know the key point is "hey,
it's faster/better," but after all the NSA revelations, do we really want the
government to have direct control over our network access?

~~~
Karunamon
It is a local government, to be fair. And honestly? The current legislative
landscape means there's almost no functional difference between public
internet and Comcast internet. There's still the pretext of a warrant in
specific cases, but after that? Bring out the trap and trace gear and the NSA
black box for everything else!

------
Fuxy
Seriously? Instead of investing into the infrastructure Comcast is investing
into political interests to ultimately hold back technological progress.

This should be illegal in so many ways...

------
tn13
Well, Comcast is protecting its business interest.

------
sashaeslami
Everyone, quick, click on comcast ads.

The power of the internet.

------
tehwalrus
this is why only voters, not companies, should be allowed to donate to
political campaigns (and even then, at a capped rate.)

------
keypusher
The css and fonts are completely busted for me. FF24 on OSX.

~~~
codemac
They were busted on 25 as well, but my FFbeta just upgraded to 26.0 while I
had the article open - it's fixed.

