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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 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.

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".

I pay Time Warner $60 a month for 20mbps....

It sounds like it is rolling along, though the details on the "14 neighborhoods" is a bit vague.

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:

http://gigabitseattle.com/areas/

http://gigabitseattle.com/faqs/customer-faqs/#faq-425

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 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Google typically funds all major contenders in big races.