The municipal plan that was, in fact, given up on is the one McGinn campaigned on rather prominently. True, the idea he decided was better (since it requires little of the political capital he finds it so hard to accrue) is moving forward, just as you say.

But it's silly to say "apples aren't disappearing, 'cos look at these oranges right here."

The city needs fiber to the premise, not fiber to the node (2 -4 blocks down the street), only problem is that local telcos will sue, they've done so int he past. All we need is a mayor who is tough enough to deal with the instant lawsuit that is sure to be filed the second we think about wiring up the city with a sales tax.

Gay, straight, republican, democrat, driver, cyclist, owner or tenant, fiber internet is something EVERYONE can agree to and we already have half a dozen ISPs ready to offer this service (Dry Loop DSL is dying).

Way to perpetuate the war on dial-up, McSchwinternet.

Meanwhile, even in the most positive light, the US is ranked 7th internationally in our big cities for broadband, and something like 41st for cost per GB.

Think you're being ripped off?

You're right.

@1: Wrong. A) There was never a municipal plan to string the city with public WiFi, and B) McGinn never campaigned on one.

What he announced yesterday is exactly what he was talking about a year ago. Exact same plan. Offer to lease city-owned fiber and conduits. If we don't get results, pursue city-owned network.

As many are dropping cable TV for the internet, are broadband prices going to go up again? Leasing out public networks is one thing but should there be some price control of natural monopolies?

As a Pioneer Square business owner with an office sitting directly above the city-owned fiber, I call bullshit on this plan.

Right after Comcast grabbed leased the conduit last year, they dropped by my office gave me an estimate of $1000/month for a 10mbps fiber synchronous line. A few blocks outside Pioneer Square, prices drop to around $100/month.

If the city is going to roll out this plan to other areas, they need to have pricing restrictions in place - otherwise, they are just further enabling these ISP monopolies.

Step 1 to improve Seattle broadband: take away Broadstripe's license.

@5, you're a great contrarian and a hard worker, but a) I didn't write it was wifi he ran on. My comment was to broadband, the topic of your post, and b) this McGinn interview and analysis about broadband written during the actual campaign season in question by Glenn Fleishman does a way better job than you or me at specifying what the fuck McGinn actually ran on. To me, it looks pretty close to just what I said.

But hey - make up your own mind. Happy reading.
http://publicola.com/2009/09/22/technerd…

Actually this public-private "partnership" idea goes back to 2007 under Nickles. The city put out an RFI for those interested in doing this. They got a lot of responses, but none of them panned out to the benefit of the citizens. Actually WiFi does play a part, for those areas not easily provided with FTTH, and for other reasons of affordability.

The biggest issue is NOT just access, but affordability. The city could still establish am Internet utility with shared bandwith, or tiered service, but they don't have the will or the guts to do it. This is not about the costs of the Last Mile, as much as the threat to sue from Comcast and Century Link.

Many feasible ideas were floated back in 2006-2008. None of them mattered as much as fear of being sued. However, the City of Edmonds took Comast on and in 2010 beat Comcast in court over the "competition." issue. The "expense" is no longer a reason, but a convienent excuse to not deal directly with this.

This is why the big telcos and ISP's are now heavily lobbying state legislatures for statutes prohibiting municipalities from establishing municipal public broadband networks. They have not succeeded in WA St, yet. They have succeeded in several other eastern and Midwestern states.