Mike McGinn has made the right enemies. He deserves reelection.

@1 +1

@2 (@1+1)^999999

"...the rest of our local media has so far been uninterested in questioning either Comcast's motives or Murray's intentions."

You didn't question anything. You just quoted some guy on Reddit. Takes balls to criticize other news outlets for not covering a story you haven't lifted a finger on.

A lot of "ifs", but good ones for sure. I too am glad someone got paid to cover this local story, and glad you linked to it.

Nice find, Goldy. Thanks for making this a story in Seattle.

I call bullshit. There is a lot of "guessing" what this Comcast contributions means. Folks are also assuming that Ed will be Comcast's bitch, but if you've ever met the man you would learn pretty quickly he's strong headed and doesn't bend just because someone wants him to. This is a strength and a weakness.

Comcast's contract with the city is up for renewal so they're probably investing in the winning candidate so they can keep their contract with the city despite their shitty customer service and increasingly ridiculous cost. They could compete with Gigabit by the time it goes citywide, but they can't compete if they're not here at all.

I still can't believe Seattle doesn't offer optical fiber from Century Link. I can get it easily and cheaply on Kent East Hill with speeds up to 40 Mpbs!!

@8, good point. Ed won't just kowtow to his contributors. Not like when he proposed and passed legislation exempting rental car companies from parking ticket liabilities the year after they contributed to his campaign, right?

@8 Nothing to see there. Just Comcast being super patriotic, supporting local electoral politics.

And I suppose we should all wait for tonight's arrival of the great pumpkin?

What exactly are we supposed to like about Ed Murray?

Is being Mayor of Seattle a reward for passing gay marriage?

@12 Sadly, yes.

So, McGinn takes his sweet time getting around to making gigabit internet he pledged plans on in 2009 and we're supposed to be believe that Ed Murray intends to push seattle back to dial-up and Crapcast ?
http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/07/02/i…

Yeah, not worried. Comcast doesn't have that much pull in this town, Murray or not.

Big business is going to support candidates until Citizens United is fixed via a constitutional amendment. McGinn's money is just as dirty as Murray's.

via SeattleMet: http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…

Although Murray and the pro-Murray IE campaign have certainly received plenty of big corporate contributions, so has McGinn—including donations from coal lobbyist Beth Ginsberg, a VP for oil drilling company West Bay Exploration, and the head of Sellen Construction.

And while McGinn hasn't received any funding from the Beverage Association or Comcast, he did get $3,650 from employees of one of the specifi evil corporation he name-checked the other night: Vulcan. In 2009, he received $1,125 from Vulcan employees, plus a $200 in-kind contribution from Vulcan itself, in his race against then-mayor Greg Nickels.

@9 according to CenturyLink's website, the choices for an address I entered in that neighborhood are:
3 mbps for $30/mo
1.5 mbps for $30/mo

Plus $135 in setup fees.

For contrast, Gigabit Seattle will be offering:
5 mbps free for the first 60 months, then converts to 10 mbps for $10/mo
100 mbps for $45/mo
1000 mbps for $80/mo

Installation fee is waived with 1 year contract.

So I wouldn't exactly be patting Kent on the back.

@9, you can't get fiber from Century Link because the mayor has his foot on the throat of that company, not letting them install the infrastructure they need to get the "last mile" to your home.

McGinn is all in for Gigabit, a company with no visible plan or schedule to actually serve Seattle citizens. Pure vaporware.

Murray has been briefed on the problems, and if he's elected we'll see a level playing field for all broadband providers. No more favoritism, especially for one that hasn't delivered.

Murray for mayor.

@17, the deal with Gigabit for the rollout is signed, sealed and delivered. The rollout's going to happen, and once we get a genuine taste of it, Comcast is cooked. Widening Gigabit's service area will become instant political capital, and slowing it will become political poison.

Mike knows this, Comcast knows this, Gigabit knows this, Ed certainly knows this.

17, how much do you get paid per post for something like that?

A vote for McGinn is a vote against Comcast?
What's the question.

@18, where is this Gigabit deal posted? It's not on their Website.

They originally told us they would go live this fall, and that's not happening. Now it's some unknown time next year.

They have no updated information on their website, and they don't respond to email or telephone inquiries. Why the secrecy?

@17 Actually no. The following article is from last June.

CenturyLink said its broadband expansion efforts in Seattle are being held up by a city ordinance that requires nearby property owners' permission to put in remote terminal (RT) boxes to carry its broadband services to homes and businesses.

Under the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) "Director's Rule," all telecom telecom or electric utility building facilities in the public right of way to get adjacent property owner's permission and 60 percent of the owners within a block.

"We want to make sure we have a high threshold of support so if the public wants one they can have it," said Brian De Place, right-of-way manager for the Seattle Department of Transportation, in a KIRO-TV article, adding that the rule was enacted following a number of complaints about the placement of the boxes near their property.

While CenturyLink could bury the boxes under the street, Sue Anderson, vice president and general manager for the Puget Sound area, told the TV station that option could cost between $200,000 and $300,000 in a residential area, versus the $50,000 it costs to house them above ground.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/centu…

@ 21, it's there. In fact, it's here!

http://gigabitseattle.com/pricing-2/

@22, yep, that's the deal -- one absentee property owner in Las Vegas gets to veto an essential box location by simply not opening and responding to her mail. Even the City admits the rules are unworkable, but they refuse to change them.

@23, that's not the Gigabit plan, it's just a pricing matrix. Where's the Plan that tells us what is going where, and when? Going Live when, and where? It doesn't appear to exist.

How many paying customers does Gigabit have Anywhere in the US? We can't find any. Vaporware!

This sounds like dumping on Gigabit, but it's really not -- it's a cry for a level playing field, where we have a mayor who doesn't play favorites with Anybody.

What's wrong with that?

@24 anyone who wants us to buy that Murray will have a "level playing field" and "doesn't play favorites" despite all this money Comcast is dumping into his election must also have a bridge to sell - or just thinks Slog readers are a bunch of naive rubes.

This is a little silly. The actual amount donated is pretty negligible. As others have noted, it's likely just a huge company rounding the bases by backing the (overwhelmingly likely) winner. Murray's also said he'll follow thru with the existing contract, which is probably the best bet to make with an outfit that's thus far failed to keep up with its promises. If they ever manage to deliver on their promises (and God knows I want them to), neither Murray or Comcast will be able to stop them.

In case anyone is swayed by comments claiming the Gigabit rollout is somehow fishy, first go ahead and lay that at the feet of the truly lazy coverage locally. Then see details of the fully public and transparent bid process that led to the DC based corporation Gigabit being selected. Also, details on the rollout itself. Here's the City's landing page to begin exploring. http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/seafi/gigab…

No, it's not anywhere near what the mayor had told us he'd try to accomplish. No, Seattle apparently will not be joining the 150 communities currently pursuing their own genuinely publicly owned broadband networks. Yes, it's going to be just a tiny rollout to start with. But it will crack things open for us, and that's pretty great.

I don't think our current mayor has done a good job at all. I'll cite a passage from something he claims as a success (http://www.westseattleherald.com/...:

"Broadband and fiber optic to the home. We were looking at a municipal broadband utility. Fiber optic is the next big thing. I met with the mayor of Kansas City and Google built them broadband and they've got kids moving in there to have gigabit upload and download speeds and inexpensively in Kansas City. This is Seattle man and we should be the place to do the great new things. The way it works right now is we are trying to run the internet over copper wire and things that were built for TV or telephones. What we need is a big fat pipe in which TV, phones and everything would be apps on that pipeline. We've looked at a municipal utility and before we went there, which would be very expensive, we said is there anyone in the private sector who would like to lease our excess dark fiber. We own a fiber optic network that connects all our city buildings. We have a lot of unused capacity. Gigabit Squared said they can start rolling out next year in fourteen neighborhoods fiber optic to the home or business for $80 a month, gigabit upload and download speeds. That would be transformative."

I call serious shenanigans on this. I've been working with my citizen's advocacy group, www.UPTUN.org for years now. The group has been trying to get Seattle to change its permitting requirements for broadband infrastructure (utility cabinets) for nearly 4 years... and the city has stonewalled the entire time. Instead of actually allowing fair competition and allowing someone to compete against the cable companies, the city has gone all-in on Gigabit Squared. Want the proof? Here's our timeline of the last 4 years: http://www.uptun.org/.../

Fiber-to-the-home... it's a wonderful dream. Gigabit Squared would provide a wonderful service, if it ever came to fruition. However, they've gone from potentially rolling out in 12-14 Seattle neighborhoods in Fall of 2013 down to 1-2 in Spring of 2014. They approached Chicago before us... have they rolled anything out there yet? Are they even going to be able to deliver anything to the city on a fair playing field? It's a pipe-dream for now, vaporware. They need money, and lots of it. The city has put their eggs in the their basket.

The city has blocked any common-sense reforms from occurring that'd allow for new equipment cabinets from being placed in public-right-of-way land (unused parking strips, alleys, etc). Essentially, this blocked CenturyLink from rolling out dozens / hundreds of fiber optic nodes that would have been able to directly compete with your cable provider. So, we are stuck with a monopoly for high-speed internet. Hate your current provider? Too bad... if you want high speed internet, they're the only game in town. Not allowing the competition in is a complete failure from the leadership of the city, and it goes all the way to the top.

The city's intentions were probably admirable... they wanted to allow for a company to flourish that'd provide next-generation broadband to all of Seattle. It's a great dream, but was it ever seriously asked if they could deliver?

My group has been fighting this issue for nearly 4 years. It's time we got some new leadership in place.

Wow, yet more completely new posters popping up coincidentally just in time for the election.

@28, your links to all your work in recent years makes me glad someone is still at it. I'm embarrassed to not have known anything of your efforts.

It is true that Gigabit is just a fart in a windstorm compared to what could have been before the city abandoned public broadband, and compared to what you've been agitating for since then. But a fart is better than nothing stirring at all, which has been the case for too long.

My hope at this point is that since for better or worse the powers that be have at least agreed to let Gigabit break the inertia, that might give momentum to work like yours as well.

This is all about the program McGinn pulled the plug on in 2012? http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstec… "

"The closest Seattle came was a meager test of public Wi-Fi service along a few blocks in Columbia City, University Way and downtown parks that began in 2005.

"Last week the city literally pulled the plug, ending its "community wireless service" April 29.

"It was time to update the network, and the city opted to spend the $100,000 elsewhere.

"With the general-fund budget situation being the way it is, I recommended to the mayor — and he agreed — we should shut it down," said Bill Schrier, chief technology officer."

Seattle has granted geographical monopoly franchises to two cable companies: Comcast and Wave. Comcast has a monopoly in most of Seattle and serves around 200,000 customers. Wave has a monopoly in the Central Area Franchise District but also serves parts of Downtown, Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill, and Queen Anne. It has around 13,000 customers. Comcast serves 94% of Seattle cable subscribers and Wave serves 6%, so for all practical purposes, Comcast can be considered Seattle's monopoly cable provider.

The franchise fees paid to the City by the monopoly holders fund:

* The Seattle Channel, which carries some great programming but which is also a free public showcase for incumbent city politicians.

* The Seattle Office of Cable Communications, the regulatory agency that determines where, how, and to whom cable franchises are allotted.

* Seattle Community Media, which runs the local public-access cable channel.

* Parts of other City operations, which are not specifically identified by the Office of Cable Communications.

Additionally, Comcast is the sole funder of the Seattle Channel's Art Zone program, to the tune of nearly a half-million dollars a year for ten years.

In light of the above, ask yourselves how anxious City politicians and regulators might be to reduce monopoly profiteering by cable franchises, whether by regulation or by competition. Like Congress with CSPAN, or the Washington legislature with the Washington Channel, or the FDA with contributions from Pharma, they are essentially getting a cut of the skim. And the skim is borne by Seattle cable subscribers who are paying far more for cable service than they should have to.

In this connection, I am very curious as to why Frontier/Verizon mysteriously decided a couple of years back -- ostensibly sua sponte -- not to extend its fiber optic network to within Seattle city limits. I'm all for Gigabit coming in to compete, but I have to say that it is feeling very much like vaporware so far, just like Frontier/Verizon FiOS turned out to be.

Finally, if you want to know exactly how badly Americans are being screwed, see this recent study:

New America Foundation, The Cost of Connectivity 2013

Seattle wasn't one of the cities surveyed, unfortunately. However, I would like to point out that the only time I have ever actually gotten 20Mbps downloads on my ~$70-a-month "20Mbps" Comcast service is when I run speed tests on well-known speed-testing sites. The highest download speeds I have gotten in real-world usage are around 2Mbps, half of what the FCC considers to qualify as "broadband." And frequently, during local prime-time hours, my aggregate download speeds are throttled down to 500-600kbps. (If you're running Windows and want a better idea of what kind of speeds you are getting, check out a free bandwidth monitor called Networx.) If you ask me, Comcast's nominal broadband speeds are pure, contrived fiction. Be sure to factor that into the above report's findings, at least where cable service is concerned.

By the way, Ed corrected the record today. I'm not too surprised I haven't seen anything on the Slog, but here he is in his own words:
https://www.facebook.com/ed.murray.1614/…

A story posted online on the Washington Post web site yesterday incorrectly implies that I might not be supportive of citywide high speed broadband because Comcast has contributed to my campaign. As we made clear to the reporter yesterday -- and as the article reports -- I support the City's current efforts with Gigabit Squared to create a high speed broadband network. Unfortunately, the article then goes on to speculate that I might decide in the future not to support an expansion of the current City plan (to provide service in 14 neighborhoods). That speculation is simply wrong. I think competition is a good thing, and I support the creation of a citywide high speed broadband network.

And politicians never lie.

Oh, and $10k is not that much in a mayoral election? Bullshit.

Why does the City continue to pour money and resources into a company that has delivered absolutely nothing. Whether or not you like Comcast is irrelevant. The mismanagement and lack of oversight by Seattle's Technology director and the Mayor's office reveals the incompetence that has become the norm here. Whether or not Murray gets in, the Auditor's office should take a good look at what has and has not been done so far. Time for a change all the way around.

Gigabit Squared is taking Seattle for a ride. How much have they cost Seattle so far and what have they actually delivered?

The truly puzzling endorsement is Planned Parenthood's of Murray.

@9

Bailo, what are you talking about? Centurylink offered me 40Mbps when I was still living in the CD!

Yes, Lack @39, Century Link did manage to build out a few areas in spite of the City's excessive restrictions.

What citizens want is for the City to permit more such projects, for the mayor to lift his boot off of the legacy providers and let them serve the public. Instead McGinn insists on holding out for Gigabit, in spite of their nonperformance.

@40, what Comcast, Wave, Centurylink, and Verizon want to build out is not what citizens want. VDSL2 and DOCSIS 3.0 might be sufficient in a less technologically oriented part of the country, but for a city like Seattle, that kind of service is not impressive. It's downright embarrassing compared to the service available in other tech-savvy cities around the world, who we are trying to compete with, service which many of our residents have experienced first-hand.

The City is not standing in the way of a top-tier VDSL2 or DOCSIS 3.0 buildout. The "legacy providers" have all the leeway and resources they need to get it done. They're just afraid of blowing money on the buildout, only to be outcompeted by a real, international grade, high speed option.