Comments

1
The only government agency that has consistently and successfully defended the individual's right to privacy is the public library. They also have a broadband network.
So, Beacon Hill is not our 1st.
2
It's about damn time! It's just too bad this isn't happening before the election, it would be nice to have the incumbents' votes on record for this issue.
3
We had our chance at a city run network. It was called Gigabit Seattle. The Stranger helped kill it.
4
@3, Wrong, wrong, wrong. Gigabit Squared was never more than phantomware, kept visible only by McGinn administration's wishful thinking. They weren't killed by anybody; they were never alive to begin with.
5
Fuck Ed Murray and other foot draggers and craven telecom corporate suck ups. Let's get the ball rolling in a hood that has long been screwed over by Comca$t and CLunk. #UpgradeSeattle
6
The price tag of doing this city-wide - between $480 million and $665 million - is astronomical compared to the magnitude of the problems it would address. Concerned about low-income individuals' access to the internet? Great, me too. Let's expand the number of computers available in the library or the hours that the libraries are open. Let's set up some terminals at the homeless encampments, as Sawant has admirably led the push for. Let's more fully fund or better market some of the programs that local non-profits run providing internet access for low-income folks: http://interconnection.org/get-connected…

http://www.solid-ground.org/Programs/Con…

We've got incredibly pressing issues to address in this city, including a vital transportation levy that hangs in the balance and an even bigger and more important Sound Transit measure next year. Spending half a billion dollars so that Brett Hamil can upload his stupid youtube videos quicker really belongs at the top of the agenda?
7
#4, and you think any current citywide internet project will be less phantomware? Be honest. Gigabit Seattle was our region's only honest shot at a city run network. If that was "never alive to begin with", then this Beacon Hill project is so dead in the water it shouldn't be mentioned. Gigabit Seattle was much further along than this Beacon Hill project will ever get. How solid does a project have to be before you're satisfied?
8
@6 You're absolutely right that we have numerous more immediately pressing issues.

The transportation levy (which is significantly less than it needs to be, despite being nearly a billion dollars) is already on the ballot and will be decided before this amendment is voted upon. Sound Transit's levy will come up next year, but even if this pilot program is approved I doubt that we'll have sufficient results by November 2016 to make a determination on a city-wide program.

In the mean time there are many other issues that could be life and death for the people whom are affected, and those should also be addressed as soon as possible.

However, just because all of those matters are of immediate importance, doesn't mean city-wide municipal broadband would be a poor choice. In addition to allocating our budget to deal with on-going crises, we need to use our funds to invest in municipal improvements that will strengthen local businesses, communities, and citizens.

High quality, affordable, and open internet access for all residents fits perfectly into that scope of responsible governance and we need to get started working towards it as soon as possible.

This pilot program is a great first step, and if it's paired with research into its effects on tax revenue I think we would have a clear indication of just how valuable such a network will be for the future of our city.
9
At my apartment in Pioneer Square we have one 'broadband' option — CenturyLink @ 12mbps for $55. Effective speeds sometimes approach 2mbps, and packet loss means most modern services just don't work.

However, a city-owned network wouldn't solve the real issue in dense, urban apartment & condo buildings: each resident has their own wifi access point all fighting to use the same (effectively) three channels in the common 2.4ghz band.

The solution is a city developed framework — pre-negotiated metro ethernet rates, equipment list, and implementation guides to help buildings owners & managers wire in a suitable number of wifi access points for their own buildings.

A city-owned 'last mile' network would be great, but a targeted consolidation of 'last 30 feet' access points is something that would offer immediate speed — and most especially reliability upgrades — for a very low capital cost.

(Someone correct me if I'm incorrect here. Thanks.)
10
The rollout costs can be offset by selling a monthly subscription for the Internet Service it Provides.
It's like I just invented the Internet.

The other reason to simply expand the existing SPL network to every home, beyond the librarians keeping the Feds out of your shit, it that they have a charter to provide public library service to every citizen. There is no reason that could not include running the fiber to every eligible SPL home (all of them) and using patron's SPL account pages as "home" sites, but it would provide a service Comcast and CenturyLink have already admitted they would not support, and that's service to poor neighborhoods. It's not really something they can successfully fight in court having already made the admission.

Make municipal fiber broadband the responsibility of SPL.
11
#8, I am not sure your solution would work with the issue as you present it. If the problem is clogged wifi channels, adding new equipment and more access points solves nothing. Too many devices using the same frequencies isn't resolved with more antenna but rather with more frequencies. This issue would be inherent to the wifi system itself (and testable with packet/speed checks on a hard wired device).

Most large buildings these days have a dedicated T1 trunk line or better, especially the newer ones. With Cat 5 or better cable in the walls, most issues are either ISP greed or router to device related. The base internet infrastructure is more robust than Comcast would have us believe.

The city owned network is designed to end the issue of ISP greed. There is little it can do about end user device issues.

I am not sure how the city could consolidate last 30 feet access points, or how that would end up improving things.
12
Sorry, #9.
13
I LOVE the idea of SPL building out their network. I haven't heard this option until now. I don't know any details but this sounds like a wonderful idea. $600 million is not cheap, but neither are building roads, providing fire departments and police, and schools. I view internet as just as core as those services.
14
"Technology and access
Serve as Seattle's primary point of access to information, lifelong learning, economic development and creative expression through innovative use of technology and digital resources."
http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/mis…
15
The problem with the current Seattle broadband proposal is it's a cadillac fiber to the home system, competing with last century technology from Big Telecom, long since paid for by the taxpayer but sold at what the market will bear monopoly prices. The cadillac system is pricewise competitive with ancient Big Telecom junk, but the crooks can sell their taxpayer financed product for 10% current pricing and still make money, in an effort to put any city broadband out of business.

Since endemic corruption in the political process, prevents a step back to rate of return on cost, regulation of the privatized Telecom utility, the best we can do is use municipal utilities which borrow at far lower costs than Wall Street's private counterparts, to bypass the crooks.

By building up a cheaper fiber to the block system using powerline, copper or wifi mesh delivery to the household as a add on to City Light's proposed smart meter service the city could provide superior service to Big Telecom's $100 a month package for a few bucks a month. Santa Clara's muni power company offers a better than DSL service on WIFI over a larger area than Seattle for free, while Google Fi is looking at delivering 100 MBs plus for free or a very low cost. The not perfect but pretty darn good and dirt cheap system, can easily be upgraded to the cadillac level of service for customers that need it.

The city can pick a few neighborhoods for demos and for a minimal investment, city light crews could have both the cadillac fiber to the home and pretty darn good fiber to the block demonstrations ready in a few months.

Councillors Sawant, Harrell, and Licata need to remind themselves to not make the perfect, the enemy of the just very good.
16
As someone who knows nothing about libraries - wouldn't it be cheaper to give everyone a kindle and ask amazon for free ebooks for low income customers than to build a library? That levy was expensive.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.