3 ms·

But are there competing gigabit internet in Seattle? Obviously they will stay competitive, that's beside the point. It's like how Comcast happened to bring che

But are there competing gigabit internet in Seattle? Obviously they will stay competitive, that's beside the point. It's like how Comcast happened to bring cheap gigabit internet to every city Google Fiber entered... The fact that it takes a local competitor to get these big companies to bring cheap gigabit is exactly the problem. Your anecdotal evidence about a city full of competition doesn't really prove anything.

aloknnikhil 7y ago
There are far more options in Seattle than ever before (and possibly than any other city in the US). WaveG, CenturyLink, CascadeLink, WebPass (Google Fiber), Comcast
- bahmboo 7y ago
  That doesn't appear accurate. If you happen to live in a building (condo/apt) that is supported by one of the other gigabit companies you list then you are good to go. But that is a very very small part of the population. Otherwise Seattle has only 2 options for physically connected internet: Centurylink and Comcast. And they are priced accordingly.
  - aloknnikhil 7y ago
    Hmm. I wouldn't call that a very very small part. It's not pervasive. But it's still better than the competition in most cities.
  - yellow_postit 7y ago
    Yup and there are large swaths of Seattle where Century Link doesn’t have competitive speeds to Comcast. Cities should have even more competition for service providers than rural areas.
    - a_e_k 7y ago
      Yes! I live in Seattle and whenever I try their checker it tells me "Great! You qualify for up to 12Mbps" for $45/mo. I'm not a fan of Comcast, but that Century Link offer is a poor joke in comparison. And this is despite living less than three blocks from a Century Link building crammed full of machines (I can hear the hum from the sidewalk when I go by). I don't get it.
      - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
        It's the cost of the last mile, and the difficulty and expense of running those wires.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
        Or just apathy by incumbent providers, why do better when doing worse still gets you paid.
boring_twenties 7y ago
Here in Salt Lake City, Comcast is not competitive with Google Fiber at all. It's about 2.5x more expensive ($170 vs $70 if I'm not mistaken), and comes with a 1TB/month data cap, making it completely useless.
malnourish 7y ago
That's fine though, as long as they're not actively campaigning and lobbying to keep entities from entering the field in the first place.
- munk-a 7y ago
  No it isn't fine - the fact that the monopoly is developed enough to suppress competition is already a bad thing - these guys need to be broken up hard. When they additionally lobby to stop locals from fixing the problem - that's them rubbing salt in the wounds and I'm glad they're doing it, it's getting less technical folk to wake up to the BS.
  - malnourish 7y ago
    I think I did a poor job communicating what I meant. I agree with you, the current status quo is abhorrent. Were there to be competition, some providers offering poor deals is fine. That isn't the case though. Thank you for articulating.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  Do we know that they aren't lobbying? I'm not familiar with CenturyLink for Comcast absolutely is all over the US.

aloknnikhil 7y ago

There are far more options in Seattle than ever before (and possibly than any other city in the US). WaveG, CenturyLink, CascadeLink, WebPass (Google Fiber), Comcast

bahmboo 7y ago
That doesn't appear accurate. If you happen to live in a building (condo/apt) that is supported by one of the other gigabit companies you list then you are good to go. But that is a very very small part of the population. Otherwise Seattle has only 2 options for physically connected internet: Centurylink and Comcast. And they are priced accordingly.
- aloknnikhil 7y ago
  Hmm. I wouldn't call that a very very small part. It's not pervasive. But it's still better than the competition in most cities.
- yellow_postit 7y ago
  Yup and there are large swaths of Seattle where Century Link doesn’t have competitive speeds to Comcast. Cities should have even more competition for service providers than rural areas.
  - a_e_k 7y ago
    Yes! I live in Seattle and whenever I try their checker it tells me "Great! You qualify for up to 12Mbps" for $45/mo. I'm not a fan of Comcast, but that Century Link offer is a poor joke in comparison. And this is despite living less than three blocks from a Century Link building crammed full of machines (I can hear the hum from the sidewalk when I go by). I don't get it.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      It's the cost of the last mile, and the difficulty and expense of running those wires.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        Or just apathy by incumbent providers, why do better when doing worse still gets you paid.

boring_twenties 7y ago

Here in Salt Lake City, Comcast is not competitive with Google Fiber at all. It's about 2.5x more expensive ($170 vs $70 if I'm not mistaken), and comes with a 1TB/month data cap, making it completely useless.

malnourish 7y ago

That's fine though, as long as they're not actively campaigning and lobbying to keep entities from entering the field in the first place.

munk-a 7y ago
No it isn't fine - the fact that the monopoly is developed enough to suppress competition is already a bad thing - these guys need to be broken up hard. When they additionally lobby to stop locals from fixing the problem - that's them rubbing salt in the wounds and I'm glad they're doing it, it's getting less technical folk to wake up to the BS.
- malnourish 7y ago
  I think I did a poor job communicating what I meant. I agree with you, the current status quo is abhorrent. Were there to be competition, some providers offering poor deals is fine. That isn't the case though. Thank you for articulating.
ehsankia 7y ago
Do we know that they aren't lobbying? I'm not familiar with CenturyLink for Comcast absolutely is all over the US.