3 ms·

Couple bought home in Seattle, then learned Comcast Internet would cost $27,000

LinuxBender 4y ago
Is it time for internet provider access and costs to become part of the required disclosures for selling a property? It is already a discussion and scoring point on a youtube channel that reviews cities rural towns. [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldAccordingToBriggs/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldAccordingToBriggs/videos
- skue 4y ago
  Lack of internet was on the seller disclosure, but the buyer assumed it could be easily remedied. As for estimated costs, the buyer was unable to get that information from Comcast directly after “many months” and ultimately needed the city to intervene. So don’t see how it would have been any easier for the seller to obtain this info or appropriate to require it.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    All good points. I suppose if the law required this information the the seller would have to at least list the price as "Unknown / unable to obtain / inquire with starlink" giving the buyer a chance to dig into that issue. The seller could sell "as-is" but the issues could at least be listed. As-is disclosure requirements vary by state so maybe this would not help everyone.
kenny_bania 4y ago
I'm from Seattle and have zero sympathy for these people and their manufactured outrage. What the article fails to tell you is the housing market here is so insane they were probably in a bidding war with 50 other couples, which would happen even if the property was a dilapidated hovel with no internet and a family of bowtie-wearing rats living in the crawl space. People are plunking down $1M+ and waiving inspection. Madness. So adequate Comcast service probably falls lower on the list than other questions such as "will the roof cave in on us?" Beggars can't be choosers after all. That said, there are plenty of options. Seattle has pretty reliable 5G coverage through T-Mobile who will sell you home internet now. CenturyLink fiber in some neighborhoods. Starlink. Yes the landline internet situation here is abysmal - parts of West Seattle are still on 512K DSL last I recall, but the point is you have options. Comcast isn't the only game in town anymore (and in fact is not the lone cable provider in all city neighborhoods). Stop whining and climb up on the roof and mount an LTE antenna like people in rural communities do. Just hope your foot doesn't go through because the wood's probably all rotted in that mid-century bungalow you just spent $950k on. Comcast bad, whatever. I can't believe I'm taking their side on this.
- skue 4y ago
  I understand how frustrating the Seattle housing market can be, but how is any of that the ~seller’s~ buyer’s fault? Your unempathetic rant is directed at someone also suffering the consequences of this market. This house was purchased last year, prior to the most recent frenzy and no they didn’t spend anywhere near a mil on it, nor is it dilapidated. It’s actually easy to identify in Zillow if you bother to look. Edit: seller’s -> buyer’s
  - kenny_bania 4y ago
    > but how is any of that the seller’s fault? I never said it was. It's the buyer's fault. Caveat emptor. They have choices. They could have purchased a home in the suburbs but chose to purchase within the Seattle city limits, where the homes and neighborhoods are much older and the infrastructure is dilapidated. The home almost assuredly has no air conditioning, and depending on the year it was built, the electrical is probably outdated as well. Bonus points if it has a buried heating oil tank in the front yard, which a lot of homes in Northgate do, which they'd have to remedy and do an environmental cleanup for. The article seems to indicate they are WFH tech employees who do "six hours of [Zoom] calls a day" so they could have lived literally anywhere in the metro area. Buying in this neighborhood was a lifestyle choice. They chose to live closer to "city fun" in exchange for shitty internet. I live in the sticks. My neighbors work for Google. We both have gigabit-class internet. We compromised; driving into the city with traffic sucks beyond comprehension. Entitlement to Comcast internet is pretty low on the list of concerns if you're insisting on buying in that neighborhood.
Spivak 4y ago
It’s always fascinating that people so consistently underestimate the massive cost of running underground wires and assume it’s at all economical on the individual level. As a point of reference if this couple wanted the city to build a 181 ft road it would cost a little over $100k. If it’s not subsidized (i.e. paid for entirely) by the city or batched by developers wiring a whole neighborhood at a time it makes no sense. Having grown up always having internet it’s easy to take for granted how stupidly expensive the whole system is.

Is it time for internet provider access and costs to become part of the required disclosures for selling a property? It is already a discussion and scoring point on a youtube channel that reviews cities rural towns. [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldAccordingToBriggs/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldAccordingToBriggs/videos

skue 4y ago
Lack of internet was on the seller disclosure, but the buyer assumed it could be easily remedied. As for estimated costs, the buyer was unable to get that information from Comcast directly after “many months” and ultimately needed the city to intervene. So don’t see how it would have been any easier for the seller to obtain this info or appropriate to require it.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  All good points. I suppose if the law required this information the the seller would have to at least list the price as "Unknown / unable to obtain / inquire with starlink" giving the buyer a chance to dig into that issue. The seller could sell "as-is" but the issues could at least be listed. As-is disclosure requirements vary by state so maybe this would not help everyone.

kenny_bania 4y ago

I'm from Seattle and have zero sympathy for these people and their manufactured outrage. What the article fails to tell you is the housing market here is so insane they were probably in a bidding war with 50 other couples, which would happen even if the property was a dilapidated hovel with no internet and a family of bowtie-wearing rats living in the crawl space. People are plunking down $1M+ and waiving inspection. Madness. So adequate Comcast service probably falls lower on the list than other questions such as "will the roof cave in on us?" Beggars can't be choosers after all. That said, there are plenty of options. Seattle has pretty reliable 5G coverage through T-Mobile who will sell you home internet now. CenturyLink fiber in some neighborhoods. Starlink. Yes the landline internet situation here is abysmal - parts of West Seattle are still on 512K DSL last I recall, but the point is you have options. Comcast isn't the only game in town anymore (and in fact is not the lone cable provider in all city neighborhoods). Stop whining and climb up on the roof and mount an LTE antenna like people in rural communities do. Just hope your foot doesn't go through because the wood's probably all rotted in that mid-century bungalow you just spent $950k on. Comcast bad, whatever. I can't believe I'm taking their side on this.

skue 4y ago
I understand how frustrating the Seattle housing market can be, but how is any of that the ~seller’s~ buyer’s fault? Your unempathetic rant is directed at someone also suffering the consequences of this market. This house was purchased last year, prior to the most recent frenzy and no they didn’t spend anywhere near a mil on it, nor is it dilapidated. It’s actually easy to identify in Zillow if you bother to look. Edit: seller’s -> buyer’s
- kenny_bania 4y ago
  > but how is any of that the seller’s fault? I never said it was. It's the buyer's fault. Caveat emptor. They have choices. They could have purchased a home in the suburbs but chose to purchase within the Seattle city limits, where the homes and neighborhoods are much older and the infrastructure is dilapidated. The home almost assuredly has no air conditioning, and depending on the year it was built, the electrical is probably outdated as well. Bonus points if it has a buried heating oil tank in the front yard, which a lot of homes in Northgate do, which they'd have to remedy and do an environmental cleanup for. The article seems to indicate they are WFH tech employees who do "six hours of [Zoom] calls a day" so they could have lived literally anywhere in the metro area. Buying in this neighborhood was a lifestyle choice. They chose to live closer to "city fun" in exchange for shitty internet. I live in the sticks. My neighbors work for Google. We both have gigabit-class internet. We compromised; driving into the city with traffic sucks beyond comprehension. Entitlement to Comcast internet is pretty low on the list of concerns if you're insisting on buying in that neighborhood.

Spivak 4y ago

It’s always fascinating that people so consistently underestimate the massive cost of running underground wires and assume it’s at all economical on the individual level. As a point of reference if this couple wanted the city to build a 181 ft road it would cost a little over $100k. If it’s not subsidized (i.e. paid for entirely) by the city or batched by developers wiring a whole neighborhood at a time it makes no sense. Having grown up always having internet it’s easy to take for granted how stupidly expensive the whole system is.