Vast numbers of people in Washington are shut out of the digital world (Seattle: how much, home)

[MechAndy]

Thanks 509 I appreciate it.
Most of our property is heavy with trees and what is not obstructed by trees has a west view.

I’m a simple bumpkin that married up.
My wife can not loose any zoom meetings so we are probably going to just keep what we have.

Might wait a bit and then give it a try.
That would more or less be a $1k gamble (running 2 services for a while) so that can wait a bit.

[509]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Yes Washington used to have a law that prohibited local municipalities from providing internet service direct to consumers. A bunch of states had those laws that were mostly promoted by cable monopolies and put forward in state legislatures by ALEC and other conservative pro-business lobbying groups.

I don't know the particular history of how such a law was first passed in WA, who advocated and why. A quick bit of googling didn't provide any answers. During that time period several decades ago the WA legislature was bouncing between GOP and Dem control so it was probably a bipartisan effort and maybe snuck into some other bill under the radar. It is hard to find answers.

But bottom line is that the current legislature repealed those old restrictions and local municipalities are free to provide whatever sort of internet service they want. The problem, of course, is that wired service to remote rural locations is very expensive and difficult. Which pretty much forces you to rely on satellite service for cable TV and there are various satellite and microwave-based technologies that are available to provide broadband to very rural areas. When we lived in TX we were outside the Cable TV range and so had to use DirectTV for our cable provider and a local small microwave outfit provided our internet via an antenna on the roof connected to a router. It wasn't the best but it worked.

That is the price that goes with living in very rural areas. It is absurd to think otherwise. There are a bazillion different urban services that you don't get in super rural areas. You aren't going to get DoorDash delivery of sushi or thai takeout either. And you probably can't easily call an Uber. If you want certain amenities you have to live somewhere where the population density supports such services.

'A bunch of states had those laws that were mostly promoted by cable monopolies and put forward in state legislatures by ALEC and other conservative pro-business lobbying groups.

Not in Washington.

It was Governor Locke and the Democrats that killed municipal fiber. The telecommunications industry, thought their best return on investment were the Democrats. And Governor Locke was not one to disappoint an "investor" in his political campaign.

In fairness, yes, it works with both political parties. And in fairness to the Democrats, they repealed their own law after twenty plus years.

That is the price that goes with living in very rural areas.

Yes, but only to a certain extent. What happened with Governor Locke and the Democrats.....they wanted to STOP internet access in rural areas, that were ready, willing, and able to use their local governments to provide internet service to their people.

The PUD's in eastern Washington did not use a DIME of state or Federal dollars. It was all county money. BUT that wasn't good enough for the Democrats. They did NOT want eastern Washington have high speed internet unless the Corporations provided it. It is that simple.

In rural areas, the only organizations with the ability to raise capital are the local governments. That is why I call it the People's Republic of Chelan County!!! Urban areas have plenty of very rich people with assets and the business resources to make a profit off high density populations.

I don't know the particular history of how such a law was first passed in WA, who advocated and why. A quick bit of googling didn't provide any answers.

And you won't find answers doing searches on the internet.

I did it a couple of years ago, as I find the issue very interesting and wanted to refresh my memory. Seattle Times didn't cover the issue, and the Wenatchee World reported only on bits and pieces of the issue. At that time, few people cared or knew how important the issue really was in economic development.

I was working for the Federal government during that time period, with a responsibility to report on economic development in Chelan County, Kittitas County, and Yakima County. A close friend was a "big fish" in the newspaper business so I got to quiz him for insight on the issue

You are correct that it was a Democrat Governor, and the Speaker of the House was Clyde Ballard, a Republican, from East Wenatchee. That was the ONLY reason a compromise happened, otherwise, we in Chelan County would still be waiting for high speed internet!!!

Wenatchee has several multi-national companies based here, plus the medical services, and engineering companies and I am sure that they were the driving force for getting fiber and NOT waiting for corporate America to find Wenatchee.

If you want certain amenities you have to live somewhere where the population density supports such services.

Not true. There are basic amenities that we as a PEOPLE have determined are in the public good, urban or rural. Even the US Constitution spoke to this issue with the Postal Service.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Postal Clause in Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing this task.


Just think of internet as the "Post Offices and post Roads" of the 21st century.

[Diana Holbrook]

Vast numbers of people in Washington are shut out of the digital world

And at least three quarters of them are happier that way!

[rkcarguy]

This is nothing new, big internet has buttered up politicians for decades for monopoly deals and then failed to deliver countless times. Up here in Whatcom county, there have been several instances where the cities have annexed new areas and developments. The internet provider happily services all the chicken house homes packed in 5' from each other, but skips over those on acreage stating that they don't have to service newly annexed areas. Because the cities have a monopoly deal, those skipped over that are now within city limits can't get internet from another provider and now HAVE NO SERVICES.
One property I looked at years ago was stuck in this circumstance, a dense development on one side and about 8 homes on 5 acre parcels for the next 1/4 mile to an intersection which also had fiber. Literally less than 700' from either direction to get everyone hooked up. I called around, and nope, no plans to service those 8 homes on acreage unless we wanted to cough up $38,000.

[Sockeye66]

I think of internet service as I do any other infrastructure. Of course greater populated areas are going to have more street lamps, bus routes, schedules, public water & sewer systems, transportation hubs, AND better internet access.



I've worked and lived in a number of remote Alaska sites and had internet service, it was slower and cost more, but that's one of the costs for the location of my choice.

[509]

Originally Posted by Sockeye66

I think of internet service as I do any other infrastructure. Of course greater populated areas are going to have more street lamps, bus routes, schedules, public water & sewer systems, transportation hubs, AND better internet access...................

The issue at the turn of the century in eastern Washington was the counties WANTED and COULD build a fiber optic system for broadband.

ON THEIR OWN...without a PENNY of STATE or FEDERAL money.

Governor Locke and the Democrats...said NO. If the CORPORATIONS don't want you to have high speed internet you can't do it on your own. So the famous compromise.

But the Democrats did recognize their error 20 years later. Here is an article on that!!

https://www.geekwire.com/2021/comes-...ay-ahead-game/

Here is the point I was trying to make......from the article.

Currently, customers in Kitsap County can choose between five ISPs. “Our whole model has been let the PUDs build infrastructure — that’s what we do well — and let the private compete on price and service over our network,” Hunter said.

And this was working fine, or so Hunter thought until Pomeroy Republican Rep. Mary Dye approached him and said, “I love your model but isn’t it just broadband for the rich?”

Hunter was taken aback. He agreed it was broadband for those who could afford it. The PUD legally could not subsidize the cost to homeowners. The reality began to bother him.

“Ultimately, that was a true statement by (Dye),” Hunter said.

Hunter's statement is incorrect "The PUD legally could not subsidize the cost to homeowners. The reality began to bother him".

The issue was that the money is in RETAIL, not WHOLESALE when it comes to internet. So if the PUD's could provide retail internet, like they do for water, sewer, and electricity. The price would come down and poor areas could afford broadband.

Oh wait. That would be the LOCAL GOVERNMENT providing those services, and the Democrats and Governor Locke would have NONE OF THAT!!! Probably because "we have the best government money can buy".....and they were bought. It is that simple or maybe...

Maybe its just because rich people are clueless.

Maybe because that's how they got rich, competitive advantage over the poor and they want to keep it.

I suspect it is the latter.

[mayfair]

The City Of Anacortes is doing it- providing their own broadband at an affordable price. https://www.anacorteswa.gov/984/Acce...Fiber-Internet

Anacortes is not a large city. It can be done.

[509]

Thanks for the update.

The bill took effect July 1st, 2021. Did the city of Anacortes jump the gun??



Chelan County (Governors Locke Law) 100 Mbps $50 1 Gig $75

City of Anacortes (2021 revision) 100 Mbps $39 1 Gig $69

StarLink 100 Mbps $99

What are people paying for internet only from private companies??? after promotional offers expire.

[mayfair]

Originally Posted by 509

Thanks for the update.

The bill took effect July 1st, 2021. Did the city of Anacortes jump the gun??

I didn't know the details of the law, but they started the project in 2019 and have been expanding:

https://www.king5.com/article/tech/a...a-d0104291d3f8

[freepelican]

I'm betting geomagnetic/solar storms/weather can affect satellite internet reception... and if so, this goes in cycles across years... therefore testing on a good year may not show you what it might be like on a bad year and vice versa... on the positive side, you might be treated to a spectacular northern lights show and some of Hedwig's friends may show up in your neighborhood :-)