Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Donates Heavily To Defeat Mayor Who Is Bringing Gigabit Fiber To Seattle

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Andrea Peterson reports in the Washington Post that one of Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's big policy initiatives has been expanding the quality and quantity of high-speed Internet access throughout the city. However incumbent providers, particularly Comcast, have invested heavily in defeating McGinn in the mayoral election. While Comcast denies there is any connection between McGinn's broadband policies and their donations, the company has given thousands of dollars to PACs that have, in turn, given heavily to anti-McGinn groups. One of McGinn's core promises in the 2009 campaign was to 'develop a city-wide broadband system.' The mayor considered creating a citywide broadband system as a public utility, like water or electricity. But aides say that would have been too expensive, so the mayor settled on public-private partnerships using city-owned dark fiber. This dark fiber was laid down starting in 1995, and the mayor's office now says there are some 535 miles of it, only a fraction of which is being used. In June, the partnership, called Gigabit Squared, announced pricing for its Seattle service: $45 dollars a month for 100 Mbps service or $80 a month for 1 Gbps service plus a one-time installation cost of $350 that will be waived for customers signing a one-year contract. For comparison, Comcast, one of the primary Internet providers in the area, offers 105 Mbps service in the area for $114.99 a month, according to their website. If Comcast is indeed attempting to sway the election, it would fall in line with a larger pattern of telecom interests lobbying against municipal efforts to create their own municipal broadband systems or leveraging city-owner fiber resources to create more competition for incumbent providers. Peterson writes, '...if Comcast's donations help Murray defeat McGinn, it will send a powerful message to mayors in other American cities considering initiatives to increase broadband competition.'"

21 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. And this is why... by XPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Lobbying needs to be illegal. Period.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:And this is why... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lobbying used to be called bribery. Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates.

    2. Re:And this is why... by bob_super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a whole universe between "people should shut up" and "people with money can spend unlimited on corruption if they call it contributions".

      Almost all democracies limit the money flowing around politics. None has done it perfectly, but the US has a particularly bad version.

    3. Re:And this is why... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment.

      Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.

      Because, see, the First Amendment gives the People a right to petition the government for redress of grievances; what it does not provide for is a way for any person or group to buy the legislation they want to have enacted.

      Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech, because free speech is an equal proposition, and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do. I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:And this is why... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates.

      Wonderful! Im a candidate. Funds, please.

    5. Re:And this is why... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funds, please.

      5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.

      Then we expect some expense reports for the funds, and remember we may audit those, and there's all sorts of felony stuff for misusing the funds. And you can't hide behind a corporation. This is on you.

      What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?

  2. Re:Money climax by Etrahkad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would say once enough of the middle class are unable to continue throwing billions of dollars at the corporate entities and that bubble does finally pop, mass starvation will hit. I would believe that is when the revolution and major changes will take place. It is not a question of If but when (is that the question anymore?).

  3. And Yet by fullback · · Score: 5, Insightful

    people will continue to parrot the line that the reason the U.S. has expensive and slow internet service is because the country is too big.
    "It's too big!"
    Nonsense. If it's too big, how in the world did you get those water, sewer and phone lines?
    Watch how many people will say the same thing again and again in comments below.
    "It's too big!"

    1. Re:And Yet by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It IS, in fact, too big given our current way our telecommunications infrastructure is paid for. The only incentive telecom companies have is a profit motive, and spending $10 million to pull a high-capacity fiber or build a digital microwave relay to a place like Burns, Oregon to only service a few hundred subscribers doesn't return the kind of investment today's stockholders want

      Under the current incentives, telecom companies don't even have an incentive to pull fiber even in large cities! That's the goddamn problem here!

      The rural fiber cost issue is a red herring. It is absolutely not an excuse for failing to provide decent connectivity in urban areas. (For example, I live about 3 miles from the center of a metro area containing 5 million people, and all I can get is Comcast cable for $$$$$, shit DSL, or shit Wi-Max.) This should be considered absolutely unacceptable in 2013 in urban America.

      The real issue is regulatory capture, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying asshole shill.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. That's what votes are for by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Votes, not money, decide the answer; but you can campaign untruthfully with no ramifications. At that point money = votes.

    Corporations don't live or breathe, people do. And the people who run those corporations and profit from them have the exact same weight in the ballot box as anyone else. Anyone who is used to getting their way every day because they have money finds this equality to be horribly unfair.

    Here's the thing: if Comcast made a product that was so fabulous that nobody would even want a government run version we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:That's what votes are for by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?

      Yes. Yes. No.

      Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion". If the CEOs, CFOs and CIOs want to influence elections to protect their gravy train, they can do so on a personal basis. They should never be permitted to redirect corporate funds towards campaigns. Also, while we're at it, to be fair no individual should be permitted to spend more than a reasonable amount as a campaign contribution. Say... $1,000

      Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  5. Perhaps Google's plan is working? by froggymana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this what Google wanted? I've always been under the impression that Google didn't necessarily want to become a large ISP, but instead wanted to spark competition.

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  6. Re:just donate by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should anyone donate to have a government servant put in place? It's pretty ridiculous. There should be no donations allowed. And there should be voting on issues, rather than people. Being a politician should just be a job, not a popularity contest.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  7. US lagging behind in pricing compared to world by SirLoper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already in the US, we pay more per Mb/s than pretty much any other 1st world country. This isn't due to the size, as some would have you believe, but rather due to the lack of oversight, regulation and, most importantly, competition. There are no laws preventing the formation of what basically become monopolies from companies such as Comcast, where they can charge what they want and basically print their own money. I sincerely hope that they are not successful in basically paying to avoid having real competition. I know I, personally, would love to have "real" Internet speeds provided to me at world-comparable rates, no matter if they came from State, county, city or private sources. Just bring it on!

  8. Re:Money climax by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would say once enough of the middle class are unable to continue throwing billions of dollars at the corporate entities and that bubble does finally pop, mass starvation will hit.

    I would believe that is when the revolution and major changes will take place. It is not a question of If but when (is that the question anymore?).

    This is why I'm glad I own a remote farm and know how to work it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. What the rest of the world calls corruption... by X.25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...in the US is called "lobbying".

    Quite sad, actually.

  10. And the masses do nothing... by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is there huge public backlash against Citizens United? Are people marching in the streets against corporate "lobbying"? Are people dumping Comcast because they disagree with their business practices? Will people come out in droves to denounce McGinn's opponent for benefiting from sweet corporate cash? Are the corporations who will do _anything_ to make a profit getting the message that the public disagrees with their business practices?

    No.

    Stories like this make me upset, because its the same as story about one soldier dying in a war where millions of soldiers are killed. This is one tiny example of how business works in America. Every day in every federal, state, county, and city goverment shit like this happens. Lets have a discussion about that.

  11. Re:Money climax by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    What kind of remotes do you grow? And can you teach my grandmother? She can never figure out how to work her remote.

  12. Overselling it by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Comcast's donations help Murray defeat McGinn, it will send a powerful message to mayors in other American cities considering initiatives to increase broadband competition.

    This article was written by someone who didn't do their homework.

    There are a lot of reasons McGinn is probably going to be voted out. I doubt anyone's even going to connect his defeat with his lip-service regarding city-wide fiber.

    McGinn has consistently pissed off both the business community in Seattle and large chunks of its citizenry. It all started before he was mayor - a lot of people were leery he was too much of an ideologue. As candidates do, he claimed he'd be pragmatic - promising he wouldn't let his personal opposition to the Highway 99 tunnel affect his mayoral decisions regarding the voter-approved project. Of course he got into office and immediately did everything he could to derail the project (but failed miserably - in addition to being an ideologue, the dude is not an effective leader). Anyway, it's gone downhill from there...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Re:Money climax by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a remote farm too. We refer to it as the coffee table.

  14. Re:Money climax by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're joking right? Most farms are actually barely making profit, the ones that do are largely owned by corporations and even then aren't nearly as profitable as you would like to think. Especially when you have companies like Monsanto bending them over a barrel over seed prices and lawsuits. The cost to produce crops has been steadily rising (Johnson, 2012) (USDA ERS)