Washington State To Require Internet Service Disclosure When Selling House in New Year (cnet.com) 64
It's hard to imagine home life without the internet, particularly amid the coronavirus pandemic. Now a law going into effect in Washington state is acknowledging that. CNET News: Starting in the new year, home sellers in Washington will be required to share their internet provider on signed disclosure forms that include information about plumbing, insulation and structural defects. "Does the property currently have internet service?" the disclosure form will now ask, along with a space to say who the provider is. The law doesn't require sellers to detail access speeds, quality or alternative providers. The new disclosure is the latest in an array of efforts by lawmakers across the country to respond to our increasing reliance on home internet connectivity for work, education and entertainment. That internet connection has become even more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has upended the lives of billions of people, forcing quarantines and lockdowns as people adjust to a new normal of daily life.
Home value (Score:5, Insightful)
Another item that can affect your home value. Does your neighborhood have fiber to the home? Does your cable provider offer internet access? Are you within an area that offers free WiFi? Does your municipality have their own internet service?
Having access to, or installation of, Gigabit fiber might now be listed as a selling point. Our area has at least two Gigabit+ providers we can choose between, but I know that isn't universal yet.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you just look it up? Been looking at new homes lately and I always check if gigabit is available, and who the provider is, via a broadband availability checker website.
Re:Home value (Score:4, Interesting)
You're assuming the data feeding that checker site is accurate.
As soon out you start to get outside the major center of most urban areas, the data starts to get seriously inaccurate. Whether its outright lies, or just bad data, it's hard to know until you actually try to get service at the address. That's why the "previous service at the address" part of that disclosure is important.
Re: (Score:2)
If the house is of any interest I check with individual ISPs, and also ask the homeowner what ISP they currently use.
Re: (Score:2)
If the house is of any interest I check with individual ISPs
You're replying to someone who just pointed out that the ISP tools are frequently wrong. Is it really okay to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a home because someone on the phone says some database says a thing that is sometimes untrue?
, and also ask the homeowner what ISP they currently use.
So the thing that this law means they have to disclose.
Re: (Score:2)
If the house is of any interest I check with individual ISPs
You're replying to someone who just pointed out that the ISP tools are frequently wrong. Is it really okay to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a home because someone on the phone says some database says a thing that is sometimes untrue?
Or the ISP outright lies. There have been plenty of verified stories where someone contacts the ISP, who says they will provide service, and then after they buy the house, they found out that actually the ISP will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there a reason current homeowners/sellers refused to provide this info upon request from home buyers? What exactly is the problem this solves?
Apparently Washington state leaders think the internet is an important service (ok) but still home buyers fail to ask if internet service is available at a particular address (what)?
When I buy a house, I want to know where the nearest fire hydrant is, because it impacts the cost of homeowners insurance, for example - if I plan on working from home, I ask about isp
Re: (Score:2)
If TFS is correct, I see an even worse problem with this requirement. Basically they can get a dialup connection, and then they can answer yes to the question of whether they have internet service.
I don't know how they do things in Washington, but in Arizona, the municipality will provide its own report about various conditions of the property that are beyond the control of the homeowner. Like for example, whether it is in unincorporated land, how water is provided and the estimated water quality of the reg
Re:Home value (Score:4, Informative)
Basically they can get a dialup connection, and then they can answer yes to the question of whether they have internet service.
That's exactly correct. The article states that the law doesn't require disclosure of the type of Internet access, nor the available speeds. It's just Yes/No, which is worthless. Even with the new law providing a means to back out of the purchase agreement within three days of receiving the disclosure, the law requires nothing of substance. It's as if the law was written by people who have no idea of what makes the Internet useful.
Re: (Score:2)
StormReaver is thoroughly correct. ArmoredDragon (below) is informative but useful/possibly accurate only in larger metropolitan areas.
I recently sold (Seattle/centurylink/comcast) and bought (Olympic Peninsula/centurylink/wavebroadband) and information provided by sellers/listing agents is useless or non existent. Information from centurylink or wavebroadband similarly so.
I found several locations I would have purchased (on the Olympic Peninsula) only to discover (usually by finding someone that lived in o
Re: (Score:2)
Probably depends on who the local telco is, and then when it was built. In centurylink territory, if the house is in a development that began construction in 2015 or later, it's going to be all GPON. This generally applies to all of the big bells, though I think centurylink was the very first to commit to only doing fiber builds from now on. There is literally no reason at all that they'll do a new DSL buildout. Also, centurylink is doing brownfield fiber deployments, which basically means as the old copper
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the FCC has plenty of reports of how inaccurate they are. You can be in a neighbourhood where your neighbours have gigabit, but because you're "just too far" from where your neighbours get their service that you're stuck with crappy DSL instead.
Plus many reports of sites where they say you can get service, then the tech comes
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the FCC has plenty of reports of how inaccurate they are. You can be in a neighbourhood where your neighbours have gigabit, but because you're "just too far" from where your neighbours get their service that you're stuck with crappy DSL instead.
That would have to be a very very spread out neighborhood. GPON uses a variant of SMFO where both the receive and transmit channels are done through one cable, which can still provide gig service without requiring a repeater at about 20km, which is much longer than DSL (5.5km, if you're lucky) and even Cable (305m.) It's not like the MMFO you're used to seeing in typical datacenter equipment, it's actually much higher grade than that, and in fact upgrading from GPON (roughly 2.5gbit down, 1.2gbit up) to NG-
Re: (Score:2)
You can be in a neighbourhood where your neighbours have gigabit, but because you're "just too far" from where your neighbours get their service that you're stuck with crappy DSL instead.
Or where I am, new service depends on whether any pairs are free. So a house which initially had service may not later because their are no free pairs up on the pole.
Re: (Score:2)
Or here's a fun one. I remember we had one location probably 10 years ago where we couldn't get DSL because, yes AT&T (iirc, might have been Windstream or
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. For example my houes. Everything on AT&T's website claims U-Verse is available to my house. It is, only because they rebranded DSL into U-Verse and I'm only able to get 768k DSL at that.
Re: (Score:2)
DOCSIS 3.1 supports gbps speeds over coax too.
Gigabit down. I'm assuming this varies by provider, but Comcast only offers 35Mbps up, with a 1.2TB monthly total data cap (inclusive of up and down traffic). Which is fine for a lot of people. But if you have someone that wants to stream, or has a burgeoning YouTube presence, or any number of other things that require a lot of bandwidth, you'll hit those limits.
Re: (Score:3)
This law requires none of that - they simply are requiring that home sellers list the contact information for any current ISP providing internet service to the property, just as you list the water, natural gas, electricity, etc. providers, not a comprehensive market analysis of all available options for the particular property.
I guess in Washington state the legislature has decided that home buyers are not only incapable of figuring out what services are available, but they also forget to have their realtor
Yes.... (Score:3)
Starlink...
Said every house ever.
Re: (Score:1)
Except where planning laws will not allow Satellite dishes or aerials.
Re: Yes.... (Score:2)
Planning laws, meet FCC regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink is no good for densely populated areas. There is a limit on the number of users per satellite.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely not. I live in a rural area that's the same latitude Starlink says they support, but they have been promising internet to my area for going on three years now. Their website said, "late 2020" in early 2020. Then it said "early 2021" in late 2020. Then it said "late 2021" in early 2021. I just checked and it says they will provide service in "mid-2022".
Maybe Elon should spend a little less time trolling on Twitter and blowing doobies with Joe Rogan and more time p
I feel for the family that bought my parent's home (Score:2, Interesting)
My parents moved out of their home in rural VA a few years ago. Sold it to a family with a bunch of kids ( 4 or 7, I don't remember.)
I always felt bad for those kids when they found out their internet access options were limited.
Too far from the DSLAM for DSL. Comcast refused to pay the right-of-way fees to cross a nearby bridge, so no cable. FIOS was not happening because Verizon is lazy. You could maybe do Hughes satellite, but that's a ridiculous option for a largish modern family. And... that was it. Br
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fair, and I know that.
It doesn't ease the bitter irony of having Internet literally running across your front and side yards, yet not be able to get any from any provider.
And there were three subdivisions within a mile of their house, probably 1000 homes. I'm sure someone could have made it profitable.
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad there isn't some kind of law or regulating body to deal with things like telcos and other public utilities in the US /s /s
I am reliably told that this kind of thing doesn't happen in other countries. But they're gonna go broke because they're Socialists or something.
Why? (Score:1)
Just knowing who provided the last owner service doesn't do much.
Knowing what service is available might be useful to me. But that isn't included here.
OK direction, but poor implementation. Services to a home should impact value/cost.
DSL (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget unmaintained DSL networks, where ISPs won't enroll new customers, even if the house had service before it was sold. They don't want to replace modem cards in the DSLAM as lightning fries ports, because copper is a stranded asset.
Don't think just because the owners have DSL, it'll be available to new buyers, too...
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a thing where I live. Yet...
I abandoned physical connections over 5 years ago and went for fixed wireless after my very good ISP of nearly 30 years was taken over by a larger business that then destroyed all the good will and good service. Only my email remains with them now. And then went down over Xmas for about 4 days... I believe I've missed a few dozen emails in that period. No explanation, no contact, just ... no email or homepage for that ISP, for days.
I've now got much higher speeds (I ca
lol ISP e-mail?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget unmaintained DSL networks, where ISPs won't enroll new customers, even if the house had service before it was sold.
Yes, that needs to be literally illegal. We The People gave the telcos a shitload of money (literally hundreds of billions) to build out the last mile and they didn't do that. Instead they paid record dividends and executive compensation in those years.
Re: DSL (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"literally" illegal. What does that even mean ?
You don't know what literally means? You're one of those people who misuses the word all the time, aren't you? I admit I could have moved it over in the sentence slightly and had it flow better, as in "literally needs to be made illegal".
Since you don't seem to know or have access to a dictionary, literally is the opposite of figuratively, it's used to clear up whether you're using hyperbole or not. Hope this helps you use the word correctly in the future.
Re: DSL (Score:1)
Asshole lawmakers again (Score:1)
Re:Asshole lawmakers again (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a stupid law to disclose details of utilities available in a house before you sell it? What kind of a weird world do you live in? That is standard in many countries.
Hey how about I sell you a computer? I won't tell you whats in it, just that it includes a screen. You interested? Of course not, because if you put even the tiniest bit of thought into it you'd realise disclosure isn't as stupid as your drunk hungover new years morning slashdot post would imply.
Re: (Score:2)
It is stupid that you cannot know in advance what options there are. In other countries, you can choose your provider from multiple companies, so it is nonsense to know what provider the previous owner preferred.
In your computer analogy, it is like having a law that tells you to disclose what software or even what data was on the previous owner's computer.
Re: (Score:2)
It is stupid that you cannot know in advance what options there are.
Who is keeping the info a secret? Home sellers? The ISPs? This is an imaginary problem and only a person that never bought a house thinks this is an issue that needed solving.
Re: (Score:2)
If ISP service was important to you, you'd ask the owner/owners realtor before making an offer. If you are a cook and you prefer a gas stove to electric, wouldn't you ask the seller if the house has a natural gas connection?
Re: (Score:2)
If ISP service was important to you, you'd ask the owner/owners realtor before making an offer.
You would go so far as to contact the ISP's that you think is so important first, yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
XFinity has been sending m
Re: (Score:2)
When once the seller was obligated to always be honest about internet services
But was that the law? I'll bet you a marsbar it wasn't. Disclosure has *always* for all of history been about filling out mandatory fields and leaving everything else up to the buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What a stupid law. How about not paying $110/mo for a goddamn connection?
I'm fortunate that in my small town I have pretty good internet, 1 Gbps. Literally just minutes up the road the only option is another satellite provider, and I have friends whose Netflix is only SD on a good day. Right now, Starlink is showing late 2022 for new deposits, so the whole "Just get Starlink" doesn't have any idea what it's talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
An interested buyer could learn all this without the strong arm of the government compelling sellers to share ISP contact info.
We're there really a rash of home sales where buyers were unable to figure out what ISPs served their new home?
As commercial entities ISPs advertise and market their services, and failing that, couldn't the new homeowner ask a neighbor what ISP they have? Wouldn't a realtor know who serves a given area, etc? We're not talking about state secrets, we're talking about a retail service
How about htis instead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And, I assume that the Iraqis will be the ones paying for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be outrageously expensive to run last mile for 1 house being sold this week. Then another nearby house next week. Then another house nearby next week. The comment was obviously pointing out who would pay those individual run expenses? The seller - no way. The house buyer - not due process. The internet company? undue burden would be thrown out. The government? Valid idiotic boondoggle for installers to repeatedly charge govt for each house sold.
There is no such thing as "free" or 'free lunc
Re: How about htis instead (Score:2)
It would get ISPs to clean up their coverage maps.
Won't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
What do you do if the previous owner had service but the provider decided not to offer new accounts in an area? It's what Verizon did when they pulled out of my neighborhood years ago. Doesn't matter if the wire or fiber is there and working.
If Washington State wants to make this law effective, they are going to have to begin regulating ISPs like utilities. Including a 'must serve' rule.
Re: (Score:2)
some citys have 'must serve' rule. for cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Maybe cable TV. But the providers have fought to keep broadband unregulated. When Verizon was here (as the local telephone company), they had to provide POTS to residences. But DSL magically disappeared when they didn't want to provide it. Even if it worked at that location and the previous resident had it.
Re: (Score:2)
and you can get cable tv you can get broadband unless it's some shit analog only system
Re: (Score:2)
It was always going to be that DOCSIS or similar would beat DSL because of the wiring. That tiny little unshielded twisted pair running from your house all the way to some local hub, your own personal circuit built upon tiny little wires. Compare with DOCSIS, a big beefy coaxial cable, shared immediately outside your house instead of down the road and across the river. One big cable for the neighborhood vs hundreds of small cables, each a personal circui
Kinda worthless (Score:2)
One of the largest providers in Washington is CenturyLink.
They offer two things: the absolute shittiest tier of DSL (we're talking 5mbps and lower, even in major cities like Seattle), and 1gbps symmetrical fiber.
So, COOL, the forms tell us the provider, but not the connection type or quality. So, its still essentially worthless still!
Cell Phone (Score:2)
Yes I get internet service in this house I'm selling. It is via cell phone hotspot, but you only require service provider name so
Does that really help?
Put it in the sale contract (Score:2)
You can always make the purchase contingent on internet service being available. I purchased a house about 20 years ago. Back then the telephone companies could not tell you if DSL service was available at a given address or not; you had to actually order service and get it installed to find out. Owning a house without usable internet was not an option for me, so I wrote into the purchase offer that the sale was contingent on the availability of DSL service. I would have service installed at my cost and if
Just bought a condo last week... (Score:2)
Stupid law to keep some hero politician in office. (Score:1)
Ugg - useless for most cases (Score:2)
I live in Washington and recently bought a house in 2021. I put in my purchase agreement that I was able to get 25 Mbps Internet, as I WFH. I almost got fucked as the previous person used Hughes Net. I live in a city of 70k people, and in a fully built out neighborhood, with all ISPs saying 99.9% built out in the city. They delivered DSL to houses, but this house didn't get it and the previous owner used satellite. However the DSL could not guarantee the 25 Mbps, and only would sell 1.5 Mbps, which is