Couple Bought Home in Seattle, Then Learned Comcast Internet Would Cost $27,000 (arstechnica.com) 344
An anonymous reader shares a report: When Zachary Cohn and his wife bought a house in the Northgate neighborhood of Seattle, Washington, they didn't expect any trouble getting home Internet service. It was only after closing on the house in July 2019 that they learned the bad news. "All six neighbors I share a property line with are wired for Comcast, but our house never was," Cohn told Ars. Comcast's predecessor company had wired up the neighborhood with cable decades earlier and the ISP provides high-speed broadband to the abutting properties. But the cable TV and Internet service provider never extended a line to the house purchased by Cohn and his wife, Lauryl Zenobi. Cohn spent many months trying to get answers from Comcast on how he and Zenobi could get Internet service. Eventually, he contacted his City Councillor's office, which was able to get a real response from Comcast.
Comcast ultimately said it would require installing 181 feet of underground cable to connect the house and that the couple would have to pay Comcast over $27,000 to make that happen. Cohn and Zenobi did not pay the $27,000, and they've been relying on a 4G hotspot ever since. "I was just flabbergasted that a house like this, in an area like this, could possibly have never been wired for Internet," Cohn said in a phone interview. Because the house is "in the middle of Seattle, it didn't even dawn on me that that was possible," he said, adding that the lack of Internet service would be "more understandable if I was two miles from my nearest neighbor." The Seattle Kraken hockey team's $80 million practice facility is in the same Northgate neighborhood, about a half-mile from the house. There's a major bus station in the area, a light rail station that recently opened nearby, and an elementary school within about a 90-second walk, Cohn said, noting that the property is "well within the Seattle city limits."
Comcast ultimately said it would require installing 181 feet of underground cable to connect the house and that the couple would have to pay Comcast over $27,000 to make that happen. Cohn and Zenobi did not pay the $27,000, and they've been relying on a 4G hotspot ever since. "I was just flabbergasted that a house like this, in an area like this, could possibly have never been wired for Internet," Cohn said in a phone interview. Because the house is "in the middle of Seattle, it didn't even dawn on me that that was possible," he said, adding that the lack of Internet service would be "more understandable if I was two miles from my nearest neighbor." The Seattle Kraken hockey team's $80 million practice facility is in the same Northgate neighborhood, about a half-mile from the house. There's a major bus station in the area, a light rail station that recently opened nearby, and an elementary school within about a 90-second walk, Cohn said, noting that the property is "well within the Seattle city limits."
Research (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have researched the area before buying the house.
It sucks that it will cost this much, but when doing an investment like this, you really should do research.
The homes in this neighborhood run from 450K - $1.45M.
https://www.trulia.com/n/wa/se... [trulia.com]
Re:Research (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have researched the area before buying the house.
It sucks that it will cost this much, but when doing an investment like this, you really should do research.
The homes in this neighborhood run from 450K - $1.45M.
https://www.trulia.com/n/wa/se... [trulia.com]
This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence. These people made assumptions incorrectly, and that is on them. Before placing an offer on my house, I researched all available internet options via the providers website and putting in the address to ensure it was available. Took all of 15 minutes.
Cost of the home is irrelevant in this matter however.
Re: Research (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't terribly reliable. Often times you can put in an address somewhere and it will tell you that service is available when it isn't. Or, as in my case, the opposite can happen: It says no service is available when it really is.
Re: Research (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't terribly reliable. Often times you can put in an address somewhere and it will tell you that service is available when it isn't.
Can confirm. We bought our current home relying on Comcast's map of where coverage is available. Comcast's map was a lie. Turns out they are notoriously unreliable. [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't sign up for service during closing to coincide with your move-in date?
What is this a thread about what not to do when purchasing a house? After we secured financing, I went to comcast and at&t and put in service orders. Right then and there I learned all the available speeds and timing. If either of them said they could not provide gbps service, I would have walked from the house. You see my earnest money was way lower than the cost of running fiber.
I understand not everyone can just walk a
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a house in Seattle in February. Not only did I visually verify the incoming coaxial cable from Comcast, I wrote in a contingency that would allow be to cancel the purchase without penalty if by the closing date I could not successfully get Centurylink to install fiber Internet. This was successful and I bought the house.
If Internet is important to you, write it into the purchase contract. A house is too expensive a purchase to end up with bad Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sort of amazed you got away with it in Seattle of all places. Around here (Minneapolis!) people are buying houses sight unseen and reportedly slipping money under the table to sellers as cash bonuses.
Re: (Score:2)
I made my offer around Christmas when the market is traditionally slower and I paid a little over market to guarantee the seller would be patient. I needed the patience -- I had to spend a month with an architect doing a feasibility study for additions I wanted to make to the property.
It also helped that as an all-cash buyer the seller didn't have to deal with the uncertainty of a bank's involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you put an internet service contingency into an offer in this market, you might as well throw it in the trash yourself and save the time. Major metro area sellers are often entertaining multiple cash offers from people willing to waive home inspection. It's iffy to even get a financing contingency for selling an existing property, never mind something as "minor" as broadband service.
Re: (Score:3)
No Inspection?
Fsck that....that could drill you right into the poor house.
I think I'd look for a different city/state to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience has been that inspections basically have three functions:
1) Convince the bank to give you a loan.
2) Give you an out over some ridiculous infraction if you change your mind.
3) Make you feel good about your purchase.
I caught way more things wrong on both home inspections I had than our inspector did. Blatantly obvious things too. Want a good inspection? Go buy a flir thermal camera (or phone attachment) and a moisture meter and make the rounds yourself. You can do everything from looking at
Re: Research (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd add a fourth one: Supplying negotiating ammo to the buyer.
I work in the field in California, and have seen the most BS stuff in inspection reports... my favorite one was that the oven was broken and would only go up to 288 degrees. The buyers demanded 5k off to replace the oven, using the inspection report as evidence that the unit had fundamental flaws that the seller was hiding.
288C is 550F.
Re: Research (Score:2)
Just put in a contingency about high speed internet either being already available or able to be connected for under $x and you're covered. No need to risk earnest money.
Re: Research (Score:2)
Even if it were reliable, you should probably avoid living anywhere Comcast is the provider.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't terribly reliable. Often times you can put in an address somewhere and it will tell you that service is available when it isn't. Or, as in my case, the opposite can happen: It says no service is available when it really is.
This is quite true. Comcast will say your house is serviced because there is a main line running into the area from which they can run a tap. However, when they look to wire up your house they do an "aerial survey" without actually looking at the conditions on the ground. That's what happened when I had my house wired for Comcast many years ago. The entire neighborhood had the lines running along the utility poles. Comcast said they could wire my house (set up for DirecTV at the time)... but when the i
Re: (Score:3)
If a neighbor came to me wtih this story and offered me $1k upfront and $50 a month to set up a mesh network or some extended wifi or microwave link to piggyback on it, I probably wouldn't think twice about saying yes.
I'd happily upgrade to a business class connection for that.
When a company says "fuck you", the proper response is to say "no, fuck you" back. People power for the win.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't terribly reliable. Often times you can put in an address somewhere and it will tell you that service is available when it isn't.
In my case, the previous owner had AT&T, but not their fiber service. So I could see the AT&T line running into the house. I called AT&T to order their fiber service, and 3 trips later found out I was in their "service area" but wouldn't be getting service. What was especially great was the conversation of "Well, there's an AT&T line running into the house, just give me that service.", "We can't because you're in the fiber service area." Now, this was annoying but I did have Comcast to fall
Re: Research (Score:3)
AT&T are scum suckers. Worse than Comcast.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence.
Why? Why do you need diligence? Why is anyone making assumptions? This is an almost uniquely American problem, a strange situation where people are not only not provided (by legal mandate) complete information about the house, but worse a basic utility is missing from a house within the city limits of a state's capital city.
Yeah I get it, people should check this. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO.
I've never checked whether a house I purchase has an internet connection, because everywhere I've lived it has been a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence.
Why? Why do you need diligence? Why is anyone making assumptions? This is an almost uniquely American problem, a strange situation where people are not only not provided (by legal mandate) complete information about the house, but worse a basic utility is missing from a house within the city limits of a state's capital city.
Yeah I get it, people should check this. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO.
I've never checked whether a house I purchase has an internet connection, because everywhere I've lived it has been an absolute given. Also my current house has no fibre connection, but there is fibre in the street. Cost to run it in: 450EUR.
America is broken.
It is well known as you noted in the US, regardless if it is right or wrong, Internet access is not reliably found.
Until it is, the person purchasing a home should verify the services.
Re: (Score:2)
Since WWII, many of this country's largest cities have been growing through a sort of Ponzi scheme [youtube.com] where today's developers pay for yesterday's deferred maintenance so the infrastructure doesn't crumble to dust. If we did the sensible thing and made sure growth could always pay for itself, it would drive up the cost of new housing and so more
Re: (Score:2)
This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence.
Why? Why do you need diligence? Why is anyone making assumptions? This is an almost uniquely American problem, a strange situation where people are not only not provided (by legal mandate) complete information about the house, but worse a basic utility is missing from a house within the city limits of a state's capital city.
When I was looking for a house to buy, some of the first things I look for include outlets for internet, cable or external antenna TV, electricity, etc. I want to visualize where my furniture will go, if a TV will "fit" in a room, where my wifi router or mesh has to be placed, etc. Not finding a coax outlet in the living/family room should be a red flag that the cable company doesn't service that home.
This type of due diligence is not a uniquely American problem.
Re: (Score:2)
A principled argument for redistribution here is missing: why should the taxpayers or other subscribers pay that $27K to service a single customer?
Re: (Score:3)
We already do it for power, water, waste management and it generally was the case for phone lines. Those are considered essential utilities and a minimum requirement we decide as society for life in America. That's the principled argument, the economic one is the country is more productive if everyone has high speed communications service, there is also a national security argument to be made and a moral argument about access to vital services.
A better question is if we decide as society that these things
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing is free but the good will of society does in fact provide utilities and that "good will" is called "taxes" (god bless em).
Thing with power water and sewer is they have to install them no matter who is covering the costs because society deems a household needs those thing not just for the people inside but everyone else in the town. Can't have certain people just dumping their raw sewage wherever.
I live in a pretty decent sized American city and water and power hookup fees for a single family house
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A principled argument for redistribution here is missing: why should the taxpayers or other subscribers pay that $27K to service a single customer?
Because Comcast advertises that they serve the city. Not whatever neighborhoods they want to serve in the city. The city.
Additionally, if it costs them $27,000 to run a fiber to a house in Northgate, they're doing something wrong. That entire section of the city is less than two miles wide. $27k is the national average cost for an entire *mile* of fiber. That would imply that Comcast has no fiber within the entire Northgate neighborhood and has to run it from the next neighborhood over. I think it's s
Re:Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Research is unreliable either way, and whatever answer they give you is going to be non-binding so is worth nothing at all if they answered yes and cannot/will not provide service.
The number is rather close to assuming a $1million/mile cost. That comes up to 34k and is the price per mile in massively overbuild sections of downtown areas were getting right-of-way is almost impossible and one has to carefully run the cable through and around other services sometimes closing roads, digging it up and putting concrete down. Unless all of those homeowners was unwilling to provide right-of-way as others have said it should be easy to do.
Clearly comcast just wanted to say no, and used a worst case per mile number and used it in a back of the envelope calculation.
It is sad that someone a potential customer has to post something to make them look bad so they won't do it to anyone else.
To the posters that said they have enough money just pay it, well, next time you are in a accident of some sort and hurt, just hope the person who stops does not explain to you they aren't required to call 911 and get you help, but will call 911 if you write a check for a lot of money because you appear to have nice stuff and can afford it.
Re:Research (Score:5, Insightful)
The number is rather close to assuming a $1million/mile cost. That comes up to 34k and is the price per mile in massively overbuild sections of downtown areas were getting right-of-way is almost impossible and one has to carefully run the cable through and around other services sometimes closing roads, digging it up and putting concrete down. Unless all of those homeowners was unwilling to provide right-of-way as others have said it should be easy to do.
Yeah. They claimed that the actual cost was $80,000. For $2.34 million per mile, they could hire engineers away from NASA to do it.
Apparently, among other things, they were going to bore under a road rather than just using a saw, shallow-burying it, and sealing it, which enormously inflates the cost. I think it's safe to say that they could do it for under a thousand bucks if they wanted to do so. But because they aren't compelled to serve everybody like the phone company is, they have no incentive to spend the effort to do the work, and because they can get away with passing the costs on to the customer, they have no incentive to keep those costs reasonable. And because they likely have a cable monopoly in that area, or at best a duopoly with the phone company, they have no incentive to compete with anyone else who might keep the cost down. So consumers get screwed, and there's not much they can do about it except petition the city to not renew their authorization to serve the region.
And this right here is a perfect demonstration of why wire infrastructure should always be government-owned and leased to ISPs.
Re:Research (Score:5, Insightful)
A principled argument for redistribution here is missing: why should the taxpayers or other subscribers pay that $27K to service a single customer?
Because Comcast et al have been provided hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars [newnetworks.com] (probably close to $1 trillion by now) to build out broadband in this country since the Clinton administration. The U.S. taxpayer has been footing this bill for almost three decades.
For Comcast, or any provider, to claim they won't provide service to someone in this situation is ridiculous. That is why you were given taxpayer money, to build out broadband. If they're not going to do what they said they would they can return all the billions they've received, with interest, to the U.S. Treasury.
Re:Research (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And they can check what's available at https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#... [fcc.gov] and then verify with the companies. When I bought a house in Seattle earlier this year, that's what I did. One of my criteria was that wherever I buy there must be TWO gigabit wired service providers. In my case it was Comcast and Centurylink.
Most of their Northgate neighborhood has both Centurylink fiber and Comcast cable but there are a few spots that don't. If it's important to you, write it into the contingency and spend a few buck
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. In 2015 we bought 24 acres, mostly wooded. While I knew people on the left had Comcrap and people on the right had it, I later found out that it was in a 1 mile gap and Comcrap was refusing to serve customers in the gap. To get Comcrap, IF they would come out to us, would have cost at least $17,000. I knew that going in because I researched it. While we were stuck with ViaSuck for a while, as soon as I had time, I upgraded to cellular internet and, now, we have Starlink. It wasn't great internet, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your honesty and integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Research (Score:5, Interesting)
This was a research failure, true. But it's also a massive regulatory failure, especially given that we're talking about a cable company. Cable companies usually get a local monopoly and permission to use the public right-of-way for their lines. Hell... even without a local monopoly, they still get that permission to the right-of-way for their lines. That right, and the monopoly if it exists, should damn well have come with the condition of servicing all households in the jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't ISPs get a fuckton of money from the government for this kind of stuff?
Oh wait. Actually connecting people was never the target for them, was it....
Re: (Score:2)
And with these properties on large, ~1/4 acre lots with very tall trees blocking the sky, you can't really expect all the amenities of urban living even if the neighborhood is technically "in the middle of Seattle." Move to a denser area if that's what you want.
Otherwise pay the money or put up a tall tower for the Starlink dish (or perhaps a point to point WiFi link) or wait for the neighborhood to be wired for fiber and hope your home is on the list!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Placing the order isn't enough. You don't really know until it's installed and working; some companies will accept an order and not really check until it's time to hook it up. They might even send an installer out, who then struggles for a bit before saying "I'll be back" (with no intention of coming back), stringing you along for a bit.
I think if I were looking to buy a house and the current owner didn't have the service I wanted, I'd make it contingent on getting the desired service installed before closi
Re: (Score:2)
You can also check with the FCC
https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/ [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
They should have researched the area before buying the house.
It sucks that it will cost this much, but when doing an investment like this, you really should do research.
The homes in this neighborhood run from 450K - $1.45M.
https://www.trulia.com/n/wa/se... [trulia.com]
How many homes have you bought? Doing research doesn't always help if you don't have the experience to know which questions to ask. They knew to ask if Internet was available in the neighbourhood, knowing that I'm not sure how many people would realize that it could cost $27k to actually hook it up to their house.
Ideally the Realtor should have clued them in but I can see a lot of people making the same mistake they did and I don't like the idea that they all get screwed for not doing the right kind of rese
Re: (Score:3)
I have bought 2 and it was one of the first things I researched before making an offer.
Re: (Score:3)
The seller disclosed the house wasn't wired for internet, the buyers choose not to follow that lead, lesson learned.
Re: (Score:2)
If six neighbors have Comcast, why don't they cut a deal with ONE of them to let them extend the cable from the neighbor's back yard to theirs? Shallow (3") burial using a flat shovel to briefly lift the sod before placing coax would cost maybe $2000. Less if they do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If six neighbors have Comcast, why don't they cut a deal with ONE of them to let them extend the cable from the neighbor's back yard to theirs? Shallow (3") burial using a flat shovel to briefly lift the sod before placing coax would cost maybe $2000. Less if they do it themselves.
That's probably what they're doing for $27,000. The distance is supposedly just 181 feet. That's like having service just one or two houses away in a normal suburban neighborhood. This is not a long distance. It is not reasonable for Comcast to charge anything for such a straightforward installation, much less $27k.
Re: (Score:2)
No, $27k was what Comcast offered to dig a 3-foot trench with conduit and properly install coaxial cable 181 feet past the neighbors from the nearest node. Likely closer to 60-80 feet from the neighbor's house. Direct burial 75 ohm coax for that would run you maybe $300. And if you're willing to absorb the risk that someone digs and hits it, you can use a shovel to quickly install it about 3" under the turf.
Re: (Score:2)
the spoke with neighbors who all had internet. They were told by the ISP service was available. Turns out they were left off the list and never wired up, and the way homebuying works _all_ of the risk is on the buyer.
Short of communing with some sort of omniscient deity they were gonna get screwed here. They could have put something in the contract, but thanks to big business buying up all the houses and apartments to jack up rents you don't have much if any recourse.
But it's fun to blame individuals for systemic problems while patting yourself on the back because you didn't get bit in the ass by them, isn't it?
"Cohn told us the sellers disclosed in documents before the sale that Internet wasn't connected at the home".
And yes, I researched when purchasing my home (and before that renting an apartment) what internet was available for my home, not what was available for my neighbor's home.
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
That $27K bill... is it because local regulations mandate underground wiring directly from a certain approved place (like a fiber hub), or is it just Comcast being a-holes about it?
For example, in my neighborhood, if you want to upgrade power from 230V to 380V (three-phase current), regulations mandate installing an underground cable from the distribution box to the house, part of which is on public property and you have to pay for everything. That's a lot of money. Regulations...
Re: (Score:3)
I should have read TFA... it looks like the costs are incurred by having to route a cable from the junction box through underneath an arterial road. That's costly, all right.
Re: Question (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
27k sounds like a bargain for that job then tbh
Article says a comcast employee told them the actual cost is closer to $80k
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Question (Score:3)
And it's probably all underground in that area. My old neighborhood it was above ground lines so installing cable there was easy and didn't cost the home owners much for the initial hookup once it was available at the street. My cable line (and electric) ran over head and was easy to repair after a tree fell over the lines once.
Re: Question (Score:2)
Yeah people love to talk about how great underground wiring is, not having poles and cables running overhead but the cost of running new cable or repairing existing cables is five times as much.
It's easy to put in when building a new subdivision but have fun 30 years down the line when it needs upgrading or replacement...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the opposite of a lot of stories I hear. Usually, these buildouts are a done at a huge profit - like a $10k job will be sold as $30k.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the opposite of a lot of stories I hear. Usually, these buildouts are a done at a huge profit - like a $10k job will be sold as $30k.
No, no, no. Comcast is renown for its highly altruistic business practices, I’m sure it’s taking a massive loss on something like this. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Seattle area? I'll get you under that road in 2 hours without power equipment. Unless, of course, DigSafe/whatever reports the gas main, electrical utility, and multiple communications providers all dug in a different depths. And I'll be able to tell you it failed without blowing the place up or causing any outages.
I did it in Maine, and in Arizona. Dirt and wet I'll take over desert and caliche any day. But the cost for the contractor is probably as much prep and insurance. Your best hope is to fin d a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised there's not a conduit under the road already. Does nobody else on that side connect to that box?
We need better home buyer protection laws. (Score:5, Interesting)
I really do think we need better protection laws for home buyers in these situations.
I purchased a house ~18 months ago, and prior to putting in an offer I called our cable company (Spectrum) and they assured me that I could get 1gig cable service. So we bought the house, and on closing day I called to set it up... They said they couldn't, because there was no line installed. They eventually quoted me $80k to install it.
It took me 18 months and lots of work to finally get a different company to lay 1/4 mile of fiber optic line (in a conduit that already existed) so that our neighborhood could all have fiber.
If someone had claimed that the house could get water, and then it couldn't - I could sue. Or if it wasn't wired for electricity or something. But not internet access - and that shouldn't be the case.
Re:We need better home buyer protection laws. (Score:5, Interesting)
I purchased a house ~18 months ago, and prior to putting in an offer I called our cable company (Spectrum) and they assured me that I could get 1gig cable service. So we bought the house, and on closing day I called to set it up... They said they couldn't, because there was no line installed. They eventually quoted me $80k to install it.
Provided you could prove they told you service was available, I would have thought there'd be grounds for a civil suit. I'd like to see everybody who experiences that kind of thing launch lawsuits - it might make companies a little more diligent in providing correct information.
Re: (Score:2)
evidence or it never happened. most corporate contacts announce that the call may be recorded though, so I just assume that means I may record it too
Re: We need better home buyer protection laws. (Score:2)
It absolutely means you can record it.
At least generally they say "this call may be recorded to assure the quality of service" or what not.
To me that means you may record the call as long as it's a about maintaining the companies quality of service. I would say making sure they do what is offered falls completely within that.
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink (Score:5, Insightful)
Starlink.
Screw the cable company.
Re:Starlink (Score:4, Insightful)
This would actually be a great promotional move by Starlink... have them come in and solve the predicament post-haste, then advertise that they were able to solve a problem that Comcast couldn't solve despite only being 181 feet away.
Re:Starlink (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
"Cohn signed up for the SpaceX Starlink waiting list and recently got an invite. But the Starlink mobile app that tests a location's suitability for satellite Internet showed that it likely wouldn't work well, Cohn said."
Re: (Score:2)
Politics, (Score:5, Funny)
They should run for office for this level of attention to detail and failure to do due dilligence.
Re: (Score:2)
It would suit. People who don't look things up filling up both sides of the congressional halls is precisely the reason why America is in a state where a house withing the city limits of a state's capital city doesn't have an internet connection.
They should have looked this up. But they shouldn't have needed to, presumably they thought they were living in a 1st world country.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They should run for office for this level of attention to detail and failure to do due dilligence.
Or offer to buy a social media company.
Starlink (Score:2)
Seems like they should look into satellite internet.
Blame The Previous Owners (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The previous owners must have specifically wanted to not be wired for cable.
I know the likes of cable companies when they run new infrastructure. It will almost certainly have been a case of *knock* *knock* "Hi I'm from Comcast and we're running cable in your neighbourhood. Are you interested in having it in your house? All it will take is for you to lock in a 24 month contract with us!"
I offered T-mobile that I will accept their fibre connection if they pay for breaking the contract with my existing ISP. They said no, so our house doesn't have fibre (mind you the cost later will b
Re:Blame The Previous Owners (Score:5, Insightful)
The house was built in 1964, the neighborhood was wired in the late 70s or early 80s. You're probably still right, but it couldn't have been wired when the house was built.
point to point wireless (Score:5, Informative)
Article says that Starlink won't be reliable due to trees. That house is not totally surrounded by trees though. There is a point-to-point wireless solution here - make a deal with the guy across the street to have a second internet access added at his house under your name - connect it to point to point wireless and beam it to your house across the street. You pay the bill for service at the other guy's house and you pay the guy some fee for electricity every year. Problem solved, no one goes broke.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up.
I don't know why I had to scroll so far to see this.
Ubiquiti is who I'd be looking at for their point-to-point link equipment. Even 10 years ago they had "nanostation" product lines that provided fantastic links from a mile away no problem. Find a friendly, sympathetic neighbor with line of site to the side of your house, pay for an installation on the side of their house under your own name (so you can avoid any potential TOS 'entanglements') and go from there. No metering or throttling like
Aim Higher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
cost to run Comcast, why not just run fiber instead?
If Comcast is using fiber in that area, then they will lay fiber. If Comcast is not using fiber in that area, then laying fiber will not be particularly helpful. Skimming the article, I don't see anything stating which type of cable that area uses.
At least these days... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the Comcast installation cost alone would pay for almost two decades of Starlink service, and that's before you factor in the cost of Comcast service. If you assume that they would pay $80 for the Comcast service, their installation fee would pay for 75 years of service.
use the neighbor's built-in hotspot (Score:3)
I did this at a vacation property, and because I already had Comcast at home, I didn't need a new account, just used my existing credentials to login to my neighbor's hotspot, so no additional costs at all. Worked for years without a hitch until I sold the place. (Pro tip: this is also a great way to get WiFi in an apartment)
This is one of the relatively unheralded great features of Comcast Internet: there are (literally) millions of "xfinitywifi" hotspots all over the country (even in rural areas) available to any Comcast customer. I detest Comcast customer service as much as the next fellow, but this universal hotspot SSID is a great thing.
Alternatively, he could be aboveboard about it and offer to split the Comcast costs with a neighbor. Or even pay the whole monthly fee, like he would have paid otherwise ("Hey neighbor, want free WiFi for life?" seems like it would be hard to turn down). Maybe run direct burial cable through the backyard. Or a point-to-point laser (but that's likely pretty expensive, too).
Maybe this guy isn't a techno-geek himself, but surely he could find one... in Seattle, right? I sense a distinct lack of creativity here, coupled with a tendency toward whining.
I learned this lesson already (Score:2)
Moved into downtown San Diego apartment. Everyone around me had Cox (amazing), Google Fiber (pretty good), or U-Verse fiber (ok).
My apartment provided a monopoly to AT&T. AT&T gave us something about equivalent to 90s DSL.
It was so bad, I had to have my employer buy me a 4g Verizon hotspot.
I will never again move anywhere without knowing who the ISP is. And I will never again live anywhere with AT&T Internet.
If the US had proper telecoms regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
this wouldn't be a problem.
America is fucked, and about to get fucked even harder with this new supreme court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: He has internet service (Score:3)
Starlink and fixed 5g are a thing now. Both of those will also likely be superior to cable, as cable has shitty upstream speeds and data caps.
Even though Cox and CenturyLink both provide fiber here, if CenturyLink wasn't an option I'd go with a wireless provider. Cox sticks a nasty data cap on fiber and charges $120/mo for gig. CenturyLink is only $65 and no cap.
Re: (Score:2)
It just sounds like a "first world" surprise. I work in the water industry and some would be amazed how much goes into building a neighborhood before there's a neighborhood.
Extremely fishy (Score:3)
.
CenturyLink DSL (aka Qwest aka Lumen) in my area of Seattle, barely over a mile from this guy's house, has easy-to-get speeds of 100mbit/second (if your street has only copper) and 1Gb/second (if your street has fiber - and most do). I've found it fast and super-reliable.
I cannot believe the guy is telling the truth that the only option he has from CenturyLink is "ancient" DSL at 3Mbs. That just doesn't add up.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope - that's typical for CenturyLunk. A block away from me CL has fiber, mostly for a commercial area. In my neighborhood - 1.5Mbps DSL is the *only* option from them. And they don't plan on *ever* offering higher speeds at any time in the future. They make far more profit wiring apartments and condos, so they're not interested in the single-family residential market. But they *do* have an exclusive francise with the city that keeps other players like FIOS out. At least Comcast does provide service,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not possible to pull fiber alongside the existing DSL copper?
Re: oh those poor suffering people (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone is in what you perceive is an expensive house doesn't mean they have the money.
Re: (Score:3)
Many neighborhoods don't use poles at all but bury all wiring.
Re:oh those poor suffering people (Score:5, Insightful)
Two work-at-home professionals that just bought a three-quarters of a million dollar home need to spend $27K to get a high speed connection to the internet because the buildout serves exactly one customer, requires trenching under a 5 lane road, permits, engineering, and restoration work. And now, by going public, they've made it very hard to resell the house.
But they don't want yo sell the house, because it's walking distance to the local school, so they will keep the house.
Pay the $27K. Stop whining.
They sound like they'll live there for at least 10 or 15 years, over that kind of time period, assuming they keep these work from home jobs, the cost is about $200/month - high, but cheaper than commuting to an office.
If they don't get the house wired, the next owners will reduce their offer by $27K to wire the house - so they're going to pay for it anyway, just bite the bullet and get the connection.
Re: (Score:3)
Well for one, because of the untold billions ISPs have received in order to provide internet connectivity to homes. Two, why does it cost $27k? If you read the article the home is in a densely populated metro area with connectivity to homes and businesses in the area. We're talking 181 ft. of wiring. Not miles needed for many rural homes.
So to recap, Comcast has received billions in public money and essentially has a local monopoly. So fuck them just connect the damn house and stop trying to gouge peop
Re: (Score:2)
At $500k, a $27k cable buildout is only a tiny fraction for a fundamental service. They would have paid 5% more for a house for a lot of other, probably smaller, considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
$30k for the cable company to have to do road construction (cutting a trench across a large access road isn't cheap to lay down fiber, and interrupt traffic)
I'm sure they would be doing horizontal boring. Still a traffic disruption, but one that would actually get a permit.