I don't fully understand how the decision was made which neighborhoods will be built out. It is obviously not based on demand because the coverage areas [1] include every single one of Seattle's poorest neighborhoods[2] and virtually none of the richest. Even if you don't know Seattle neighborhoods, there are obvious clues in the map. It seems almost gerrymandered to avoid including non-industrial waterfront. Some of those choices make sense to me (the UW, students are poor). Others less so. I would estimate a majority of the area covered is in lower than average income areas -- the U district and southeast Seattle.
It is obvious that there was some non-market-based decision making here. I am OK with that and Seattleites tend to be as well. I don't think infrastructure should be limited to the rich or that a fiber vendor should be allowed to cherry pick neighborhoods. However I wonder if the right balance was struck.
My suspicion is the 'highest bidder' was picked in part by how many low income neighborhoods they were willing to deploy in, and I fear this has resulted in choosing an organization that overbid because they didn't actually understand what it would take to be successful. Or worse yet is not even going to be capable of doing the buildout.
IIRC the choice to favor neighborhoods like central, chinatown, and beacon hill was intentional. The thinking was that the traditional franchise agreements allowed incumbents to choose to compete in the neighborhoods with the greatest disposable income. Other nieghborhoods were left to providers, like broadstripe and clear, that were unable to provide the significant capital outlays required for infrastructure upgrades. Over the past few decades this led to significant divergence of infrastructure, and ultimately capabilities, between neighborhoods.
One of the "funny" things about Gigabit Seattle is that the last mile is actually supposed to be wireless. Much like that other network pioneer of Seattle, Clearwire.
It is obvious that there was some non-market-based decision making here. I am OK with that and Seattleites tend to be as well. I don't think infrastructure should be limited to the rich or that a fiber vendor should be allowed to cherry pick neighborhoods. However I wonder if the right balance was struck.
My suspicion is the 'highest bidder' was picked in part by how many low income neighborhoods they were willing to deploy in, and I fear this has resulted in choosing an organization that overbid because they didn't actually understand what it would take to be successful. Or worse yet is not even going to be capable of doing the buildout.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
[1] http://gigabitseattle.com/areas/ [2] http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/seattle-area/6851...