From the linked map, a sizable chunk of Seattle is zoned Lowrise (LR1/LR2/LR3), which is multifamily zoning. Is it the fault of the people who already live there that they haven't torn down their houses and built three townhomes on that lot?
> it seems unlikely that most residents of such housing would want to pay the true cost of the rollout.
Great, I'd love to talk to a company that provides gigabit service in Seattle who will provide a gigabit link to my residence and charge me no more than $2,000 for the install. (Why $2,000? I dunno, out of thin air, I suppose.) "But that's not the true cost of the rollout?" Awesome, and the subscribers to CondoInternet didn't pay the massive up-front cost for their links, either.
Here's my main complaint: People hold up CondoInternet and say "look, look, Seattle has gigabit Internet, why are you still complaining?" That's not anywhere close to answering the underlying discussion. Even if everyone who wanted gigabit could afford to live in those places, they wouldn't physically hold all of the people. It's like the FCC saying that one person in a ZIP code has DSL so the entire area "has broadband."
The debate over SFH versus multifamily is a good one, and I'd love it to tilt in favor of multifamily. But ignoring 95% of a city's residents is not the way to go about getting better access. Hell, even Comcast manages to cover the majority of Seattle with 50Mbps speeds.
> it seems unlikely that most residents of such housing would want to pay the true cost of the rollout.
Great, I'd love to talk to a company that provides gigabit service in Seattle who will provide a gigabit link to my residence and charge me no more than $2,000 for the install. (Why $2,000? I dunno, out of thin air, I suppose.) "But that's not the true cost of the rollout?" Awesome, and the subscribers to CondoInternet didn't pay the massive up-front cost for their links, either.
Here's my main complaint: People hold up CondoInternet and say "look, look, Seattle has gigabit Internet, why are you still complaining?" That's not anywhere close to answering the underlying discussion. Even if everyone who wanted gigabit could afford to live in those places, they wouldn't physically hold all of the people. It's like the FCC saying that one person in a ZIP code has DSL so the entire area "has broadband."
The debate over SFH versus multifamily is a good one, and I'd love it to tilt in favor of multifamily. But ignoring 95% of a city's residents is not the way to go about getting better access. Hell, even Comcast manages to cover the majority of Seattle with 50Mbps speeds.