Pursue what’s best for the city, not Comcast
Thank you guest columnist Ron Main for explaining why I need Comcast to continue to provide me with slow, often unreliable Internet access at a very high cost [“Why Seattle does not need to build a broadband network,” Opinion, Feb. 5].
He justifies his argument against city involvement, in part, by claiming that 95 percent of city and state residents don’t avail themselves of Comcast’s “higher” speed offerings — so ergo, they don’t care about “fiber to home” access. He conveniently neglects to mention that Comcast charges high dollars for these increased speeds — a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.
Main’s arguments are cynical, self-serving and detrimental to Seattle’s “world-class” aspirations. I urge our city leaders to pursue what’s best for its residents and not Comcast.
Beverly Marcus, Seattle
Charge service providers rates for public infrastructure
Given the recent court rulings concerning censorship around content management on the Internet, and the even more laughable “corporations are people” ruling, do we really want to hand the most powerful tool of the last hundred years over to a tightly organized group of scalpers? Maybe we should give more land to the railroads while we’re at it.
I suggest that if the so-called providers need access to more publicly owned infrastructure, like street side poles or underground conduits, that they pay a monthly subscription rate, much like their customer bases. That way, when unexplained or buried increases show up in our bills, they too will have their rates raised. At least the public coffers might see a fair return on their infrastructure ownership.
Lawrence Kida, Seattle