It seems like the issue is straight forward. It's not Comcast's fault that they would need to do underground work, tear up the road, and then restore the road to serve one customer. They won't ever see any return on the costs of that. Something that might help is asking the city to run overhead poles to his house and then Comcast can use that and it would probably greatly reduce the cost, but I'd doubt they'd do it for the same reason Comcast won't take up an 80,000 dollar project so one couple can get high-speed.
IIRC this is something that can be added to disclosure documentation. You dont have to just have what the law requires - you can add to it anything you want.
It seems like the issue is straight forward. It's not Comcast's fault that they would need to do underground work, tear up the road, and then restore the road to serve one customer. They won't ever see any return on the costs of that. Something that might help is asking the city to run overhead poles to his house and then Comcast can use that and it would probably greatly reduce the cost, but I'd doubt they'd do it for the same reason Comcast won't take up an 80,000 dollar project so one couple can get high-speed.
I would think they would do directional boring. It usually costs about $15 per foot for longer jobs. It would be much better than tearing up the road. I have had a lot of experience with installing fiber/cable for new businesses. Comcast is clearly up-charging for this cable run, as it should have run under $5k.
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.
What's not clear from my reading is whether Comcast told them service was available at that address before they bought the house. Buying a house without checking if service is available at that address is like buying a house without checking if it has city water or a well, i.e., moronic.
I don't disagree, but Comcast's quoted price for installation is way out of bounds here, unless they have to drill through 200 feet of obsidian to run the line or something.
The article discusses the possibility of Starlink at their address.Would Starlink help in this situation?
Yeah I missed it, thanks.
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.
What's not clear from my reading is whether Comcast told them service was available at that address before they bought the house. Buying a house without checking if service is available at that address is like buying a house without checking if it has city water or a well, i.e., moronic.
I don't disagree, but Comcast's quoted price for installation is way out of bounds here, unless they have to drill through 200 feet of obsidian to run the line or something.
It isn't just the cost of the actual construction work; it's the cost of permits, surveys, acquiring easement/ROW and such.
The benefit of having a Spanish Inquisition for companies: over here if the cable run to the nearest PON splitter is less than 400m you will get a connection; it might take a few weeks to obtain the cable (cable run are usually less than 100m) but it will be done.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.
Well, no on ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, either.
But: $27k for a <200 foot run? That's absurd. I would press for a detailed accounting, and offer to run the trench myself. For comparison, a drain replacement on my property required excavating, removing, and replacing a 110 foot drain line, plus interconnects to the municipal sewer and to my house, and that cost under $4k - which I also thought was excessive, but several bids came in right around that same amount. And cable runs don't have to be 4 feet deep, like drain lines here in the north; the final run from pole to my house for Comcast is barely covered with dirt, thanks to loads of tree roots that make trenching a chore, and it's been fine that way for well over 10 years.
All that said: these days, I would explicitly ask if Internet connectivity was available before buying a house. It might even be considered a known defect if it wasn't, and the sellers would be on the hook (again, in my state) to disclose it or pay for remediation.
So, Comcast absolutely sucks here and ought to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. But caveat emptor is still sound advice.
The article discusses the possibility of Starlink at their address.Would Starlink help in this situation?
Yeah I missed it, thanks.
“Missed it” must be the new “I didn’t read the article”
The Starlink section was pretty unmissable.
People are suggesting sharing the neighbors wifi. What if Comcast installed a directional wifi just for this house? From pole or box to residence. Seems like that could be done for a lot cheaper than digging.
People are suggesting sharing the neighbors wifi. What if Comcast installed a directional wifi just for this house? From pole or box to residence. Seems like that could be done for a lot cheaper than digging.
Yeah, scummy it may be, but that is why you need to perform your due diligence. I had 3 home purchases fall through due to stuff I discovered upon inspections or document searches that were not disclosed by the seller up front.This seems like a lack of due diligence on behalf of the real estate agent and the home buyer. The last two homes I bought, I made sure I knew exactly what my internet options would be and even pre-qualified the service before finalizing the sale. I'd suggest anyone who views internet as important to their job or entertainment to include that as part of the home buying process.
Noted upthread, the seller's paperwork disclosed that there was no Internet available.
Not quite. The disclosure said internet wasn't connected, not that it couldn't be connected. Kinda scummy.
I can I would require a speed test demo….real time.It’s gotten to the point where if I move, I will preinstall internet service before signing. Hard to trust availability websites, disclosures, etc.
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.
What's not clear from my reading is whether Comcast told them service was available at that address before they bought the house. Buying a house without checking if service is available at that address is like buying a house without checking if it has city water or a well, i.e., moronic.
Ultimately irrelevant.
Service providers claim all sorts of coverage they don't, and won't actually provide, and it's often only once the initial stages and payments involved in setting up service are complete that they'll come back and say, "Well actually... no."
The only reason I believed AT&T when they claimed I could get fiber at my house was because I woke up one morning and discovered they were trenching through the front yard and actually installing a box and cable.
I wonder if costs could be reduced the next time the city repaves the roads. They're already torn up and have crews managing traffic.
It's a crappy situation to be in, but any sort of relief is good, though they may need to wait for a few years for that to happen.
How far away are their neighbours? Why can't they share wifi?
Why is this all about massive underground construction when you could just run a CAT6 wire from an adjacent house and bury it 1ft underground if you think it's unsightly?
You’d be depending upon your utility provided by your neighbor. Imagine getting your power or gas depending upon the neighbor. Temporary solution at best.
I dunno, I missed it. By that point of the article it was getting a bit repetitive and I had already switched from reading every word to skimming.The article discusses the possibility of Starlink at their address.Would Starlink help in this situation?
Yeah I missed it, thanks.
“Missed it” must be the new “I didn’t read the article”
The Starlink section was pretty unmissable.
At the previous places he's lived in Seattle, Cohn could choose between two ISPs and threaten to switch if one raised the rates.
Yeah, scummy it may be, but that is why you need to perform your due diligence. I had 3 home purchases fall through due to stuff I discovered upon inspections or document searches that were not disclosed by the seller up front.This seems like a lack of due diligence on behalf of the real estate agent and the home buyer. The last two homes I bought, I made sure I knew exactly what my internet options would be and even pre-qualified the service before finalizing the sale. I'd suggest anyone who views internet as important to their job or entertainment to include that as part of the home buying process.
Noted upthread, the seller's paperwork disclosed that there was no Internet available.
Not quite. The disclosure said internet wasn't connected, not that it couldn't be connected. Kinda scummy.
- transite used in the ventilation system (transite is literally made of asbestos and cement, and the pipes we found were HIGHLY friable, like 10x the safety limit)
- buried oil tank of unknown condition and content under the paving stones out back of the house
- predatory solar contract with Vivint solar that was mandatory, well above market rate for electricity, increasing at a fixed rate over time, and containing an early buy-out clause that would cost more than price to install a newer, more efficient, and higher capacity system from scratch.
- Massive termite infestation under an addition
It sucks spending that kind of money to just walk away, and I did it 3 times over the course of about 15 month. But it is FAR better than buying a home with a serious problem it'll cost 10's of thousands of dollars to remedy.
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.
Well, no on ever expects the Spanish Inquisition, either.
But: $27k for a <200 foot run? That's absurd. I would press for a detailed accounting, and offer to run the trench myself. For comparison, a drain replacement on my property required excavating, removing, and replacing a 110 foot drain line, plus interconnects to the municipal sewer and to my house, and that cost under $4k - which I also thought was excessive, but several bids came in right around that same amount. And cable runs don't have to be 4 feet deep, like drain lines here in the north; the final run from pole to my house for Comcast is barely covered with dirt, thanks to loads of tree roots that make trenching a chore, and it's been fine that way for well over 10 years.
All that said: these days, I would explicitly ask if Internet connectivity was available before buying a house. It might even be considered a known defect if it wasn't, and the sellers would be on the hook (again, in my state) to disclose it or pay for remediation.
So, Comcast absolutely sucks here and ought to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. But caveat emptor is still sound advice.
Sounds like the disclosure in the purchase agreement was pretty shaky. There is a difference between "does not have internet service" and "cannot get internet service". In California I am not sure that would be considered a full disclosure. I don't know about Washington but they might want to talk to a real estate attorney.
Yeah, scummy it may be, but that is why you need to perform your due diligence. I had 3 home purchases fall through due to stuff I discovered upon inspections or document searches that were not disclosed by the seller up front.This seems like a lack of due diligence on behalf of the real estate agent and the home buyer. The last two homes I bought, I made sure I knew exactly what my internet options would be and even pre-qualified the service before finalizing the sale. I'd suggest anyone who views internet as important to their job or entertainment to include that as part of the home buying process.
Noted upthread, the seller's paperwork disclosed that there was no Internet available.
Not quite. The disclosure said internet wasn't connected, not that it couldn't be connected. Kinda scummy.
- transite used in the ventilation system (transite is literally made of asbestos and cement, and the pipes we found were HIGHLY friable, like 10x the safety limit)
- buried oil tank of unknown condition and content under the paving stones out back of the house
- predatory solar contract with Vivint solar that was mandatory, well above market rate for electricity, increasing at a fixed rate over time, and containing an early buy-out clause that would cost more than price to install a newer, more efficient, and higher capacity system from scratch.
- Massive termite infestation under an addition
It sucks spending that kind of money to just walk away, and I did it 3 times over the course of about 15 month. But it is FAR better than buying a home with a serious problem it'll cost 10's of thousands of dollars to remedy.
I had a part timer working for me in the lab doing mostly paperwork, no real STEM background. He was also working part time as a newly minted real estate agent. Some of the conversations I’ve overheard are just like, “Let’s just close this, I want my money “. I’m sure they all have inspectors they like to work with that expertly and legally gloss things over. I did construction while in school, would have to poke around quite a bit myself to look for disparities.
Comcast junction box across the street
I appreciate a good Comcast bashing story. But this one is a little hard for me to get behind. Quick search of Zillow for houses recently sold in that area of Seattle show most way north of $800,000. And Northgate would be a location I would consider moving to if I was working for a certain employer based out of Redmond.
Now that is probably irresponsible conjecture on my part - even people making $500k per year may not have thirty grand laying around to sink into Comcast’s pocket.
But this couple probably had much more mobility and choice in where they could live than many many other people in Seattle, where affordable housing is harder to find. And the fact that the government was willing to step in on their behalf is a little ‘icky’.
That said, I consider high speed Internet a basic necessity- even for rich people. So I hope this couple finds a happy ending.
The city must have some sort of contract with Comcast. They need to review that and stipulate that ISPs must connect every home in the city limits or every home that has water service at a flat rate.
It’s gotten to the point where if I move, I will preinstall internet service before signing. Hard to trust availability websites, disclosures, etc.
Word. I suppose on the day of the inspection, or heck, final walkthrough before heading off to the attorney to sign the papers, have an internet technician show up to route up a line in your name. You'll know real quick what the situation is before doing the final signatures.
What I have for some time recommended to anyone who will listen to me when buying a house is that the purchase contract include a condition that requires a broadband internet connect to be installed and functioning (at buyer expense) prior to finalizing the sale agreement.
It's sad you have to do that these days, but it's the only way to be sure, but Comcast and others will tell you they can provide service, then fail to do so without an outrageous charge like this.
It seems like the issue is straight forward. It's not Comcast's fault that they would need to do underground work, tear up the road, and then restore the road to serve one customer. They won't ever see any return on the costs of that. Something that might help is asking the city to run overhead poles to his house and then Comcast can use that and it would probably greatly reduce the cost, but I'd doubt they'd do it for the same reason Comcast won't take up an 80,000 dollar project so one couple can get high-speed.
It's very unlikely they need to tear up the road. We were once on a well and switched to city water; the city line was on the other side of a road, and then had to run underneath our circular drive, twice, before reaching the house. No pavement was touched; they used a directional drilling rig to run the line, even though it had to be several feet underground for frost protection in this part of the country. Cable has no such requirement, so it would likely be even easier.