San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project
San Francisco land of the nuts and fruits. I can only say that because I live here and consider many of them my close friends, but if you were a fly on the wall at last night’s EarthLink Google WiFi meeting you would know what I mean.
Over the last two years, San Francisco has expressed an interest in bringing wireless internet access to the entire city, but two years later we are still arguing about how to get this done. It started in September 2004, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a resolution allocating $300,000 for the city to investigate various wifi options so that they could bring affordable internet access to the entire city. In January of 2005, Mayor Gavin Newsom used his state of the city address to show his committment to free wifi by declaring that “we will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to free wireless Internet service.”
Over the next year, the city studied the various issues associated with bringing free Wifi to the city and by December of 2005, the list of possible vendors had been narrowed down to 7 companies who offered formal proposals to the city. In April of 2006, the mayor announced that they had selected EarthLink and Google to help build and run the network at no cost to the city. At that time a lot of excitement and buzz was generated by the possibility of the citizens of San Francisco having free WiFi.
Unfortunately, as with a lot of things in San Francisco, politics once again seems to have derailed something that could have been so great.
Despite the announcement made last April free WiFi instead has turned out to be vaporware thus far with Google and Earthlink discovering that dealing with the local San Francisco political scene is about as fun as being set up on a blind date with Mike Tyson after being rubbed down in meat sauce.
The lunacy of San Francisco politics can take several forms and town hall meetings are sure to attract some of San Francisco’s craziest nut jobs. While I was surprised not to see San Francisco’s representative from the 12 galaxies, Frank Chu, attend the meeting, I did get to see Chris Sacca from Google face a parade of activist oddballs who neither understood technology nor the positive social impact that free wifi could bring to some of the city’s most disadvantaged citizens.
At the meeting, Sacca did an excellent job or remaining calm and explaining the technology in language that anyone could understand, still these local political gadflies seemed to feel that EarthLink and Google providing free WiFi to the citizens was akin to killing kittens because, they attacked Sacca with a venom that was absolutely shocking.
Some of the crazier demands that were suggested at the meeting included a “requirement” for every San Francisco renter to sign a lease addendum with their landlords before being allowed to install a WiFi card in their PC, forcing Google to agree to transport kids back and forth to the Zoo in their Google busses and a requirement for EarthLink to pay the electrical costs for running computers in order to prevent brownouts.
Now if Google and EarthLink were receving public funds from the city or if the city was going to have to pay for the costs associated with running this network, I could understand why people would be so concerned. But why should Google and EarthLink be held up and extorted by local politicians, being forced to give in to any number of demands when all they want to do is give people free WiFi.
The internet is truly one of the most amazing technological advancements in the last 100 years. The ability to connect digitally to the entire world has transformed every single aspect of my life. When I needed to find a new apartment in San Francisco, I saved money by using Craigslist to find a great place. When I had worthless junk left over after I moved, I’ve been able to use EBay in order to have a much more effective digital garage sale. When I need access to any form of information I can use services like Google to find it. If I don’t want to pay for cable TV I’m able to use YouTube as a replacement. In short, I can’t think of a single area of my life where the internet hasn’t had an impact in one form or another and it’s the power of this technology that makes the idea of free WiFi so powerful.
Despite all of the advancement in technology, San Franicisco, perhaps more then any other city faces a significant digital gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not. By giving Comcast an exclusive license to provide broadband connectivity to their citizens, the San Francisco board of Directors have kept the poor from being able to have access to the same opportunities that those who can afford $40 a month for high speed access.
When you go online, it doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, black or white, gay or straight, all that matters is the quality of your ideas and your ability to be innovative.
The poor in San Francisco have the most to benefit from free wifi, more then anyone else.
With free wifi San Franiciscan’s will be able to set up businesses on Craigslist. They can set up blogs through free blogspot accounts and allow their voices to be heard. They can use services like Skype to save money on their phone bills. Yet despite all of these benefits, San Francisco still seems to feel that unless Google and EarthLink are willing to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop that they somehow don’t deserve the right to provide a truly competitive internet option to San Francisco residents.
After listening to the concerns of citizens living in my neighborhood, it is unfortunate that EarthLink and Google will likely need to engage in some horse trading before this deal is done. So much for the free wifi by the end of 2006 that Mayor Gavin Newsom suggested that we might have. Instead of getting free wifi for Christmas this year, it looks like all the Scrooge McDuck’s on the board of Supervisors would rather Tiny Tim and myself get a lump of coal, and a 56k Netzero lump of crappy coal at that.
I can’t help but feel that a very dangerous precident is being set by local politicians who would rather play hardball with Google and EarthLink then provide free WiFi access to their citizens. Considering that San Francisco itself stands to gain millions in tax savings by not having to pay for their own government bandwidth costs, it seems ridiculous to me to try and continue to bargain for more when a competitive process has already taken place and two very reputable companies have stepped up, willing to put their own capital at risk to provide these services to our citizens.
It’s sad to have to see Google and EarthLink run around doing town hall meetings to already get an agreed upon deal done, being forced to grant new concessions which only serve to make free wifi in San Francisco even that much farther away.
If I were Google or EarthLink I’d be tempted to say screw you to the city of San Francisco, pick up my ball and take it to another city where I wasn’t treated like crap.
Although it’s almost certain that I won’t have free wifi by the end of this year at least between now and then, on November 7th, I’ll have an opportunity to try and vote my nitwit San Francisco Supervisor and representative out of office.
Posted on October 18th, 2006 by Davis
Filed under: Technology
The city WILL be paying for the network. The Google/Earthlink bid involves putting up lots of equipment on city-owned light poles, powered by city electricity that the city pays PG&E for. And for what? So Google can track us meter by meter as we move around the city, recording our movements permanently along with every search we do and every ad we click on, and selling “local” ads that appear when we are near e.g. a pizza place. And so Earthlink can monopolize the “public use” WiFi frequencies all over the city, selling “premium” wifi service that people will have to buy to escape the very low bandwidth of the “free” service.
Google and Earthlink could put up their own WiFi network today, without city permission,
if they put their equipment up on private homes and buildings (with consent of the owners), and paid for their own electricity. That’s a deal they are not interested in.
I went to the first of these “community meetings”. Google admitted that it will require every “free” user to “log in” to the network, so they can be tracked and so “troublesome” citizens (file-sharers?) can be ejected. This will also prevent most WiFi phones from working, conveniently not undercutting the cellular phone companies. And though Google claims they aren’t in it to make money, they have some kind of undisclosed sweetheart deal with Earthlink. They said that they would not donate the same amount of money to the city of SF to fund our own Telecommunications Department — or another vendor — to provide free WiFi instead of Earthlink. I think they’re “investing” in this Earthlink network, i.e. they expect to make money from it.
John – I don’t think that this deal isn’t without a downside, but considering what the city of San Francisco is currently paying to Comcast for internet access today, I don’t feel that the cost of the power consumption is a significant enough issue compared to their own tax savings for the city to stop this deal. The city had no problem entering into monopolistic agreements with Comcast that have forced their residents into paying significantly higher rates then what Google and Earthlink are proposing and despite some of the valid privacy concerns that have been brought up, I’m not sure that I understand how they are any different then the privacy policies that Comcast imposes on us today.
Free wifi will have an undeniable positive social impact for everyone involved. It’s an unproven business strategy and if San Francisco isn’t willing to put their own money on the line, I don’t mind giving a private company a profit incentive if it means that citizens will save money and if it will force Comcast to offer a competitive internet rate for those who choose paid services. For the city to try and force Google and Earthlink to go to private businesses one by one at this late stage in the process isn’t a real solution and if the city continues to make these unrealistic demands, the only people who will benefit will be Comcast who currently enjoys a sweetheart deal that was made with plenty of backroom shenanigans by the very telecommunication department that you are advocating we turn this process over too.
I’m all for living in a utopian society where Google and Earthlink can solve all of our problems, but it’s not realistic and it’s not going to cost the city anything to give Earthlink access to the lamposts. Allowing Google and Earthlink to make a modest profit on this deal is a small sacrifice if that’s what it takes to bring internet access to the cities poorest citizens. You may see 300K free wifi speeds as being too slow, but considering the alternatives and the impact that the free competition will have on the existing monopolistic pricing, I think that you’ve made a mistake in opposing this. I respect the position that the EFF has on this issue, but as a citizen who can see tremendous upside to what Earthlink and Google are proposing, I think you’re approach on this matter is akin to cutting off your nose just to spite your face.
Davis, you do write about a free network, and Google will provide 300 Kbps service at no cost under this deal. But the network is primarily designed to be a for-fee system, with EarthLink offering wholesale rates that will translate into about $20 per month for 1 Mbps symmetrical access.
John Gilmore wrote: “Google and Earthlink could put up their own WiFi network today, without city permission, if they put their equipment up on private homes and buildings (with consent of the owners), and paid for their own electricity. That’s a deal they are not interested in.”
I’ll go one step further, John: Google and EarthLink have the right under the Telecom Act of 1996 to get reasonable, non-discriminatory access to utility poles. Now, while Southern Edison has been playing games about pole access down in the southern part of your fine state, that hasn’t been the case in the more sensible northern half.
Google and EarthLink could build a network with no city support of any kind and gain access to utility poles. Not city facilities, however, which would require separate negotiation. Again, they could do this without the city’s direct involvement, including getting access to things like Twin Peaks. (Just ask Tim Pozar of BAWRN.)
John also writes: “And so Earthlink can monopolize the “public use†WiFi frequencies all over the city, selling “premium†wifi service that people will have to buy to escape the very low bandwidth of the “free†service.”
While I wrote a somewhat skeptical article about metro-scale Wi-Fi networks and interference for The Economist (March 2006 Technology Quarterly issue), I don’t truly believe that it’s possible for EarthLink or any firm to deploy a network that actually highly degrades Wi-Fi across a city. The complaints would cause too much political fallout. The FCC has some specific ways in which they would get involved in Part 15 disputes, but the idea that EarthLink would actually be able to monopolize the network — it’s possible, and it’s a very real fear (see Tim Pozar, again!) — I don’t think in practical terms it can happen without truly destroying EarthLink’s reputation. I am, of course, curious how putting devices that produce the highest legal output with omnidirectional antennas across an entire city actually affects existing indoor and outdoor deployments. The results may surprise us all — it may work just fine (Wi-Fi may be resilient enough, more than we expect or believe), or it may totally destroy existing networks (Wi-Fi may be too fragile when one provider blankets the entire spectral territory).
I love San Francisco. I’ve been there every year for the last 10 years or so.
I do find it amazing that people are arguing about free Wi-Fi when there are still so many homeless people in the city.
Sorry, hit submit early.
If they do go through with the Wi-Fi plan, and if people are worried about getting tracked, they don’t have to use it. Impressing your idea of what’s right and wrong for people ruins this for those folks who otherwise would benefit from this.
I mean, isn’t this sort of thing, imposing your views on others, that many folks in San Francisco are completely against?
[...] Google and Earthlink are struggling to sell their San Francisco WiFi plan to residents and community activists. The duo held a community meeting on Tuesday, which Davis Freeberg says was populated by a circus of crazed gadflies — another meeting is planned for tonight. I attended the first meeting, and an Earthlink exec said the network would take at least 18 months to launch — obviously not meeting the end of the year timeline that some had hoped for, which isn’t too surprising to our readers. [...]
Curious – I know it is “free”, but will Google make money from advertising to those folks that use the service?
I disagree 10000% that they should have to shuttle kids to the zoo at their expense to do something good for the community, but I don’t think it is unreasonable for Google / Earthlink to provide some percentage of gained profits back to the community to be spent for bus shuttling, or street cleaning.
Google / Earthlink need to step carefully as to not set a dangerous precedence in the country for caving into local political “crap”, because we all know that when the next town gets on the list, they will only demand more.
It is a catch-22.
I couldn’t care less if Google tracks me. I already log in to their service and use their innovative search history beta to voluntarily have them track and analyze my search data for me.
Free wi-fi in San Francisco should happen and should happen now. Privacy concerns are overblown. If someone has privacy concerns then there is no *requirement* for them to use the free wi-fi system. They can certainly choose instead to use the vendor of their choice and pay for their wi-fi however they want — they can even choose a provider that ships with a tinfoil hat.
Navigating private homes and being forced to pay private people in order to install something for the public good does not make sense.
San Francisco Google Free Wireless gets a Blow, almost literally…
There is good discussion going on adavid’sds site and you better hurry over there, you might even get hints of as whom to vote for in next city elections.
Well here is the link to David’s article.
I have been waiting too long, much too long. I tho…
The greed and audacity of some of the people you describe at this meeting is astounding. The fact that Earthlink/Google have a paid option doesn’t take anything away from the default option: FREE.
As far as privacy, your cell phone company knows where you are and who you call, no matter where you go nationwide. At least with Google/Earthlink, I can run my own VPN and keep my content/browsing private.
As described above, the social benefits of free internet access are large. Those who stand in its way are just being selfish and petty.
Google must not be permitted extensive control over a ubiquitous network, through which they will have information on the movements of citizens and a guaranteed advertising pipe.
Either open the network, or Google go home.
Davis, the next thing you should do is call each of the Board of Supervisors to get their public position on wi-fi and then make this information public. I’d like to know which Supervisors are specifically stalling this thing so that we can make a concerted effort to vote them out office.
If anyone from Google or Earthlink, or even anonymously, wants to shed some light on who the specific politicians are that are stonewalling this thing the most feel free to shoot me an email with a rundown at tom(at)thomashawk.com.
Freedom of speech is a good thing. Being able to blog is a good thing. Being able to blog for free via free citywide wi-fi is best of all.
[...] Techmeme recoge en su portada la noticia de que la red WiFi de acceso gratuito que Google y Earthlink pensaban desplegar en San Francisco se enfrenta cada vez a más problemas para materializarse. Aunque las noticias relacionadas con problemas no son una novedad (ya se comentaron en un artÃculo anteriormente publicado en este blog), parece que se van agravando, ya que no sólo desde el ayuntamiento se niegan a aprobar su propia propuesta sino que los propios ciudadanos de San Francisco están haciendo peticiones surrealistas a Google, tal y como describe Davis Freeberg en su blog. [...]
I used to live to in SF. Now in NYC. all the parks here have free Wi-fi and I live across from Madison Park on 23rd street so my internet is free!
it is really great and should be available to all.
Wow…people are scared. Grow up, embrace technology. This is a good thing. Unless you watching child porn I think have a great company like Google owning a network should be the least of your worries. You think the company that provides your current hook-up to the information superhighway doesn’t know EXACTLY what you’re searching and looking at. You have a lot to learn my friend. A company like Google has been tested and proven to us all that THEY CARE about privacy, security and internet access for all – regardless of how rich or poor we may be.
“It started in September 2004, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a resolution allocating $300,000 for the city to investigate various wifi options so that they could bring affordable internet access to the entire city.”
The city never studied wireless options, nor did it do a needs assessment. What the Board of Supervisors approved was a study of expanding the city’s fiber network in conjunction with the sewer expansion.
Resolution here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_page.asp?id=44176
SF Guardian article here: http://freepress.net/news/17243
The fiber study was not started until July of 2006. It is currently underway, as well as a financial feasiblity study of publicly owned wireless done by the Office of the Budget Analyst. Reports are expected in December. Whatever choice San Francisco makes, it seems prudent to wait until all the information is in before committing to what is effectively a 12 year franchise agreement with Earthlink.
I really enjoyed the article. I hope you are able to attend some of the other meetings and report back the details. Thanks.
Becca – Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As one of the groups who has shown opposition to the free wifi movement, I’m very much interested in hearing some of the more reasonable objections to the plan that Earthlink and Google has proposed. If I understand your group’s opposition to the plan correctly, it’s not that you oppose the free wifi per se, but that you’d rather see a public owned network that one that is leased out instead? This seems fair enough, although I do have some reservations about the plan that you are proposing.
http://www.newrules.org/info/sf-financial.pdf (warning .PDF file)
I will admit that some of ILSR’s ideas are certainly interesting, but my fear is this. Already this project has been planned for the last two years. At any point along the way ILSR could have pushed for feasibility studies to be done for a city owned network, but the city didn’t choose to go in that direction, they choose to solicit RFPs from corporate companies instead. After selecting a partner they are now backing out of that agreement by trying to squeeze Google and Earthlink for concessions that should have asked for during the RFP process. While ideally, I like the benefits that would come from San Francisco funding this project on their own, I’m not sure that I want to see San Francisco put their own money at risk on an unproven business model, especially when Google and Earthlink are offering to pay for this out of their own pockets and assume that risk.
Furthermore, when you start a proposal off by borrowing money and paying interest on the debt that would incured for the city to build this on their own, I have to question how financially responsible it would really be even if the city figures out a way to profit on this five to ten years later. Finally, after having unsuccessfully tried to file an FCC consumer complaint against Comcast over the last three months, I can tell you that with over a dozen unreturned calls, three ignored written letters and still no complaint on file with the only agency that has the legal authority to investigate my issue, I have absolutely no faith in the SF dept. of Telecommunications and Information. If city politics weren’t what they were, I would be happy to turn this process over to them, but I trust Google and Earthlink to get this right and considering that the technology may be obsolete within five years, I’m more then happy to let their wallet take the hit (or benefit) from wifi deployment if it keeps free wifi out of the hands of decision makers who are still admitedly using dial up internet access at their own homes.
[...] Kind of annoying post by Davis Freeberg about how the free WiFi for all San Francisco residents project is slowing down. Techdirt chalks it up to poor planning on the city’s part. Or the bureaucratic tendency that whenever something is moving forward, everyone and their special interest tries to tag along and get their cut. [...]
I was at the meeting as well, and while it certainly had more than its share of nutjobs, your characterization of the broader questions of the negotiations is ill-informed.
Earthlink is going to make a ton of money on this project. They’re not doing it out of any samaritan impulse. They want access to San Francisco’s poles and power, and the city is responding by asking for things back, like investment in tech support and training for residents who don’t currently have computers. Seems reasonable to me.
Google is not negotiating with the city. They have a contract with Earthlink to buy bandwidth to give away free.
Finally, your characterizations of some of tyhe things said at the meeting are, well, wrong:
First, no one suggested that there should be a ““requirement†for every San Francisco renter to sign a lease addendum with their landlords before being allowed to install a WiFi card in their PC”, one of the people in the audience thought that his landlord might require it of him and other people.
Second, the zoo thing was used as an example of ridiculous requirements that people might ask of Google, not a serious suggestion.
Thanks for taking an interest in this issue.
sasha magee
[...] Some of the Technology Enthusiast crowd has started to notice the issue, and have started to clamor for WiFi Now now now!!!! [...]
[...] Davis Freeberg: I did get to see Chris Sacca from Google face a parade of activist oddballs who neither understood technology nor the positive social impact that free wifi could bring to some of the city’s most disadvantaged citizens. [...]
[...] SF’s WiFi project derailed, or seriously delayed, by crazy nut jobs — Or so says David Freeberg. Sounds like Google’s Chris Sacca was right when he blew up in frustration about this earlier. [...]
Just addressing the subject of the goal of helping the poor:
San Fran has about 74,000 people or 23,000 households in poverty
( http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm )
The city recieves about $4.5 million a month in cable franchise fees.
( http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~bigyale/cable/Video_comp_SF_04_2006.pdf )
So… why doesn’t the city use a portion (10% = $450,000/mo) to take care of its own disadvantaged citizen’s broadband needs by buying cable broadband? Isn’t that a function of government?
Simply wow! In a country where the politics are getting more out of control every day, we have folks fighting for a proven FREE winner.
Government, generally speaking, does a poor job of taking care of its citizenry. When they do excel, you can bet it’s due to a large expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Google and EarthLink are offering a FREE service that would do what no municipality would ever be able to do well or for free. Yes, they’ll make money but it does not come without risk on their part. Why should citizens care if they make a profit from advertising? At least the taxpayers won’t be paying for the experiment.
If Google and EarthLink wish to pull out of that market and come to the Midwest, I’ll be happy to help them get into the areas where broadband access is being held for ransom payments from the citizens. The Internet should be free, and it’s no wonder that foreign countries are leapfrogging around the U.S. in technology.
If you’re worried about privacy with today’s technologies (cellular, Internet, GPS and satellite equipped vehicles) then you’re not paying attention.
Davis, you ignore my primary point, which is that the $300 k authorized in Sept. 2004 was for a fiber feasibility study, not to study Wi-Fi options (something the city never did). That study and a study of a different Wi-Fi option are currently underway, with reports expected in December. Doesn’t make much sense for the city to approve a contract before it’s completed.
A number of San Francisco individuals and organziations have been advocating for public ownership since the project was introduced. Indeed, one of the finalists in the RFP process proposed a publicly onwed network. We simply added another piece of information to the discussion.
And since 72 percent of the operating citywide wireless networks in the country are publicly owned, it’s actually the privately owned franchise model that is unproved.
Thanks for the write-up. San Francisco continues to excel at denying normalcy to the masses in order to cater to the (very) few who would prefer we all suffer.
I’d encourage you to go a step further and name names. Every step towards getting counter-productive supervisors who cowtow to the extremists out of office is a possitve one.
Becca – Thanks for the clarification over how the $300,000 has been spent. I obviously have trouble following the complexities of our city’s political process and how we allocate our resources. Nonetheless, I think that you may have missed my points. Regardless of the feasibility of the city owning this network, I have little faith in SF’s ability to run it as efficiently and professionally as Earthlink could. I also feel that any demands for free computers, classes or feasibilities studies should have been conducted during the RFP process and to hold up free wifi at the last minute seems slim shady to me.
To go back and delay implementation of free wifi after the city has already gone through a due diligence process (albeit, not as comprehensive as you would have liked it to be) seems wrong to me. We can always wait for one more survey or another type of feasibility survey, but Google has proved that this will work in Mountain View and considering that they are offering us FREE internet access, rather then looking a gift horse in the mouth, I’d much rather we take advantage of their generousity.
If they make money as a result I’m fine with that because hopefully the profits will incentivize Google and Earthlink (and a whole lot of other private companies) to provide free WiFi to cities beyond just San Francisco. The internet can have a transformative effect on people’s lives and whether that’s for our disadvantaged citizens here or whether it’s for disadvantaged citizens living in Mexico City, I would like to see free wifi spread throughout the world. If we let San Francisco politics set the tone for free wifi going forward, companies won’t have any desire to offer these services and even if SF could afford to do this on their own (still a question mark) there are many municipalities that could not.
To me, it would be tragic to see San Franicisco build this, mismangage it and provide little incentive for private companies to help other municipalities as a result. This isn’t about me getting free internet access. I can already pick up CNet’s free wifi signal from my home and I don’t even own a laptop, it’s about giving the poor in our city the same platform and opportunities that I’ve had to express themselves and to improve their situation. Anyone that wants to delay that process for their own agenda has lost focus of what the real goal should be, closing the digital divide that unfortunately exists today.
If you don’t want to be tracked by Google…. DON’T USE IT. How hard is that? If you don’t like what’s on TV… CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Or better yet, turn it off.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
**Puts on aluminum foil hat**
OMG GOOGLE IS TRACKING ME AND ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE MY PIZZA PURCHASES!!!
[...] I so saw this coming… of course I probably could claim a higher degree of prediction gift were it not for the fact that this is SF and everyone who knows the City by the Bay knew that this would happen. Link via VentureBeat Davis Freeberg’s Digital Connection » Blog Archive » San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project: Despite the announcement made last April free WiFi instead has turned out to be vaporware thus far with Google and Earthlink discovering that dealing with the local San Francisco political scene is about as fun as being set up on a blind date with Mike Tyson after being rubbed down in meat sauce. Posted in Public Policy, Wireless || [...]
[...] Google and Earthlink are struggling to sell their San Francisco WiFi plan to residents and community activists. The duo held a community meeting on Tuesday, which Davis Freeberg says was populated by a circus of crazed gadflies — another meeting is planned for tonight. I attended the first meeting, and an Earthlink exec said the network would take at least 18 months to launch — obviously not meeting the end of the year timeline that some had hoped for, which isn’t too surprising to our readers. [...]
I was at the meeting that Davis writes about and had a much different take.
Give me a break. Politics are messy – this is how issues are brought up, not by backroom deals done by lawyers.
Muni Wifi is all about real estate – about essentially exclusive access to favorable lightpoles and city buildings (24×7 power with no trees and blocking structures). If Earthlink gets these – it’s pretty unlikely that another provider will be able to come into the city afterwards with the slim pickings. Earthlink has been desperate to control the pipe and here in San Francisco Google is helping them get that monopoly control.
San Francisco has 4-5 Cell phone providers who compete viciously but will have only 1 WiFi Franchise. When the next WiFi tech comes out that actually works decently this franchise will be just like your Cable or phone company jacking the city around because they own the network.
While there were two audience members that where on the outer fringes and somewhat technically uninformed, that really was the supposed purpose of these Sales (oh, um Community) meetings right? If you exclude their concerns – which should still be answered – the discussion on both sides was not at all as you characterize it. And I would summarize thier issues as: the poor get screwed and there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can’t blame them for being fearful.
Did you mention speakers from the Techconnect Taskforce asking for digital inclusion funding? What about the question from the audience about undergrounding of utilities – how that might effect Muni WiFi already offered in an area? How about the question: I can use a wifi connection in a cafe without signing in – then why do i have to sign-in to the projected free google network? How about Why is Google giving Mountain View 1000k Free and San Francisco only 300k Free? Or how will people get tech support for the google free wifi network when the only support offered is online? Or what recourse will a citzen have who lives in an apartment with a desktop have if the can’t get the wifi? Let’s call Muni Wifi for what it is with current tech: spotty indoor coverage – best effort at most. So the city issues a 12 year lightpole franchise to earthlink/google for unreliable wireless internet.
Its strange that Google is running these meetings when Earthlink is negotiating the contract with the city – what’s going on here?
Why doesn’t Google take the money they would put into this initiative and give it to San Francisco for a Hybrid Fiber/WiFi solution like Seattle’s Fiber First initiative? That would be really innovative. Berekely is looking at Fiber, Palo Alto is looking at Fiber, etc the list is growing daily.
The reason SF is so messed up is because there was no Needs Analysis or Community buy-in before the bids began – Philly took at least 6 months doing this before they issued their RFP and then they made the top respondents implement 1 mile sq test plots.
Essentially Mayor Newsom and the Google founders cooked up this deal and has been trying to force it onto the city from the beginning. For example Google’s Request for Information response had 90 of it’s 100 pages fully redacted/blacked out – and while their have been at least 6 public hearings on the Muni Wifi initiative at city hall – neither Google nor Earthlink have participated at any of them while other vendors have.
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation – you can’t throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON – San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
@Davis:
Ha, what makes you think the city is getting municipal Wifi accounts for free?
Here’s the current status on that:
City to consider EL for the provision of certain services for which EL has qualified as a sole source provider through the City established policies. EL may also bid on any projects the City makes available through its competitive solicitation process. The City and EL will negotiate mutually agreeable terms for such services as appropriate.
And there is no agreed deal. The April selection was to begin contract Negotiations. They are still very much in progress – this is not surpirsing Philly took 6-8 months – there is no rush here – San Francisco should get the best deal it can for it’s citizens – don’t you agree?
Here’s the current status:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_index.asp?id=40515
Kimo – Caos reigned supreme at that meeting and my post is an accurate reflection of the atmosphere for the two hours that I spent in that room. There were the nut jobs, the Google and Earthlink employees and those who had their own political agendas to push, but the nut jobs were by far heard the loudest. You are right to point out the good people from the techconnect taskforce because they were two of the few voices that actually tried to calm the rabble rousers down, but of all the slick politics that were displayed at the meeting that night, yours was by far the most reprehensible. You can claim it was just a few nut cases that were there, but everytime they would get settled down, you would ask pointed questions to get them riled up again. You did a good job of appearing to be more calm and reasonable, but you acted like a puppet master when it came to the loony farm and I could tell that you took enjoyment in the thrashing that Sacca was forced to endure.
I left the meeting wondering what your political agenda was and I can’t say that I’m surprised to learn that you and Daly are cronies. The entire meeting your comments did nothing to address a solution, but were only there to tear down what Google and Earthlink are trying to build. Do you really think that if the city does their own WiFi, that all of a sudden the technical limitations of WiFi that you so rightously like to point out will cease to exist? Will the city somehow magically be able to extend the signals through multiple walls on the 20th floor of the buildings? Or better yet, is your proposal that Google should be offering WiMax instead? Do you really think that the city or any business for that matter will be able to afford the spectrum necessary to do WiMax and then not charge for it? This is exactly what is wrong with SF politics, two reputable businesses want to give away a service for free and you’re not content unless they lose money on the deal.
The issues you bring up in your comments reflect your desire to stop this process, but show little as to how you think we should fix the issues discussed. Is a city run wifi network really going to be able to afford the 1 mbps speeds that Google is subsidizing in Mountain View? I doubt it and frankly the speed of the connection isn’t as important to me as getting the poor access to begin with, something that you’ve fought very hard to delay.
You talk about a “monopoly” being granted to Earthlink, but I’ve never seen any suggestion that someone couldn’t come in later on and build their own WiFi network. In fact, the point of them using WiFi is that it’s on UNLICENSED FCC spectrum. Are you suggesting that if Starbucks wants to put their own hot spots in that Earthlink’s contract won’t allow this? or is it that you are suggesting that since T-Mobile is already providing wifi coverage in spots of the city, that we don’t have a responsibility to make sure that the Tenderloin and Hunter’s Point get equal coverage? What a bunch of rubbish. Earthlink’s network would be a far less monopoly then the easement rights that Comcast was granted last year in exchange for closing the cities mismanged budget gap. A process that if I’m not mistaken was overseen by the Board of Supervisors and the Dept. of Telecommunications and Information.
Frankly, I don’t know if the city will be getting free access, but I suppose that like everyone, they could always tap into the free network and save taxpayers the money. I’m also fairly confident that whatever deal that the city does work out with Earthlink will save them considerably over their existing contract with Comcast. I could be wrong, but then again I don’t follow these things very closely. What I do know though is that if free wifi is built, Comcast will be forced to lower their rates and offer a more competitive price because they couldn’t get away with charging this much if they didn’t have a monopoly on the right to build out the fiber network that you so desperately want built. Whether the city saves because Comcast lowers their price, Earthlink offers a more competitive bid or they buy access cards and use Google free service is irrelevant to me, the point is that with EarthLink, it will more then make up for the nominal costs it will take to power the WiFi transmitters on top of the light poles.
It’s sad to see your opposition to this just because the Mayor came up with the idea first. You should leave your petty politics behind and help build out a service that is being offered for free to the citizens of San Francisco. You can keep fighting it if you like and maybe my vote against Daly and your loony brigade won’t do any good come November 7th, but at least I’m not standing in the way of offering free internet to the people who will benefit the most from it.
I would be pissed too if they set up a such a network here and forced you to log in first. If it’s free, why not completely free? And why limit the bandwidth?!?
Free wifi is great but do it properly.
[...] [Davis Freeberg’s Digital Connection] [...]
Mayor didn’t come up with this idea first – it was already happening in other parts of the country – Tempe AZ, Philly. What the Mayor did do, was make a big announcement and then start a process with no community buy-in or needs analysis.
The Mayor said We’ll give a corporation access to our building tops and lightpoles in exchange for Universal affordable/free WiFi. Well now that we know more we see that it’s best effort generally an outdoor solution. And what recourse will a citizen have against Earthlink/Google if they don’t get the signal on their desktop machine? Even now in Tempe AZ people complain about the spotty indoor coverage – and they are not seeing a lot of people cancelling their current wired internet connections. The cable company in Tempe – COX to my understanding has not had a need to lower their internet access charges
It seems issues I and others brought up should be answered (even if the answers are not what people desire) before the city signs the 12/16 year Franchise agreement.
I have never meet the two people who you called nutcases before – there was no orchestration. Even Chris Sacca said after the meeting that I was welcome to continue to bring questions like I did to the meetings. Ask him if you don’t believe me.
I have never said that I thought a city-owned wifi solution would fix the technical issues that currently exist with MuniWiFi – I don’t know why you seem to think I feel that way.
Maybe the city if it is serious about addressing the digital divide needs a multilayered approach that uses WiFi (no matter who owns/runs the network) as well as DSL or Cable or even fiber for places that can’t get a good WiFi connection. Maybe the city could pass zoning laws to encourage landlords to open their buildings to support these solutions. I don’t have all the answers – but it seems clear that City-Wide Wifi alone isn’t going to give the poor the reliable indoor internet access that this initiative was sold as doing.
How would *you* solve this coverage problem?
It’s certainly not my assertion that Google must buy spectrum or Wimax – but they are making an offer to the city – But, the city doesn’t have to accept what is on the table. I’m glad you feel that Google and Earthlink are reputable businesses giving away WiFi for free – but what are they getting in return? I addressed what earthlink gets in my prior comment, and with it, it would be very difficult financially and logistically for another wireless firm to compete since many of the valuable locations would be in use by Earthlink and they would have signed up most of the relevant customer base.
on the 1mb speed question – metrofi is giving city’s 1mb speed free as well as the Google Mtn Vw offering – Why can’t SF get the same?
Also again, the city isn’t getting Free accounts as I quoted for you from the draft contract.
How about answering some of the questions brought up at the meeting and recounted in my prior comment?
I’ll say it again:
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation – you can’t throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON – San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
Left In SF: “Some of the Technology Enthusiast crowd has started to notice the issue, and have started to clamor for WiFi Now now now!!!!”
==
The people who are opposed to the Google-Earthlink WiFi SNAFU are not opposed for light or transient reasons. First, some of the comments on this blog are the first ones I’ve seen anywhere in favor of the thing. Second, I’d like to know if any of the Yes-Now crowd have done more than to hear “free” and say they want it – as opposed, for example, to having read any of the criticisms made by people who’ve actually followed the thing along and attended meetings.
It doesn’t matter if it’s been in planning for 20 years. If it’s a stupid idea, it’s a stupid idea, and I say it’s an OBVIOUSLY STUPID IDEA. We’re not discussing this in a vacuum, folks; there are better alternatives available RIGHT NOW. If there Were No Alternatives, we could carry on this discussion. But there ARE alternatives that are just MUCH, MUCH better.
To the wankers who only care that it’s free: HOW GOOD WILL IT BE? WHO WILL BE ABLE TO USE IT? Answers: (1) barely worth using, if it’s free; and barely worth using if you pay for it. (2) You can use it if you face the street and don’t live above the 2nd floor And buy equipment costing more than $100. And even then, only Maybe. Are you impressed now?
To the Libertarians who don’t care what their neighbors get just as long as they themselves get something: unless you actually need the free service because you’re broke and disadvantaged somehow, please SHUT UP. You’re spoiling things for the rest of us. Oh – I forgot – you don’t care about the rest of us as long as “you get yours”. How many weenies who “gotta have it now now now” have any plans to actually use it? And don’t mind waiting 1.5 years, remember?
To the Now Now weenies: Yes, gotta have it NOW. Well, the ”’free”’ wifi thing won’t be around for 1.5 YEARS yet. Here’s a small note for the otherwise uninformed: where do you get 26mbps streaming video on your handheld? Why, TOKYO (for like the last decade already.) So why haven’t you-all gotta-have-it-now weenies been pounding on the City to get them to get in a GSM system instead of the crap the telcos want us to keep living with for another decade? You won’t do that, although it’s clearly superior to anything promised for the dopey wifi system under discussion – but you’ll jump at the chance to have a for-profit corporation monopolize SPECTRUM ALLOCATED EXCLUSIVELY TO PRIVATE CITIZEN USE (FCC Part 15) in order to deploy a GARBAGE TOY wifi network for you on the off-chance that it would work for you one day at the zoo … I see no logic there at all, and there is none; but the explanation would be that great SUCKER WORD, ”’free”’.
If you’re trying to win a game and you have a certain number of play dollars at your disposal, should you spend half your time and a quarter of your dollars dicking around with a flimsy, incomplete solution, and then spend the rest of your time and money on the better solution? Or would you rather spend ALL your time and money on the better solution? Good. The better solution is FIBER TO YOUR LIVING ROOM and that can get underway with significant deployments by the same time the wifi thing would be ready Anywhere. THAT’s what the supposedly “techno-informed-gotta-have-it-now” crowd should be frothing at the mouth for. Not very techno-informed if you’d prefer “free wifi that maybe works and when it does, works at most at a megabit per second” to “low-cost fiber that always works and provides at least one GIGABIT per second”.
My own poll of the supervisors would be, are you in favor of fiber over wifi or not? And my challenge, to the exceedingly selfish and uninformed people here who seem oblivious to that being the actual question, is WHY are you expending ANY effort to GET the STUPID wifi thing instead of FIBER, UNLESS you are uninformed?
The ease with which various people are willing to give away the City’s prerogatives just so they can get “free wifi for the whole city” staggers me. The people who want it (so loudly here) will not use it as much as their big mouths suggest; we don’t have to cover the WHOLE city to hook up needy people in Hunter’s Point, for example, and you could ask Dear Mayor Gavin why he just won’t go wire up the damned needy already, as if he has to wait to do something like that; and there must be a parable about gratuitous surging greed prompting the victim to grab the first thing that says “I’m special” when in fact the best choice lies right behind that first thing and is what people should have waited for. Except here, there’s no wait. The fiber can come out somewhat as rapidly as the wireless will, especially given the delay to get any wireless at all. So to the so-greedy-but-not-so-needy here I ask: do you want ”’free wifi”’ now (meaning in 1.5 years) at the expense of ever getting, or delaying for years, the deployment of fiber? And if you say Yes, then I hope you choke on your next scone.
If Gavin wants to hook up the needy, he gives them the $100 UN wind-up PC for FREE and gives them a FREE DIALUP ACCOUNT and he gives them TRAINING to find jobs using their PCs and THAT SOLVES IT for the needy and does so RIGHT AWAY. Instead, Gavin pretends that the wifi thing is needed to get those people hooked up, and we already know there will be a great delay; and neither Goooogle or Errrthlink have any desire to pony up so much as one thin dime to assist getting those GENUINELY UNDERSERVED PEOPLE served. So that whole supposed motivation for the project is as obviously garbage as was the WMD claim to invade Iraq. Lord knows why Gavin would be so foolish as to give away his whole city’s worth of potential clients – for what, exactly, that is or will be worth to the people of San Francisco? Nothing, really. And that’s the point.
IF THERE IS TO BE ANY WIFI NETWORK PURPORTING TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF SAN FRANCISCO, THEN IT SHOULD BE A NETWORK RUN BY THE CITIZENS OF SAN FRANCISCO.
The word ”’free”’ IS AN ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPAGANDA and NO LONGER CARRIES ITS ORIGINAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION WHEN USED IN CONTEXTS SUCH AS THESE. There is no such thing as ”’free”’, which is why I keep triple-quoting it. Free to you means I have watch a commercial (and so do you anyway, by the way.) Or my data will be scraped and I will be sold as a data point to yet another commercial for the purposes of being commercially invaded. The Libertarians here, who are so free with other people’s money, don’t give a damn if they are so scraped, and their attitude is, then why should you be bothered either? Well, maybe because I don’t want to live in a world dominated by commerical companies. In this case also because if SFANs did the network for themselves there wouldn’t even BE an commerial company to BOTHER ABOUT and PLEAD “oh company! please don’t rape our citizens’ privacy very much!” – the very thought of SF spending so much as one millisecond listening to Gooooogle arguing for datascraping rights to back up “ROI” (return on investment) makes me want to puke. About the most undeserving company on the planet, except for Microsoft, and we have to listen to “their needs” (and even as, mind you, they ‘complain’ about the ‘excessive demands’ like some accountability and some payback.) And they don’t even know what they are doing! THEY aren’t doing SQUAT. Any two geeks off the street who’ve done 802.11 wifi for the last three years knows as much as anyone at Goooogle and Errrthlink about doing this – so we have to GIVE THEM A RETURN????
To the ‘libertarians’ posting here – please just finish your statements, with the expected “we don’t care if the corporations take over everything as long as they promised our lives would get easier as long as we believe them.” I don’t believe such claims and neither should you. And neither should you be sanguine about giving away your city’s control over its own lightpoles and access to the private concerns of its citizens.
FIBER is in the offing. THAT’s what you should want; THAT’s what you should fight for. If greed is the only motivator, then get greedy for your GIGABIT CONNECTION AT YOUR HOUSE and start demanding, WHERE’S MY PHAT FIBER CONNECTION ALREADY, GAVIN?
IF you really just “GOTTA HAVE” a ‘”wifi” connection then GET THE GSM SYSTEM IN PLACE AND QUIT FARTING AROUND. Otherwise the Japanese and Koreans and and and …. and Slovenians even, for chrisssake, wil LAUGH AT YOU and JUSTIFIABLY. “Oh, da Murcans have UPgraded to two megabits!! Ha Ha! Pass me the gigabit adapter, please, darlink.”
Mr. Dynamic – Thank you for proving my point, Caos reigned supreme.
Davis – Eric wasn’t at that meeting.
davis said: I can’t help but feel that a very dangerous precident is being set by local politicians who would rather play hardball with Google and EarthLink then provide free WiFi access to their citizens. Considering that San Francisco itself stands to gain millions in tax savings by not having to pay for their own government bandwidth costs, it seems ridiculous to me to try and continue to bargain for more when a competitive process has already taken place and two very reputable companies have stepped up, willing to put their own capital at risk to provide these services to our citizens.
1. Why shouldn’t local politicians play hardball with whatever companies? That’s their job in behalf of their constituents. The more we (the citizens) can get, the more we SHOULD get.
2. “willing to put their own capital at risk” … see comments about “large expected returns”, above. They WOULDN’T risk the investment unless they EXPECTED returns to exceed their investment. I shed no tears for their risk.
3. The more we expect from them (like even just the part about ponying up for the needy people without computers), the more they threaten to walk. Not exactly in it out of civic virtue, are they?
4. I love the part “San Francisco itself stands to gain millions in tax savings by not having to pay for their own government bandwidth costs.” This is such rubbish and nonsense. For Berkeley, my prepared statement said that if they believed in ”’free”’ so much, then go ask UCB to pay for road improvements or seismic retrofits for City Hall – and see what they say (or how hard they laugh.) Ain’t nothing FREE, my friend – only displaced so that sleight-of-hand makes it seem like dollars are not, in fact, flying out of your pocket.
Yeah, right. In exchange for letting G/E dominate the wifi market in SF, SF gets ”’free bandwidth”’?? Not hardly worth it. I’d make that deal in 0.00002 seconds. So would anyone with $-signs in their eyes.
Sorry – a lot of people live out wish-fulfillment fantasies about the meaning of ”’free”’. SF citizens and SF itself will get free internet! G/E will make millions! So WHERE’S THE MONEY COMING FROM?? From large numbers of people beset with more ads and less service – and increased fees. From more and more web pages with Goooooooogle ads on them. It’s a shell game. I’ll bash the ‘libertarian’ contingent here (if it exists) by reminding them again, in order for you to keep all your money, you HAVE TO HAVE MADE THE MONEY FIRST. I grew up through the days of this republic where everyone understood the “work ethic”, and people who expected something for nothing were derided as slackers and bums. Strange how SILENT it is here, anyone saying “shouldn’t we expect to pay for what we get?” And if we did – pay for the wifi network OURSELVES (since we’re the ones who want to use it), then voila, see how much less we’ll have to pay for it when there’s no NEED for a “return on investment”. See how easy it will be to get it up and running when SF City Staff time is not WASTED arguing how deeply SF citizens can be scraped for data (when G/E are willing to admit anything anyway.)
Question would be – exactly WHY again do we want “sugardaddy” to do for us what we can better do for ourselves? Because we don’t have to “pay” for it? Oh, we’ll pay – someone will pay. Some SFANs will pay directly. I would dearly like to see how many people – UNDERSERVED people – will benefit from this citywide network and when. Was it worth giving away most or all of what’s left of the PUBLIC COMMONS, Part 15 unlicensed frequencies? (Is that legal? Perhaps I should sue SF to find out.) Was it worth hundreds of hours of staff time gnawing about how much data-rape to permit?
I offer you the choice between 1000mbps fiber and 1mbps wifi – and yes, anger that undeserving companies are invited in to dominate a whole infrastructure – and you call it “Caos reigns”? Yeah – chaos reigns when a silly boondoggle gets the support of technoweenies now! now! now!, when fiber is sitting right on the table in plain view – and we hear no calls for THAT. When (a dozen or more) countries have better wireless infrastructure than we’re even dreaming about – GSM, streaming video to your MOBILE HANDHELD, for god’s sake – and you’re still screaming for your (maybe I can get it and maybe I can’t) wifi done by the same company that censors the word “freedom” for the Chinese gladly and willingly? That’s Chaos. In a sane world, the stupid wifi bid would be pulled, the telcos that have kept us behind for 20 years would be ignored (to death), we would get a GSM network installed to do the wireless – the right way – and the only thing people would ask is, “where’s my fiber already?”
Fiber means anyone can be a producer as well as a consumer – we can build a massive multicast fiber network, community after community – and be RID OF: SBC and Verizon, Comcast, and Vonage. That’s a better world right there – if we work for it.
I will respond to any (reasonable) challenge to my claims and to my refutation of the SF “free wifi” project.
If you want to serve the underserved, that can happen right away. Call the Mayor’s office and tell them that, since they don’t seem to “get it”.
5. Google is not a reputable company. Their search engine hasn’t improved, but that’s the Only thing people should care about from Google. They seem to have left the lab to go out and make money from advertising – which any moron can do when capitalized to the tune of $billions.
Here are some points about the ‘beloved’ Google from my April 4 letter to Gavin Newsom:
Google got its recognition for its search technology, which they can be proud of. But Google as a corporation is popular for its imagination for making money, which is why they’ve been capitalized on Wall Street to the tune of $50 billion – bigger than Yahoo, bigger than IBM. They used to be a nice search engine that paid for itself by putting ads on itself. Now Google is an intrusive money-making machine that puts its ads on everyone, and they’re capitalized as much as they are because everyone expects them to make exponentially more money. That money won’t come from doing searches, it’ll come from advertising and a series of questionable behaviors:
Google rearranges the results of its searches for a fee. I could be the stupidest plumber who ever lived, but if I have the cash, I can be the number one plumber on the Internet, according to Google, for as long as I can afford it. Money trumps meaning, quality, proficiency, integrity, references and community support.
Google invents games like ‘Google AdWords’, where businesses maneuver through an operations research maze of paying for search terms and exposure to engage in an advertising arms race wholly within Google’s artificial world, again based on Google’s ready willingness to reorder search results for cash.
Google has a strange attitude toward “fair and balanced.” Visit a website which is a shrine to Che Guevara, with the three-panel Google ad. The first ad will be for a place to buy books about Che. The next ad will be for an organization devoted to exterminating revolutionaries. It abases everything equally.
Google censors. Prior to the 2004 election, Google wouldn’t allow ads for a place selling an anti-Bush deck of cards, supposedly based on a uniform policy. But the fairness and balance of their decisions and enforcement have been challenged by various groups and individuals adversely affected by their policy.
Google decides what exists. One might think that a “search engine” will search what there is to search. One of my clients teaches telecommunications history at UCSC and publishes a newsletter about FCC politics, but that doesn’t exist – on Google. Good, bad or boring, the contributions of millions of individuals and thousands of politically oriented sites don’t exist. What’s real is what and who there is, not some subset silently selected for us.
Google decides the fate of billions. It provides technology to repressive
governments to suit those governments’ tastes. In Google’s reality, TianAnMen Square never happened and you’re not allowed to search for Freedom in China.
Somebody had to technologically enable 1984, and now we can watch it in
practice. Google used to be a search engine, but now they’re a corporation just like any other, with much more regard for profits than humans, as “The
Corporation” shows.
==
I don’t love Google. They deserve to be smashed, just like Microsoft does. Neither company has any image for the future that I am willing to participate in or be exposed to, because they’re only in it for the money, and we can expect better, and we should expect better,
[...] But somehow, something tells me that only in San Francisco could a townhall meeting end up in violence when someone offered to provide the entire city with free WiFi. I’ll take buffonish Bears fans over San Franciscan wacktivists any day. [...]
[...] FON exploits opportunity to stir up WiFi interest in San Francisco — Search engine company Google is having a heck of a time getting “crazy nut job” local SF residents to agree to its plans for a city-wide WiFi project. So while big Google is stymied, another company, FON, is hoping to slip under the regulatory radar with a grassroots campaign: Offering hundreds of its La Fonera wireless routers at an event it calls “Freedom Friday,” to be held at SF’s Union Square from Noon to 2 p.m. tomorrow. FON’s been having its own challenges drumming up interest in its product, so perhaps this will create some viral buzz? As mentioned, Google is an investor in FON. [...]
WOW!!! I linked to this site from a blog I like to read. Here’s a thought for the entire city San Francisco; Stop expecting government to do something for you that you can do for yourselves. Of course that idea is alien to you West Coast Communists! When your poor and pathetic finally do get their free wifi, the number of hookers and crack dealers on CL is going to blow your mind…if thats possible. Your wacky, left of Stalin politicians may be doing you a favor by causing this gridlock. If you’re lucky, your bums and nuts will have to make do with 56k a little while longer!
[...] Why the city leaders would delay implementation of free wifi when there is a bona fide offer on the table for free access is beyond me. I wish I could say that I’m surpised by this latest piece of news, but after watching these turkeys in action last month, I find news of the stalemate anything but shocking. [...]
[...] Why the city leaders would delay implementation of free wifi when there is a bona fide offer on the table for free access is beyond me. I wish I could say that I’m surpised by this latest piece of news, but after watching these turkeys in action last month, I find news of the stalemate anything but shocking. [...]
The state government in Sydney, Australia has today announced it wants free wifi for the city. Perhaps Google and Earthlink could go where they’re really wanted!
[...] Impurity is a traditional human concern. In some circumstances, another name for public-private partnership is bribery and corruption. Failed and wasteful network infrastructure projects that involve governmental entities undoubtedly exist. For-profit network providers, who cannot fail without serious public effects, have made dire business mistakes and squandered huge amounts of money. Government entities’ judgments about the services that users value are not likely to be better than those that for-profit network providers have made. [...]
Really, folks. Some of you just conjecture about your wants and desires without reading any of the documentation, studies and technical articles on the subject. There are plenty of examples as to why a Wi-Fi system installed outdoors does not work as an indoor solution. Oh, and that Google network in Mountain View? It is well-known throughout the industry that they are having serious problems getting penetration into wood framed homes and through well-treed neighborhoods. San Francisco has very tall buildings and thick facades. The City’s IT department went to the low-income SRO housing where many poor people you are concerned about live. They were told by city staff that if you live above the 2nd floor and do not see the street you will not get reception. And, if this is the case, you will have to upgrade to the $21.95 1-mbps Earthlink service with a CPE and even then you are not guaranteed a signal. If you were able to get a signal at all it probably would be degraded back to 300 kbps which is the speed of the Google ad-supported free service.
So, with this basic reality, how is this truly supporting the 30% of the population that doesn’t have computers to begin with and even with them won’t get any service albeit free?
You need to stop your complaining about what you need and get with the program of what the community needs. They are really tired of government giving them the ass-end of the stick. They just won’t take it or use it.
So, that is why there are those involved that can see through the sizzle window-dressing disguised at fodder for a re-election campaign that will do no more than Care Not Cash has done.
The City started it off right. Seeking a capital infrastructure project that will take us through the next 20-40 years. Government must think that far when allowing these things. To allow such a bandage as this Wi-Fi contract to go through when we ALL know that the life expectancy of the equipment is less than 5 years and the innovation far less than that, what make you think that this is so novel of an idea.
People who don’t have computers that want them are not going to use them outside. They are not going to have PDAs or IPhones any day soon. They want access indoors and with YouTube streaming at 325 kbps, the free Google 300 kbps will just not make the grade.
If the Mayor and the DTIS didn’t stall and shelve the 2004 Broadband study that was funded with $300k, we would have already had our useable fiber ring to begin with and would have already been deploying Wi-Fi possibly with Earthlink-Google under a similar contract.
But, no. They sat on it and now we can’t use the 50-mile 150-strand fiber optic ring that City College was able to get installed for the City. We lost our right-of-way to PG&E and Comcast because that Broadband study was held back by the DTIS to give the Mayor time to make his deal with Earthlink/Google. Now, if you think that these things don’t happen, you are living under a rock. The Supervisors are in reaction mode because of this and not related to the Mayor’s recent shenanigans.
It’s the Mayor that needs to be really focusing on imminent and emergent concerns like over 20 homicides since January instead of Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi won’t save the world and Digital Inclusion doesn’t start with Earthlink/Google.
San Francisco is the most saturated of any city in WiFi. You can go most anywhere outdoors in the city and there is a signal somewhere withing a 3-4 block radius. We have done fine so far. If we stay the course that the Supes had started in a very forward-thinking, tempered way as they do with all capital infrastructure projects, we would be well underway to getting a hybrid fiber/Wi-Fi network installed right now.
Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was San Francisco. Other network proposals offered far faster speeds but they weren’t considered because of the flash and shine of Earthlink/Google. In fact, the president of the Board of Supervisors has Earthlink service and hates it. Almost 90% of the Earthlink customers I have talked to said the same thing and their customer service rates really low, too. There is something to say about that. There aren’t Earthlink or Google truck running all over town but there are plenty of city vehicles.
Finally, no one saying that the city would run this but instead would be real telecommunications workers and tech professionals under a proposed non-profit Internet exchange. Also, the city does pretty good for us with water, waste water, public transpo, and other services. If PG&E would get out of our way and abide by the Raker Act, a federal law, we would also be managing our own electricity and paying far less every month especially in his wet cold.
So, stay dry, stay patient, really look at what you are getting, plan for the long-term, achieve the best possible stable solution that serves everyone indoors and outdoors, join in and lend a hand at getting to that end with a salient plan and we will get there.
Yours truly,
Bruce Wolfe
Oh, btw, FON is owned by Google. So, who is not making any money?
Also, there are a few good reads that really lays out the realities of our situation here in San Francisco. Unlike any other capital infrastructure project this technology gets cheaper and better as the months roll on. It does pay to wait a little after the first beta rolls off the conveyor belt. Read on…
What’s Muni Wireless Good For?
02.20.07
discuss >
http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=117798
“As the debate over the EarthLink/Google municipal wireless project for San Francisco drags on in City Hall and in the local press, wireless-broadband consultant Greg Richardson, head of Civitium (which has helped draft the RFPs for many cities’ WiFi projects, including San Francisco’s) has weighed in with a blistering-yet-clearheaded blog post. Richardson says, essentially, that ideology has triumphed over both business sense and the common good in not only San Francisco but other cities building or considering municipal wireless networks.”