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.”

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

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,

==

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.”

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.

Free wifi is great but do it properly.

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.

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

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.