Davis Freeberg's Digital Connection - Latest Comments in San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Bruce Wolfe — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:42:05 -0000

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/doc...

"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."

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Bruce Wolfe — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:32:32 -0000

Oh, btw, FON is owned by Google. So, who is not making any money?

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Bruce Wolfe — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:26:56 -0000

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

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Matt Mc — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:28:58 -0000

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!

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Ray Crawford — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:51:58 -0000

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!

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Kimo Crossman — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:52:33 -0000

Davis - Eric wasn't at that meeting.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

davis — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:55:20 -0000

Mr. Dynamic - Thank you for proving my point, Caos reigned supreme.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Kimo Crossman — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:24:55 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

swede — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:47:26 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

davis — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:53:07 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Kimo Crossman — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:19:36 -0000

@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/t...

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Kimo Crossman — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:50:45 -0000

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 (24x7 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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Andrew — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:22:40 -0000

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!!!

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

davis — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:28:38 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

larry — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:42:17 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

becca vargo daggett — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:26:15 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

William Hill — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:01:13 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

John Perkins — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:59:56 -0000

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... )

The city recieves about $4.5 million a month in cable franchise fees.
( http://www.ischool.berkeley... )

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?

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

sasha — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:14:57 -0000

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

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

davis — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:39:06 -0000

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/inf... (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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Taylor Wimberly — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:15:29 -0000

I really enjoyed the article. I hope you are able to attend some of the other meetings and report back the details. Thanks.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

becca vargo daggett — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:59:21 -0000

"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/t...
SF Guardian article here: http://freepress.net/news/1...

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

vtruly — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:57:43 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Thomas Hawk — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:51:24 -0000

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.

Re: San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project

Sid Ditra — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:13:03 -0000

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.