In mid-2005, San Francisco established TechConnect “to promote digital inclusion by ensuring affordable internet access ... to all San Franciscans ...” After soliciting public comments, The City requested proposals for a community wireless broadband network in December 2005. In April 2006 The City selected a consortium headed by EarthLink and Google as the winner.

After more than eight months of meetings and negotiations, the parties signed a contract on Jan. 5, 2007. The contract must be approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission within 180 days from the date of signing. I urge them to approve it without further delay. I believe we will not have another chance for a citywide wireless broadband network including free service at no cost to the taxpayer.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Why not wait for the perfect deal? It won’t happen. Much of the cost of this network is being underwritten by Google, which is clearly interested in a test bed for new business models for wireless services, as well as in technological philanthropy. But Google also won the opportunity to install wireless broadband in Mountain View, its own backyard, in August 2006. Much of the network has already been built. Google now has its test bed.

What about the public interest? Some consumer advocates have questioned the capacity of the network, the cost to The City and privacy, among other issues. However, many of these concerns have been addressed through the contract with EarthLink and The City’s Digital Inclusion initiative.

There is no public outcry against building the network, despite claims of some activists. It appears that most residents don’t know about the wireless project and its opportunity for free Internet access. Most who do know about it, largely through media coverage of Google’s involvement, assume it’s already being built.

What will it cost The City? Nothing. The contract states that EarthLink will “design, construct, install, test, operate, maintain, upgrade [the network] at its sole cost.” In fact, The City will gain revenue from leasing access to its utility poles, where the wireless equipment will be mounted.

Some opponents of the deal think The City should build and own the network. Why would the taxpayers want to take on the cost of building and operating a wireless network? San Francisco has better things to do with its staff and our money.

Does the contract limit The City’s future options? No. The City is not required to use the wireless network for its own government services. The contract is nonexclusive; The City may also grant rights to build wireless networks to other operators.

Does the contract limit access to the network? No. The network will provide wholesale access to other service providers. At least three service providers are to be available on the network.

What about speed? The contract promises only a minimum 300 kilobits per second for the free layer, about like “DSL lite” but in both directions. This is slower than many would like, but certainly better than dial-up and adequate for many services including Web access. The fee-based service is to be at least 1 megabit per second in both directions. The contract also requires the network to be upgraded to remain comparable with other cities.

What about access for low-income users? In addition to the basic free service, the contract calls for a “digital inclusion” price of $12.95 per month for high-speed access (1 megabit per second) for 3,200 customers. Wireless modems (needed to get good reception inside buildings) will be made available at cost ($100 or less). There are many ways to cover this cost, ranging from grants to monthly leases or installment payments. Other vendors could likely be persuaded to donate additional modems.

What about user privacy? Here the contract is not perfect, but workable. It requires users to opt out of making the personal information that they must provide to use the network available to EarthLink’s third-party suppliers for marketing purposes. Wireless users may also opt out of providing location information (where they are using laptops, for example) to third-party marketers. Stronger privacy restrictions would require users to actively opt in to make this information available. Consumer education will be necessary to explain this process, which is similar to the model for do-not-call lists, where consumers must take action to prevent telemarketing.

The contract provides for trial phase or “proof of concept” to test technology and design for the project. The City should choose high priority areas for the trial, such as open spaces, community centers and low-income neighborhoods.

Fostering competition among cable, telco, wireless and other services is the best way to maximize availability and minimize price of broadband for San Francisco. The EarthLink/Google wireless initiative should be part of that strategy. The supervisors and the SFPUC should not wait 180 days. They should approve the contract now so that San Franciscans can benefit from the first phase of free wireless service by the summer.

 

Dr. Heather E. Hudson is professor and director, Communications Technology Management Program, School of Business and Management, University of San Francisco, and a resident of San Francisco. The views presented are those of the author and are not official positions of the University of San Francisco.