Town Forum on Municipal Networking

Will,
You are obviously more well-versed in this than I am, but I find it hard to believe that a local network will be any safer than any other kind of network from the NSA. Now, if they come a' asking, we can say NO, but if they don't come asking? Maybe I've been watching too many 24-style shows.

Can someone please explain why the Chapel Hill News keeps repeating this exaggerated, inaccurate (WRONG) cost figure?
"Con: Internet access abounds on campus, at the public library, at downtown businesses that already offer wireless services and in homes. In short, it's not worth the $150,000 per square mile it might cost to provide Internet access, $3 million if the whole town was connected. (It cost Carrboro about $60,000 to provide wireless access in its smaller downtown because of a relatively inexpensive antennae system.)"

If anyone from the CH News is reading this, please pay attention: there are too many options for how service can be configured to make any reasonable estimate of cost.

Here are the questions Civitium (contractor for San Francisco) says we would need to answer before we would have any idea of cost:
What outcome we are looking for? (rough vision/goals, any fixed or variable factors that need to be considered.
topology and surface area for targeted areas along with a rough description of the morphology (man made structures)
population of targeted area (# of households, # of small businesses time frame we want included (startup or Year 0 and maintenance Year 1 beyond)
type of service (see below)
assumptions about the technology (see below)
regulatory environment (constraints on type of business model including upfront funding)
Type of Service OPTIONS:
Fixed: primary location only, similar to T1/DSL/cable. This would be appropriate for Wimax deployment and would support parking/utility meters.
Nomadic: primary location with ability to move the computing device); Star Bucks approach. Wifi deployment.
Portable: computing device used in variety of locations (slow motion movement such as parking enforcement, police cruiser, buses) (wifi deployment)
Mobile: cellular or speed mobility (this technology is not yet ready for prime time)
In other words, we have to decide if we want a bicycle, a Hugo, a Prius, or a semi-tractor. Only then will any kind of cost estimate be meaningful. Repeating a bad number--a number the majority of members from the Tech committee disagreed with--is not helpful to anyone.

Chapel Hill residents should also understand that the town pays at minimum, a little over $8,300 PER MONTH to Time Warner and BellSouth for connectivity only. That figure does not include the cost of any fiber, equipment, or personnel. If anyone wants to discuss costs, then cost offsets must also be considered. Right now the Town is simply paying out money rather than investing in the future.

In about 1997, after we had concluded the town refranchising
agreement over cable TV, one of the Time-Warner reps
took me to lunch to make a proposal that went something
like this: Do you think that people in CH would be willing
to pay $55 per month (remember this was ten years ago
and the internet was not at its current state) for local
phone service, internet access, and cable TV thru the
level of CNN and ESPN, all delivered on one wire into each
home? My answer was yes, absolutely. What happened
with that was that Time-Warner assigned CH as a
second-priority city for this service, since our population
density and their potential profit were not as great as
the largest NC cities, even with our relatively high
wealth and wired mentality. Moreover, due to
legal and regulation issues, I don't think they ever offered
the service anywhere.

But what has run around in the back of my head since
that time was that the consolidation of electronic
services may well be where the big savings lie. Just like
the computer graphics industry formed from a merger of
television, oscilloscopes and computers, the household
communications-entertainment industry may result
from a merger of cable TV, internet and phone.
We will still need some competition to hold
the prices at reasonable levels, of course.

How can this be applied to town-wide internet access?
Or will we have one more contractor concentrating
only on his service?

Yes Joe--we can have any combination of digital services as part of the town network for both domestic and town operations utilization. We can also offer choices. Of course those options would depend on which business model is chosen, but unfortunately, despite lots of efforts, we have not been able to move the conversation about wireless into the realm of what COULD be and past the idea of simply replicating the current coffee shop model.

That's why some of us were so opposed to the survey done in downtown--it didn't ask anything about how businesses are currently using digital services for credit card verification, ordering, etc. The entire public discussion has assumed all anyone wants to do is either use their laptop of email/websurfing or to provide that access to customers. Hopefully, tomorrow night will change that conversation.

The forum is starting. There's about 40 folk gathered, so far, as Laurin Easthom introduces the panel.

Council members Strom, Greene, Easthom and Harrison are attending "in the flesh".

Former Technology Board members Steve, Brian, Terri, Bob and I are here to see what bits of our groups discussions come up.

Emily, Matt are here from the local MSM. Cal just showed up. And, of course, Ruby is here.

If I get a chance, I'll be asking about the NextBus project - I wonder if the panelists will weigh in?

I'm trying to live 'blog this here.

Wow! Brian Russell just announced the formation of a new NPO to bring wireless to the community!

I agree. Also some good questions - I like the one on remote medical monitoring - an incredible opportunity in our community.

Hey, what's Brian's new NPO link?

My FULL query was:

The Town Council recently dissolved the Technology Advisory Board which was composed of community citizens. With that in mind, what assurances do the taxpayers of the town have that our opinions will be given the same or greater weight than the corporate entities who might be asked to build and manage a town wireless network?

Will the Town follow it's usual course of hiring pricey consultants at taxpayer expense to help in the decision-making? Or will the Council instead seek the competent and excellent advice of community members -- particularly technically savvy individuals who work for the University?

Thank you.

===============

Easthom's answer was basically that the Council will create a new Advisory Board in the Fall. Oh, gee that's comforting. I can't think of another instance when the Council dissolved a board only to recreate it later the same year. As a citizen and, of course, taxpayer it sounds like incompetence to me. If the existing Board did not operate appropriately, then it's direction or membership should have been changed -- that's the Council's business and duty.

The second question was not presented because Easthom's reply "supposedly" already answered it. Come on people, we know that if the Town really pursues a wireless project, we are going to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants and lawyers. This will happen even though some of the best experts in the nation work in this city at UNC. Jim Gogan and Paul Jones are just two of the INTERNATIONALLY recognized experts we could ask to help.

Brian, I was too hungry after the forum to wait to talk to you but also am wanting to know about the non-profit you proffered. It could certainly help jump-start things.

And another question. I have no doubt that their are people (especially economically disadvantaged K-12 students) in the area who are underserved and have need for Internet access. But, where were they in the meeting last night?

Where were the parents of disadvantaged kids? Where were the bus riders who want to know exactly where the buses are? Where were the business owners who would like to have access for their clients?

As far as I could tell from the TV broadcast, everyone in the room appeared to be Internet-savvy and likely already had broadband access through work or home or both.

I think UNC was probably pretty well represented by John Streck who is the head of campus networking (and in that capacity he is Jim Gogan's boss).

I couldn't be there as Sally Greene and I can only rarely be at the same Town meetings. No we are not the same person, but we share the same child.

I am interested in getting the Town to become wireless in a way that assists the citizens, the businesses and the Town itself to function well.

Shannon Schelin, if I read Willr's blog correctly, has it right: If you're a government “wireless connectivity is essential” I'd add that open standards and interoperability are essential to the project not only to encourage competativeness in technology, but also for sustainability and future development.

I second Ruby. Thanks Hamilton.

There were 6 former and 1 soon-to-be members of the Tech Board there...

I agree with Ruby that the problem is broader than our Council's over-use of consultants or hesitancy to implement common technological solutions to improve our town's operations. The Mayor recently said that hiring a technology saavy manager wasn't that important!

One recent example where strategic thinking could increase the return on monies spent is the NextBus contract. We're missing a $1 million opportunity to provide both transit improvements and broad Wifi corridors along our bus routes.

Good question on where the other stakeholders, like students young and old, were... There were a few young folk sitting behind me and a mix of other interested parties (including two networking vendors).

You are so right Hamilton. Many members of the Chapel Hill comunity were not represented tonight.

We need to get more people involved. I hope to speak with a diverse group of people and encourage them to be involved. The last thing we should do is force anything upon people.

I want to see excitement and interest from EVERYONE. This is about the creation of a community resouce afterall.

In case you missed it, Easthom, Greene, Harrison, Strom and Foy all made the meeting (though Strom and Foy were there at different times - I assume to avoid a quorum?).

Harrison took a ton of notes. Sally was quite attentive.

The Council definitely got a great, condensed, version of the info I and others have presented over the last couple years. I know I learned a few things...

Linda Goff from WinstonNet really brought all the issues from the other presenters together into a vision for how the town can proceed. I liked that she kept pointing out the regional opportunities and the re-emphasis on how important fiber is to the eventual deployment of a network. As an aside, Laurin Easthom petitioned Council last June--before she was elected--to lay conduit for fiber whenever possible. That petition has never been responded to as far as I recall.

The last question of the night, from Walker Rutherford, was what are the next steps. Anyone care to share their thoughts on that question?

From today's Daily Wireless

"We are a massive technology user," White said of Houston, Texas, "but a lot of people don't think of us that way." With a wireless network in place, Houston would take in big step in enhancing its image as a tech-savvy town...

It goes on to point out that

the objectives of this initiative include:

* Reducing the City government cost for mobile computing, i.e. parking meters, traffic signals, maintenance crews, field inspections, video and photography in police cars, maps and building plans in fire and EMS vehicles;
* Reducing the monthly cost of broadband for residential and small business users from $30-$50 to $10-$20; and
* Bridging the digital divide for disadvantaged communities/ individuals and promoting economic development and conventions/tourism.

Houston's network would have three tiers of service:

* Public service includes parking meters, traffic signals, maintenance crews, field inspectors, etc.;
* Public Access for households, small businesses, tourisms, and conventioneers at affordable rates available across the city/region; and
* Public Safety, i.e., police, fire, emergency medical services as the technologies improve and security concerns are addressed.

Sound familiar?

The network is projected to cost $30-50M for 600 sq/miles or, roughly $50 to $80K per sq/mi. Significantly cheaper than the $150K that we keep seeing blathered about...

Here's Jennifer Ferris' HeraldSun story on the forum.

The community needs to make a lot of decisions BEFORE we do an overall cost/benefit analysis, johnk.

Such as who will be served by a muni network? Where will it cover? Who wants to use it? Why do they want to use it? Does it reach public areas like parks only, peoples homes and businesses, or both? What business model do we want to use or maybe more than one? Technically we need to decide what kind of network radio hardware we want to use and what kind of wireless network type? On and On.

A good way to make this less complicated is to do pilot projects on a small scale. This will gather lots of ESSENTIAL data and make informed choices. It'll also help the Town be cost effective.

The Town is running a pilot project in the Craig Gomains public housing units, in conjunction with CHCCS's ConnectToSchool program. I was surprised that Dr. Reitz didn't mention it in his presentation.

Presentations from the Wireless Community Forum have been published to the Town's website.

While I applaud the pilot project that Bill mentions above... from my knowledge it doesn't provide full access to the Internet. Filtered access isn't going to help students older siblings or parents apply for a job online. [I mention this not to dis this project but to make it clear to the public.]

So I'm not sure how valuable it would be as a pilot program. If Town Tech folks could elaborate on what they expect as far as knowledge learned from this pilot, I'm all ears. :)

The North Carolina Revenue Law Committee is putting forward HB 2047 in the very near future that will significantly change the options available to local communities for any kind of video programming distribution. On first reading, it seems like video streamed programming will be limited under this legislation if it is passed. The proposed bill can be found at:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2005/Bills/House/HTML/H2047v0.html

One more lose of local control and a backdoor means of restricting competition as digital services change the face of telecommunications.

For those of you interested in wireless, Dan Reed, the guy who has offered to help with the Municipal Wireless effort and a well-known computing expert, will be giving a talk about the future of computing and technology on Tuesday, May 30, 1:30 pm , 104 Peabody Hall on the UNC campus. The talk promises to raise some interesting issues. For more, see http://www.renci.org/news/future.php

From today's NYTimes Editorial Page:

No fewer than 300 cities and towns around the nation have taken wireless Internet access, or Wi-Fi, to the people. San Francisco's aim is to make the entire city a hot spot, Chicago plans to blanket the city with access, and large parts of Philadelphia are to go wireless soon. But New York, which should be leading the way, is dragging. A plan to offer free Wi-Fi access in city parks has been moving slowly, and a larger vision has yet to take shape.

Wide dissemination of Wi-Fi is not the future. It is now, needed by businesses, educators and especially the underserved populations on the wrong side of the digital divide. Rural communities have known for a while that going wireless is cheaper, more reliable and allows even the most remote areas to log in. It spares the expense of laying down extensive networks of cables, not to mention the work and time involved.

[...]

Read more by clicking on the text above.

Tentatively on our agenda for June 12, the council will discuss the next step(s) in considering a municipal wireless network. Stay tuned.

Here is a link to the resolution for a COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK (2006-06-12/R-15). This is item #18 on the council's adgenda for this Monday.

Thanks for the link Brian. I'm glad to see the Council is now headed in the same direction proposed by the IT Advisory subcommittee on wireless back in August 2006. It may have taken a while to get everyone to this point, but I believe it is the right and smart place to be.

The People's Channel and Orange County Public Schools need to be added to the list.

Terri

Last night I watched the re-run of Monday night's presentation to the TOC by the technology working group. In one way what I heard was incredibly gratifying--the proposals are the same as those made by the TechComm (TC) 2 years ago. 1) invest in fiber (coordinated with the traffic signal project); 2) identify some hot spot applications (the TC suggested downtown/Northside); and 3) hire a consultant to develop a strategic plan. The council's discussion focused on other aspects (also all recommended by some of us on the TC): 1) pursuing a non-profit ownership model; 2) not waiting for legislation that might interfere with plans to move forward; and 3) including citizens in defining the scope of the project.

There were two aspects put forward by some of us (not all) on the TC that were not addressed on Monday that I still believe to be valuable: 1) start the project by improving access for town operations such as inspections, EMS, etc. and 2) partner with other interested local organizations such as the public school system, the Chamber of Commerce, EmPOWERment, etc.