WiFi: NON-BINDING

Armed with information from public citizen Kimo Crossman along with the ACLU and the folks at SNAFU, the Board of Supervisors resisted Mayor Newsom’s pressure to quickly approve a citywide WiFi franchise agreement with Earthlink.

Instead, the Board, led by president Aaron Peskin, started to negotiate for more favorable terms. Apparently Newsom had accepted Earthlink's first offer.

Anyway, during the delay Earthlink announced they are reexamining their approach to such deals in general. The original agreement as “negotiated” by Newsom appeared dead.

Someone came up with a face saving ploy. Instead of announcing that the deal was lousy from the start, and that the whole thing was a waste of time, and that we need to go back to the drawing board, Peskin and Newsom put a non-binding policy resolution on the November ballot urging city officials to provide free WiFi to SF’s populace.

As Glenn Fleishman at wifinetnews suggests, we might as well add free ice cream and free ponies to the wishlist.

So, good for Kimo and his allies.

Here’s a previously posted clip of Kimo testifying before the supes.

Remarkable about this story is that citizen participation was essential to stopping the crappy contract, and, that the citizen participation was non-political.

The opposition to the Earthlink deal was technical—we’re not getting enough bang for our bucks—as opposed to being pro-Newsom or anti-Newsom. I think even self-identified progressives split on this issue.

Kids whose families don’t have phone service will still need to access the internet at school or at their public library branches. The Earthlink deal was touted as a way for kids in violent neighborhoods to access the internet without having to walk to their local libraries.

If the kids in BVHP can’t go to the library because the streets are unsafe, it’s time to make the streets safe.

They called out the National Guard to escort kids to school in Little Rock. If need be, we should have the National Guard escort kids to their local branch libraries in BVHP.

The inability of Mayor Newsom and Chief Fong to provide safe passage for school kids who want to go to the library is a failure of government so monumental that we hardly notice it. It’s a disgrace.

Of course we won’t have a “safe streets” ballot measure—why bother! WiFi is more “doable.”

----- o -----

BAD FAITH?

A recent announcement by Earthlink (passed along by public watchdog Kimo Crossman) spells an end to San Francisco’s “Free” WiFi charade.

Basically, Earthlink says they can’t make a profit from the kind of contract that is being negotiated with San Francisco. For Earthlink to make money from “free” municipal WiFi they need the municipality itself to a sign long-term contract to use Earthlink services. Earthlink calls such a municipality an “anchor tenant.”

Earthlink's announcement makes the entire process look like a bad faith effort, possibly on the parts of both Mayor Newsom and Earthlink, to sign a quickie contract and work out the (expensive) details later.

Newsom wanted a cool-sounding resume item. A number of public-commenters hauled in to a Supes Committee meeting said they needed “WiFive,” which sounds cooler yet.

With the Earthlink deal all but defunct, we’ll see if our mayor has a Plan-B for bridging the digital divide.

----- o -----

WiFi UPDATE: Peskin Waits by the Phone

As a gay man I know, all too painfully, that just because a guy says he’ll call doesn’t mean he’ll call.

The young man from Earthlink seemed sincere…

----- o -----

GOOD NEWS – MORE WIFI DELAY

My impression is that Mayor Newsom wanted to shove the sixteen-year Earthlink WiFi agreement through the Board of Supervisors quickly.

Why? It turns out that if you slow the process down and look at the actual terms of the agreement, it’s a really crappy deal for San Francisco.

As Kimo Crossman and other concerned citizens have pointed out, the San Francisco deal isn’t even as good as deals Earthlink has with other cities.

Free WiFi—who could turn it down?

How about some free sciatica? Or some free dysentery?

Sure, the best things in life ARE free, but so are some of the worst.

The agreement is scheduled to be considered today, Wed 7/25/07, in Budget and Finance at 1:00pm.

Kimo thinks the item will be continued because Earthlink hasn’t responded to Peskin’s queries from last week.

This is very good news. These sorts of decisions have lasting consequences. Think Candlestick Park. Think Muni Metro.

From Kimo comes this link to a nice overview of the SF/Earthlink plan, written for a British site. It discusses possible delays for environment impact studies, which are being advocated by SNAFU—an anti-microwave group.

A vote requiring the review could prove fatal to the proposed network, which is becoming an increasingly contentious issue between Newsom and his critics. Environmental reviews can take as long as a year to complete, a sizable delay that could ultimately cool enthusiasm for the project.

The technology is changing so fast that this proposal, in a year’s time, will be an anachronism.

Hooray for Kimo! Go SNAFU! ACLU, we love you!

----- o -----

MAYBE I'M SLOW

For simplifying, rhetorical purposes, Newsom’s free gift to the City’s digitally-divided could be called “slow internet connectivity.”

Obviously Newsom wants to emphasize the last two words. I would emphasize the first.

The entire contract, for rhetorical purposes, can be summarized in one word—“Slow.”

“Say NO to Slow.”

“Vote NO on Slow.”

“No Dough? Go Slow.”

“Rich go fast, poor go slow.”

The radiation people might call it “Slow and Glow.” [If BVHP-VVSD residents don’t like getting asbestosed, they probably don’t like getting microwaved either.]

It’s great that SLOW rhymes with NO, also that WiFi rhymes with DiFi.

Here's an inspirational flyer from Kimo Crossman:

----- o -----

CORNER TURNED ON WIFI, MAYBE?

I watched BOS Budget and Finance yesterday, regarding WiFi, expecting to see a fight, and an actual meeting broke out! No kidding! It was, like, grown-ups.

Instead of the crappy long-term deal which Mayor Newsom “negotiated” with Earthlink, we might actually get a better, shorter-term deal.

Even the Earthlink guy seemed happy to have a serious negotiating partner (Board of Supes).

Board President Aaron Peskin, along with Ammiano and Mirkarimi treated the public advocates--Kimo, ACLU, EFF-- as valuable information resources, not nuisances.

Below is Kimo Crossman’s report on the meeting. [On a day when Kimo was being attacked by the Hearst flagship Examiner for “asking too many questions,” Kimo continued working to improve the WiFi deal for all San Franciscans.]


Kimo’s Report:

"Bridge the Divide, Before City Wide"

There was a productive hearing at Budget and Finance today (7/11) watch here:

There were no fake Wi-Fi Now demonstrations. Oblivious seniors weren't bused in from their jamboree sessions.

Peskin started by saying he did not want to see another city franchise and then discussed some significant potential improvements to the deal which EarthLink *is considering* most of these were announced over the weekend - but also improvements to the privacy on the free tier to at least match premium tier privacy (still not even close to address ACLU/EFF concerns) ,an ability for the city to purchase network after the 8 year term and 500k free speed min. and that the city receive the same rental fee for its poles that PG&E negotiates (Most Favored Nation) as well substitution for the standard city indemnity agreement. Most importantly a requirement that Service Level Agreements SLA - performance standards be agreed to *before the contract is executed* and that the Board has an opportunity to *give thumbs up or down* after the Proof of Concept before additional network build-out may occur - hopefully informed by an independent audit of OUTDOOR and especially INDOOR access.

ACLU showed up once again with detailed suggestions to improve Privacy and Free Speech which was endorsed by EFF. "The poor shouldn't have to pay with their privacy for free internet access." see here:

For the first time in two years, the Supervisors appeared receptive to finally addressing these concerns.

Gilbert Criswell raised concerns about privacy and why the speed was only 500k vs the 1,000k Mountain View and other cities are receiving.

Kimo Crossman mentioned that Google previously indicated that PG&E in Mtn View quoted to Google a price of $5,000 a pole (vs the $99 a pole SF is getting for the city poles). Also, that the network needed a tested Proof of Concept - "Bridge the Divide, Before CityWide" with an independent audit, board approval for up/down and a ban on overuse of Trade Secrets claims to prevent transparency - remember Google claimed 90/100 pages of original proposal were Trade Secrets.

EarthLink spoke honestly and were open to the Supervisor's input and acknowledged they still had some challenges with coverage for geography and indoors and that they were committed to resolving them and indicated they would report back to Peskin on the requests early next week for a Budget hearing on the 25th... The Wi-Fi Categorical Exemption Environmental appeal is now set for the 24th. If EarthLink accepts the changes, the Supervisors will sponsor a resolution amending the contract accordingly.

DTIS at this point, is not part of the discussion.

Mirkarimi asked about starting with 1,000k speed free vs 500k or 300k and pointed out that the deal is only between EarthLink and the city (Google is buying access to EarthLink's network for the free tier).

Rumors still circulate that the Mayor may put the initiative on the November Ballot (deadline August 3rd) if the Supervisors do not approve the deal.

----- o -----

WIFI CHALLENGE

First bridge the divide,
Then go citywide.

Once again City Powers plays the race card, this time to advance the “free” WiFi deal with Google/Earthlink.

City Powers says the deal will “bridge the digital divide” which keeps poor people, mostly of color, from accessing the internet.

A commenter brought up how in her neighborhood, Bay View Hunters Point, she and her kids couldn’t use the computers at the public library because it wasn’t safe for them to walk to the nearby branch.

Problem: unsafe streets; Solution: free WiFi. It’s, like, City Powers accepts the idea that BVHP residents are prisoners in their own homes.

If this is the way we want to go, we should at least guarantee that the free WiFi actually does bridge the divide.

We must insist that infrastructure be installed and service rolled-out in neighborhoods suffering most from the digital divide, BEFORE, AND AS A CONDITION OF, installation of the system in more lucrative neighborhoods.

Until we know, for a fact, that the digital divide has successfully been bridged, it is only a promise, made to a community that’s sick of broken promises.

Without such a provision the Google/Earthlink deal holds as much hope for BVHP as the T-Third, another cruel joke played on poor people of color.

----- o -----

BAD WIFI = BAD GOV'T

Below is a list of 19 problems or issues with the proposed agreement between SF C&C and Google/Earthlink to provide "free" wireless internet access to the City's residents.

The list was compiled by public citizen Kimo Crossman, an sfwillie'sblog hero, who has scrutinized the agreement to find the true public costs and benefits. The remainder of this post are Kimo's words. (Three cheers for Kimo.)

The reference to the Legislative Analyst (LA) memo is part of the packet located here (July 11th Budget and Finance Committee 1PM meeting):


1 Per LA Memo: Controller's report significantly overstates savings to citizens.
2 Per LA Memo and ACLU: Privacy concerns not addressed
3 Per LA Memo: DTIS and Earthlink agree to performance criteria after contract approval with no board input
4 No outdoor coverage requirements in contract
5 No no indoor coverage requirements which is where most people use computers, Will Earthlink pay for DSL for those who can't get indoor coverage?
6 Free 500kb/s speed is already an option in the revised contract
7 Mountain View has free 1,000k from Google, Why not San Francisco?
8 Pole agreement is actually exclusive to Earthlink because additional mountings by other vendors may not interfere in anyway with EarthLink devices. Earthlink will get most of the desired poles and building tops.
9 Budget Analyst report says that the agreement is a Franchise - this requires additional city procedures that are not being followed by this contract.
10 Why aren't city services part of this contract? Prediction: city will issue a Sole Source contract to Earthlink right after this deal goes through - basically subsidizing the Free WiFi.
11 EarthLink is playing both sides of the game by providing the infrastructure and retail services - this is a conflict of interest.
12 Google has exclusive free access - why not let other providers compete to provide this as well like MSN, Yahoo, Anchor Free?
13 CPE which will help indoor coverage (only sometimes) will cost between $100-$150 for the Free access.
14 Per LA Memo: Revenue from Earthlink in range of 150k-220k + Pole rental 100k = 250k-320k annually or 1.2M for 4 years rather than the 2M for 4 years in press releases.
15 No requirement for a network solution that is disaster tolerant or uses green concepts like solar panels for the network design.
16 No requirement to use city fiber in the creation of the network.
17 Proof of Concept should occur before any contract for a complete network is executed just like in Philly.
18 Every MuniWifi rollout to date has resulted in negative press with people unimpressed with the reliability of the network and the need to "manage expectations"
19 Eight years is too long when other wireless technologies are on the near horizon - four years would be more appropriate.

----- o -----

KIMO CROSSMAN, HERO

Mayor Newsom is eager to provide free wireless internet access to the people of San Francisco. To this end he is promoting an exclusive franchise agreement with Earthlink/Google to offer 300K wireless (as opposed to 56K dialup) for free and and 1,000K for something like $21.00 per month.

Earthlink/Google receives the right to put up poles and exclusive access to a presumably large advertising audience.

In the couple of months that I’ve been paying attention, the franchise deal is being advocated as a way of delivering internet service (of any kind) to poor people, especially poor school kids, many of whom are black or Hispanic.

So the franchise agreement is presented a matter of social justice.

To its supporters, the question is, Should poor kids have access to the internet?

To critics, the question is, How good a deal is this for San Francisco?

Today there was a hearing before the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Committee about whether to move the proposal forward to the full board.

To Mayor Newsom the deal would be a feather in his cap, an important resume item in his search for higher office. The Board, generally at odds with the mayor is exploring an alternative plan.

The clip below shows the testimony of Kimo Crossman, one of sfmike’s heroes, and a star of his Civic Center Blog.

According to sfmike, Kimo was instrumental in creating public skepticism about the proposed deal.

Kimo points out, among other things, that despite the sales pitch, there is nothing in the proposed contract that guarantees coverage to all San Franciscans.

Check out Civic Center Blog for coverage of the rally on City Hall steps of proposal supporters, prior to going inside for the hearing.

The rally was organized by the Mayor’s reelection campaign.

[I love my cable internet (6000-8000K) service and I don’t have a laptop or blackberry or anything like that, so the presence of WiFi service won’t mean much to me unless it brings down the price of my cable. I had a bad experience with Earthlink and I wouldn’t to do business with them again.]

----- o -----