Local coalition organizes to halt Google/Earthlink WiFi deal
A local coalition has announced opposistion to the proposed Google/Earthlink free wi-fi deal in SF with a new press statement. Calling themselves Public Net San Francisco, they are challenging the city’s contract with Earthlink/Google, with endorsers & supporters comprised of “community groups”, “privacy rights” advocates, and even a local backbone provider whose clients include Archive.org.
They instead propose a plan to utilize “the City’s existing high speed fiber optic network as the backbone to build a truly modern, fast, and free, public communications system.”
One things for sure, this will mean further hitches in getting the few sq miles of WiFi rolled out that were proposed over a year ago…
More on the groups press statement after the jump
The Public Net San Francisco coalition statement:
Coalition Demands That City Reject Google/Earthlink Monopoly Deal
For Release:
Thursday, January 25, 2007Coalition Demands That City Reject Google/Earthlink Monopoly Deal
and Instead Give San Franciscans Truly Free, High Speed, Public InternetToday, Public Net San Francisco, a coalition of various community groups and Internet professionals, insisted that the City of San Francisco cancel the pending Google/Earthlink monopoly WiFi deal, and instead use the City’s existing high speed fiber optic network as the backbone to build a truly modern, fast, and free, public communications system.
Groups releasing the statement included the San Francisco People’s Organization (SFPO), Our City, the community wireless network SFLan, and Internet services provider United Layer.
Their statement follows closely on the heels of a report just released by the San Francisco Budget Analyst’s Office, which makes clear that the Google/Earthlink deal will result in an inferior monopoly franchise that will give San Franciscans much slower access than nearly all other cities providing municipal Internet, and more importantly, will fail to serve the intended core goal of the project - to make certain that all San Franciscans, regardless of their income, get free fast and equal access to the Internet.
The report states that the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) acted far too hastily in adopting the monopoly deal, without seeking sufficient input from the public, and notably failing to include possibilities for using over 35 miles of city owned fiber optic cable to build a much more robust system, that could be owned by the public, and could provide all San Franciscans with free Internet service at least ten times faster access speeds than the Google/Earthlink plan. The City and its residents should not give away its ability to self-determine its destiny. The people deserve a real choice.
Said Bruce Wolfe of the San Francisco People’s Organization, “I don’t get it. DTIS spent over a year coming up with this plan and it doesn’t even serve its primary goal of making sure that everybody in San Francisco, regardless of income, gets free and equal Internet access. Smooth video, and clear phone calls, are becoming basic uses of the Internet. This deal provides neither to nonpaying users, leaving them in the digital dust.”
Eric Brooks with the local grassroots organization Our City stated, “After nearly a century of San Franciscans suffering rip-offs and incredibly bad service under the monopoly control of our public utilities by corporations like PG&E, Comcast, and AT&T, it amazes me that DTIS can stand there with a straight face and try to convince us that we should let a multinational corporate partnership own and control our new public communications system.”
Tim Pozar with United Layer, the Internet services provider that installed a free Internet system for users in San Francisco’s Alice Griffith housing project, stated, “The Budget Analyst’s report shows clearly what we have been saying to the City for over a year now. If we go for municipal ownership of a system that makes use of all the City’s public assets, including the high speed ring of fiber optic cable lying only half used right under our feet, we can get a vastly superior, and 10 to 100 times faster system, than the clunker being offered to us by Earthlink and Google.”
Ralf Muehlen, who already provides free Internet access to hundreds of San Franciscans through the nonprofit community wireless network SFLan concluded, “The big problem with the Earthlink system is that it uses a slow, wireless-only backbone that cannot accommodate even today’s needs let alone the needs of the next 16 years. 300 kilobits per second is so 1997; it’ll be utterly ridiculous in 2023, which is how long Earthlink’s monopoly will last. Earthlink has little incentive to upgrade, and their non-fiber backbone has no spare capacity. A hybrid network, that uses both wireless and existing fiber can support much higher speeds and is more robust. We already paid for the City’s fiber with our taxes, we should now put it to good use.”
Endorsing Organizations (not full list)
San Francisco People’s Organization - 2940 16th St. #314, SF, CA 94103, http://www.sfpeople.org
Press Contact: Bruce Wolfe, brucewolfe@sfpeople.org, Skype: brucew-sfOur City - 1028-A Howard St., SF, CA 94103, http://our-city.org
Press Contact: Eric Brooks, info@our-city.orgUnited Layer - 200 Paul Ave. #110, SF, CA 94124, http://www.unitedlayer.com
Contact: Tim Pozar, pozar@barwn.orgSFLan - 116 Sheridan Ave., SF, CA 94129, http://www.sflan.org
Contact: Ralf Muehlen, sflan+press@muehlen.com
Related posts:
300Kbps is “so 1997″? What percentage of the population had an internet connection in 1997, and how many of them had anything faster than a theoretical 56Kbps?
300Kbps, if that’s what’s delivered, is certainly sufficient for much more than “the basic uses of the internet”.
That said, if a public coalition can actually come up with something faster and more reliable without giving away a monopoly license, then fine.
But I don’t believe in the likelihood of that. I have commented, in the past, and continue to think that if you leave this up to the City, it will either take an eternity to get done or will be done expensively and shoddily.
I feel like there’s a lot of knee-jerk anti-corporation sentiment going on that is, ultimately short-sighted in that it is leading to the prevention of what I consider to be the cheapest, most expedient, and most viable free wireless network proposal around.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but if the proposal had been embraced from the get-go, it probably already would have been deployed by now and we would be enjoying its benefit.
So as it goes down in flames, start the clock and lets count how many months or, more likely, years it will take to get something else up and running. And, if/when that goes up, let’s see whether or not it delivers service that exceeds that which is available for free in, say, Mountain View.
A majority of the people that designed the Google proposal live in San Francisco, from the Mayor and staff to the founders of Google. Why would they implement a deficient system?
San Francisco has neither the money nor the technological expertise to implement and manage such a project. Do we want our WiFi run like MUNI?
So let’s recap-
Option A: Someone else, with vast technological experience, pays you to set up a wireless system in your city. This wireless will be free for all, and upgradable for a price cheaper than is currently available from other ISPs. If technology changes, your partner must upgrade it.
Option B: With little or no past experience in wireless networks, you pay millions of dollars to set up and run your own. This wireless system will be free for all and somewhat faster than Option A. If technology changes, you are stuck with the upgrade bill. Oh, and you are also notoriously bad at operating public services.
While free super high speed wireless would be ideal. People are getting outrageously greedy here. Google and Earthlink are going to pay the city to operate here. What a deal! And they will be good at it. Can anyone say that they actually believe the city will be able to manage this well?
It seems like a no-brainer.
First of all, this current WiFi plan will not perform the way everyone thinks it will. Just take your current experiences of WiFi.
Works on the streets in cafes mostly or just from your next door neighbor.
The Google/Earthlink plan even without opposition would take over a year to install and that is not citywide. It cannot reach much over any street lamp where the antennas are set to be installed and will not penetrate beyond a street facing window that has line-of-sight to the antenna on that street lamp.
Some people could purchase a $150 repeater hardware but would then have to bump up to pay $21.95 per month for 1.5mbps access.
So, how is this free and high-speed again?
Plus, yes, they are being very cheap in their offer much like our cable TV has been over the past two decades.
Their idea of upgrades will not keep up with technological innovations. Within two years the hardware will be obsolete. They will not replace it. More people replace their cellphones and wireless laptops faster. When the new technology hits the streets, people run to get the fastest thing they can get.
The City is not looking to gets its fingernail dirty on this but it does in delivering your fresh water and taking away your waste water. Does it pretty well. The City is looking at something like the Philly model which took a double-take and went back to review all the other respondents to the RFP and gave them each one square mile so that city officials could test exactly which system worked the best for Philadelphia.
San Francisco has really tough terrain and tall buildings and no infrastructure going out to the beach. Earthlink has no models or installations that can demonstrate it would work here in SF.
SF has more people per capita that have more knowledge about the basic experience of using Wi-Fi than any other city service, ie, electrical/gas distribution, water/waste management, public transportation, etc. One could go right to the store, get a WiFi unit and set it up in their home. Too many people know about this stuff and have experience of the performance right in their homes. It is not as great as you think.
The City’s Budget Analyst offers very cogent points as to why this plan is very flawed from both economical and technological aspects. Read their preliminary report. These folks are very professional.
Ultimately, this is indoor technology. That is what is was designed for. As any technologist. Sure there are experiments and beta projects but any professional will tell you it is akin to a baby monitor and many technologists in the city call it a toy.
Don’t be fool-gled by Google.