Anyone can speak at the hearing

you can also watch online live streaming at SFGTV
http://sfgov.org/site/sfgtv_index.asp?id=11463

San Francisco City Hall, Room 263
1 Block from Civic Center BART
Agenda:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29796

Privacy - includes library-like privacy for people who are undocumented migrant workers, those without credit cards (required for usage), members of unpopular political groups.

Digital Inclusion - includes training and computers for those who need it, coverage that meets the RFP requirements of 95% outdoor / 90% indoor and at real-world bandwidth speeds (not something slightly over dial-up 300k currently offered).

Just how well does outdoor and indoor coverage work?
How secure is the network?
What speed does it perform at?
What privacy issues are addressed?

Let San Francisco techies kick the tires!

Thursday, April 8, 2006

KC: You recently stated that "Google bailed out on San Francisco". Explain.

CR: In my personal opinion Google's bold vision for a free San Francisco wireless network was derailed by a sad combination of not-up-to-the-task technology and only-in-San-Francisco politics...

He was indeed a charmer, the big fella from down the Peninsula. Just a few months of secret courtship and then, a very public marriage proposal. The news burst across the society pages: “Google and San Francisco, the Wedding of the Century!” and “A Marriage Made in Heaven! Free WiFi Internet for everyone!” The press worldwide was abuzz, other belles (Houston, and soon perhaps Silicon Valley and Chicago) rushed to announce similar nuptials, and the bride’s family giddily anticipated the wonders to come. Google, the idol of the information age, would bear their baby across the threshold of Digital Nirvana.

The progressive and media-savvy family promptly announced they would of course entertain proposals of matrimony from others as well, but only until a certain mid-winter date so to not compromise the gala June wedding plans. But to the amazement of all, that date came and the G-man was nowhere to be found. Although six other suitors did profess their intentions, the family fell into despair- What? No GoogleWiFi cloud over the City, bestowing wireless Internet everywhere betwixt the Breakers and the Bay? WHY did he disappear? That CAD!

I’ve been hard at work on the issue but just not blogging.

I’ll start up again, over the next few days. First a reminder of what we’ve been striving for:

1) Bank/Library-like security and privacy
2) Cell phone quality coverage – indoors and outdoors, on all building floors
3) Diasterproof to allow all to communicate, not just public safety

I’ll be comparing the proposals out there shortly to my list. The city should be announcing their own rating of them I anticipate in the next week or so.

So it will be very hard for second WiFi Vendor to come into that local market. Also on the second round of WiFi technology in two-three years, the 1st Vendor already has all the good spots and now can charge a fee for this new WiFi for ALL when it is finally a usable solution which lets you drop your cable, cell, land line etc. Vendors are asking for 5 year contracts with 2 renewals typically. 15 years! That is called Lock-in.

And by the way, two WiFi solutions unless very very carefully designed in advance will conflict, so that is still another reason why this is a monopoly in the making.

So this is a lot about light poles – it’s a backdoor monopoly. And it gives bragging rights to a selected Vendor announcing that SF went with them - PR for all the other cities in the US - many which are following SF because of the Free WiFi Google offer.

"San Francisco's TechConnect venture has done something hitherto thought impossible, and united progressives and conservatives in the city in mutual concern about the venture."

Civic Center: The San Francisco WiFi Battle: Part 2

Mayor Gavin Newsom proposes free WiFi in Public Housing at Double Rock with used, cold, old computers to permit poor folks have free access to WiFi provided by Google and a few connected cronies that are very dubious in nature - have got millions of dollars but did not say a word at the Public Meetings - OneEconomy in particular and another entity at 200 Paul Avenue.

Multiple requests by interested parties to help shape the RFP were blocked by DTIS, SFPUC and City Attorney.

An initial review of the RFP appears written for the benefit of a Vendor who can finance the solution based on the privacy of the Public (targeted advertising).

It has opened-ended questions about Privacy rather than setting minimal standards (unlike the minimal security requirements).

It has no minium Bandwidth standards for the Free Basic Service portion, it just asks the Vendor to povide something.

Unfortunately, DTIS allows that they may waive criteria stated in the proposal during contract negotiations.

The RFP has no serious provisions for Disaster-Proof communications for the general public

Oddly there is no Pre-Proposal Conference planned for the RFP.

(From draft LAFCO minutes 12/16/05)
"Chairperson Commissioner Mirkarimi moved, seconded by Commissioner McGoldrick, to request that the Executive Officer send a letter to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and Department of Telecommunications and Information Services indicating SF LAFCO's interest in pursuing a municipally-owned WIFI system and addressing issues, including but not limited to, a feasibility study, financial, and inclusionary process, and needs analysis, etc"

See RFP: Here

More coverage at: sfist.com Leftinsf.com

Stop the backroom deal.
Library/Bank-like privacy and security, disaster-proof communications for all, cell-phone-like coverage.