Today, I attended the Government Audit and Oversight Meeting down at City Hall, moderated by Supervisor Aaron Peskin. The big party item of the day was Item #5 - public oversight for TechConnect, the Mayor's proposed city-wide universal wireless broadband network.
According to Supervisor Chris Daly, two areas of concern have been raised by the public regarding this network:
1. Planning and execution for TechConnect has been contained within the administration. The public wants to know what the content and terms of the RFP will be, and on what terms this service be available to San Franciscans.
2. A large community group called Internet 4 Everyone has raised several digital divide issues and wants to know how this system will address them:
- Will lower-income folks have assistance in obtaining the hardware needed to access the system?
- Will technical support/training to use the system be made available?
- Will there be content available which speaks to the specific needs of the community? Will the community be culturally competent, speak to the needs of the disabled, etc?
The Department of Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) is driving the project. Here's what Acting Director Chris Vein had to say.
Public process on access
Many
folks have visited his office with ideas on how to offer access to all
residents of City & County of San Francisco. It seemed that there
was no one template, no real answer to how to provide access to
everyone. The group decided to issue request for information and
comment in order to collect data - went out to both commercial and
non-commercial participants. Documents were posted for review and
comment. 280 non-commercial organizations responded, and there were 26
vendor responses. The group came to the conclusion that the appropriate
next step was to develop an RFP for release.
The working group is not a formal committee, just an interdepartmental working group that can make decisions about content - no reporting requirements on their part. To date, the working group has included a few DTIS staff, a few PUC staff, and a project consultant. One more community meeting is scheduled for later this week (Thursday) to respond to the RFP. Then a last version will be released for bid; any contract it produces subject to legislative approval.
Note that the DTIS commission was retired when departments were consolidated due to budgetary reasons. The supervisors are entertaining the re-engagement of a commission in order to alleviate the need for these oversight meetings.
Tests and learnings
First, the RFI/RFC tests the idea of affordability; needed to be
less than alternative commercial cost. They've learned that free is
possible, need to determine how that gets translated into the RFP
language.
Second, the City isn't trying to determine what
technical solutions are needed to address the hazards of SF geography.
Looking to commercial vendors to come up with the solutions that serve
needs while addressing technical challenges.
Finally, the
working group is trying to learn from other cities while doing what's
right for SF. Trying to test solutions as they build the RFP. A couple
of pilot projects are going on - testing Internet through power lines,
small networks in housing developments, etc. The City is working with One Economy
to see what works best in these housing developments. In January, the
City wants to go into a school and see how it works out - get computers
donated, get on-hand trainers, develop portals, etc. and see how
adoption works out.
Public Comments
There was the usual hodgepodge of folks present at the hearing -
those working proactively on the effort, those there to complain, and
those convinced that this was yet another government conspiracy. Here's
some of the noteworthy comments:
- The project had a redaction;
community groups are looking for an explanation from the city. The
draft RFP indicates that basic service will not have minimum standards
or be ubiquitous. Folks also want to see the Google proposal, which has
not been released to the public.
- Families need basic computer
training, but then they need ongoing support. Could use community
school districts/school buildings after hours in order to support
rollout of this network. (OpNet) Many folks made points similar to
this - one individual brought up that equal access/equal opportunity
extends to hardware as well. Many
low-income residents don't have the hardware required to cross the
digital divide or work from home.
- They support the City's
effort to provide universal, affordable access. Happy to hear that
community hearing, liaison are in the works. (Media Alliance) It's OK
that not everything in the vision works at the same time, but people
want to know what the plan is.
- One conservative thinktank
(Pacific Research Institute) is concerned that Mayor's plans serve
self-interest. They claim that only 23% of those without Internet
access want it. (Yes, this guy had a lot of booing.) To the extent that
underserved families want access, the city could simply provide
vouchers for access from existing vendors rather than providing an
entire new infrastructure.
- There needs to be a plan around
what's going to happen with the data given to the wifi service
provider, how individuals' privacy will be protected, etc. The City
should require vendors to specify privacy policies as part of their
proposals. (Electronic Privacy Information Center)
- One Economy is working with the City on a digital inclusion plan, and has been happy with the quantity and quality of interaction with the City on the RFI/RFC. That being said, One Economy wants to emphasize that the RFP will need to address the 'so what' of what services will be made available to low-income persons once they get online.
- Disadvantaged business owners were not notified when the RFI/RFC was released. There needs to be better notification for the RFP.
- The Bay Area Wireless Research Network is concerned that so much of the process has been out of the public purview, and that the City won't have the technical resources needed to put together a well-thought RFP. (e.g., what happens when people start using IP phones?) Some public comment should be gathered after a draft RFP has been issued, one that leverages the deep technical expertise of the local San Francisco community.
- Many groups spoke up on the point of potential health risks. What about radiation from these wireless towers? Have there been any studies to look at the impact on public health, simliar to studies on cell phone emissions?
Net-net
The TechConnect working group sounds like it is taking a smart, measured approach to such an ambitous project. According to what I heard today, it wants to start small and learn, then develop the system out as they go along. The members hear the community's interest and the need for community involvement, and are looking to appoint a community liaison whose job is to go out and solicit input. (They also are willing to work with a community advisory board.)
I was surprised by how well-spoken most of the folks at the hearing were. There was the requisite number of strident voices, but predominantly there was a constructive conversation with folks wanting to make sure things were done well. Read: There's froth around the project, but only what's par for the course in San Francisco politics.
Tags: christine herron spacejockeys technology muni wireless muni wifi society digital divide techconnect
