[Mpls] Broadband Availability?

[Timothy J. Salo]

I didn't see this e-mail on the list, so I will use it without attribution.

> Tim's points about broadband availability is well taken, but misses  
> the point. Time Warner can't red line under their franchise  
> agreement, so that should mean that cable modem service is available  
> everywhere in the city.
> But there's a big difference between availability and affordability.

Availability and affordability _are_ different.  As Minneapolis and
Saint Paul consider major investments in public Internet services,
I believe that it is important to understand and agree on what problems
are being solved.  As far as I can tell, there are some for whom the
objective is availability, (perhaps because they don't believe broadband
services are available in low-income areas, as the previous e-mail
seemed to suggest, or perhaps because they want citywide WiFi service,
which isn't currently available), and there are others for whom the
objective is lower price.  It appears to me that there may not be a
consensus on what problem citywide Internet service, wireless or
otherwise, should solve.

"Affordability" is a pretty vague term.  I believe that if we
are going to make policy decisions based on affordability,
we probably ought to agree on what it means.

    Is "affordable" a function of cost?  If so, how inexpensive does
    broadband need to be to be "affordable"?  Less expensive than cable
    TV service?  (Does anyone know the average price and penetration of
    cable TV service in the Twin Cities?)  Less expensive than dial-up
    service? Note that Verizon advertises DSL service for as low as
    $14.95 a month.  Is _that_ affordable?

    Or, is "affordable" a function of income?  If so, might it be
    more cost effective to simply subsidize Internet service for
    low-income households, rather than deploying a municipal
    network and effectively subsidizing Internet service for all
    households, independent of income?

    Or, is "affordable" a codeword for "free", at least in the sense
    that users don't pay for it directly?

> > Note that StoneBridge services are not cost-competitive with cable
> > and DSL, but I believe that Clearwire's prices are
> > (http://www.clearwire.com/).  Unfortunately, while Clearwire services
> > are available in some parts of Minnesota, they are not yet available
> > in the Twin Cities.
> 
> StoneBridge doesn't do residential. Business service starts at $99  
> for 1 Mb up and down.

True.  StoneBridge and Clearwire were presented as examples of wireless
technologies that can be rolled out over a wide geographic area with only
widely scattered infrastructure (base stations).  These types of
technologies would seem to be inherently less likely to skip over
low-income areas.

This contrasts with most WiFi networks, which require an access point
(base station) at pretty much every other intersection. [1]

These differences may have some interesting public policy implications:

-  Technologies like those used by StoneBridge and Clearwire can
   be deployed with little or no use of public right-of-ways, and
   therefore probably with minimal municipal involvement.

-  WiFi networks are probably only practical if public right-of-
   ways, (specifically power poles and light poles), are heavily
   used, and significant municipal involvement is probably therefore
   required.

-  A citywide WiFi network could be deployed with the assumption
   that it has some sort of exclusive franchise, only to find
   that an alternative wireless technology, over which the
   municipality has little control, is deployed in the same
   geographic area.

> ClearWire is $30 per month for 768 kb up/286 kb down, $38 per month  
> for 1.5 Mb up, 286 kb down. Silly.

Well, "up" and "down" are reversed.  I noted that Clearwire is cost-
competitive with DSL.  Beyond that, I don't know what "silly" means
in this context.

> Speaking with a gentleman from Portland the other day, he made a  
> comment about the disconnect between tech people and policy people.  
> This is a good illustration.

I believe that before Minneapolis or Saint Paul makes a major investment
in a new project, there should be a good consensus on the goals and
objectives for the project.  There should, I believe, be a solid plan
that is likely to achieve those objectives, that is based on evidence
and analysis, and that embodies an adequate understanding of the relevant
technical and market characteristics of the technologies being proposed.
Finally, I think there should also be a plan to measure the results or
effectiveness of the project.  I don't know whether I believe this because
I am a technologist, because I am a small business, or because that is
just the way I am. [2]

Beyond that, I am not sure what is being illustrated.

> The end of for-fee basic Internet access is near. Google has bid on  
> San Francisco's citywide wireless - 300 kbps anywhere in the city for  
> FREE, and wholesale access sold to competing service providers (how  
> 'bout that - more than a choice between the cable company or the  
> phone company). Minneapolis shouldn't accept anything less.
> 
> http://gigaom.com/2005/09/30/google-confirms-san-francisco-wifi-plans/ 
> #more-5153

Note that Google has submitted a bid, but the city has not, as far as
I understand, actually signed a contract. [3]

And, yes, low-end Internet service is a cut-throat, rapidly changing
market with tremendous economies of scale.

> And on the subject of computer ownership, it hasn't been so long that  
> most every household had a TV. The lack of simple devices to utilize  
> broadband services is, imho, directly attributable to the fact that  
> the cable and phone cos have been slow to roll out broadband access.  
> Using one's computer to access the 'net in Korea and Japan is  
> positively passe.

I am not sure, but I think the writer's intent is to suggest that
the traditional PC is not necessarily a universally satisfactory
solution for all Internet users.  This may be true, although a number
of attempts to introduce Internet access devices in this country have
not been successful.  (Part of the problem is that hackers figure
out how to make these Internet access devices into computers, which
torpedos the vendor's business plan...)

> (p.s. to Tim - We sign full names and neighborhoods on the list.)

My posts are anything but anonymous.  My full name appears in the
e-mail header and in the list archives.  My e-mail address appears
in the e-mail header, and points to my corporate Web site, not
some anonymous domain like yahoo.com.  My Web site contains
my resume, my Saint Paul address and my Minneapolis address.
If you Google all five forms of my name, you will find more references
than any reasonable person would ever read. [4]

-tjs

[1] The nominal maximum range for WiFi is a few hundred feet, although
    this is dependent upon a number of factors.  Also, the speed of
    the network drops as distance increases.

[2] I assume the writer was not trying to suggest that technologists
    are analytical and that policy people are not.  However, 
    technologists tend to last longer if their decisions are based
    on evidence and analysis, rather than belief or philosophy,
    (e.g., "I _believe_ there is no current in that wire").
    And while the current administration has demonstrated a strong
    preference for belief and philosophy over, even to the exclusion
    of, evidence and analysis, it did have to work hard to beat a 
    couple of policy wonks in the last two elections.

[3] Is this the same San Francisco that has so under-invested in
    infrastructure that its "levees are deteriorating, experts say,
    raising the odds of a Katrina-like disaster"? [NYT 9/11/05]
    I make no claims of public policy expertise, but given a choice,
    I would be inclined to invest municipal funds in infrastructure
    that the market is less likely to provide.  This clearly includes
    levees.  It may include Internet services in under-served areas,
    which Minneapolis and Saint Paul pretty clearly are not.

[4} Maybe this is an example of the differences between technologists
    and policy people.  Technologists use technology to easily meet,
    and even exceed, the goal or intent of a rule, while policy people
    think more about the rule itself.