Catching up from being out of town, so I'm lumping several responses
into one.
Broadband:
1. The message Tim Salo cited without attribution was mine. He wrote:
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.
I'm no Luddite, but I don't believe in the supreme benevolence of
technology, or technologists. Microsoft technology filters words like
"democracy" from China-based web sites, at the request of the Chinese
government. Technologists meeting or exceeding the goal and intent of
the rule, but not rules many of us would want to live by. Examples
from other sectors abound. Clearly rules matter, and who makes the
rules matters.
Broadband and technology convergence present us with at least two
major problems that require the attention of policy makers. First,
the single greatest predictor of whether or not a household has a
broadband connection is household income. Second, if all of our
information and communications are going to travel the same high-
speed networks, it matters who controls those networks and how
traffic is managed. On the first point it might be possible to rely
on the fact that as the technology advances it will become cheaper
and eventually reach everyone. On the second, the public sector must
be proactive to counter the profit-taking inclination of the private
sector.
As for ideas on addressing the policy questions we face, I've yet to
read any suggestions from you, Tim. I've put my ideas out there -
what are yours?
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.
We don't disagree on this. This is what I've been saying all along.
Minneapolis has two goals in this: to meet municipal communications
needs, and to narrow the digital divide. What keeps getting lost in
this debate is that the purpose of the RFP is to obtain municipal
services. The requirements are laid out clearly in the RFP.
Ray Marshall presenting this as some kind of choice between spending
on network infrastructure or spending on public safety is incorrect.
The City plans to use the network for public safety. The question is,
would we save money on public safety and other municipal information
and communications services if we owned the infrastructure?
Now we need to compare the costs and benefits of public ownership
with those of purchasing services from the owner of a private
network. We need to see the feasibility study, as the citizens of
Saint Louis Park have. We need to know what analysis is behind the
decision in favor of private ownership, or if the choice simply stems
from fact that the consultant used to be president of the Minnesota
Telecom Association and has connections to industry. We need to know
if what the City is requesting (coverage of every square inch of the
city, with no dead zones) is technically possible.
2. Dan McGuire wrote:
And I say, before Mpls spends scads of money we need to have more
discussion to determine whether or not spending the money is even
necessary. Somebody like Google might build it for us. There's
lots of money to be made delivering products and services over a
free public wifi.
Dan makes a good point in that WiFi (or whatever) is just the medium.
The money is in delivering services. That's why it would make more
sense for the City to own the network infrastructure and seek
competitive bids for services over the network than to tie itself to
a long-term contract for services at a premium from the owner of a
private network. Remember, the accounting life of fiber-based
networks is 20 years.
Cable: Mike Wassenaar gives a great summary of how some members of
Congress would gut public access and local authority to require
franchise agreements. I highly recommend that supporters of MTN (and
I know there are many on the list) contact him about what they can do
to protect public access at both the state and federal levels.
For more than 20 years, cable companies have been trying to shirk
their franchise obligations, but retain access to rights of way and a
local monopoly. Why would the City think companies will behave any
differently with broadband networks?
Libraries: If the City of Minneapolis owned its network
infrastructure and had, for example, fiber connections to every
library and school, it could use those connections to support free
wireless not just in the building, but in the whole neighborhood.
This kind of thing is unlikely to happen if the new network is
privately owned.
I share the view that the library system should be the base for
delivering information services and technology assistance. (Why not
1% for public information?) But there are others who are lobbying for
a portion of the potential revenue stream (see http://
www.digitalwatershed.com/how.html for an explanation of how this
might work).
Okay, back to shop vac-ing the water out of our basement.
Becca Vargo Daggett
Seward
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
