Supervisor Jake McGoldrick: Is WiFi Deal Good Enough?

Free universal WiFi is a great idea. Who could say "no" to the idea of a faster way to connect to the Internet?

But does Mayor Gavin Newsom's EarthLink-Google proposal for the City for the next 16 years get what we as consumers and taxpayers want and deserve?

Touted as free and universal, it is neither. It may not even be affordable.

Under the proposal, WiFi would not be accessible in many homes, especially in buildings that are 30 feet tall or taller. Low-income residents that live in apartment buildings will have to purchase a wireless bridge that strengthens their indoor signals. Known as "Customer Premise Equipment," this wireless bridge costs $80 to $200 per household.

What kind of coverage will users get and at what cost?

According to the SF Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst report (www.sfgov.org/site/budanalyst_index), the free basic service offered by EarthLink-Google "is slower than existing Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) and cable Internet technology."

DSL is offered at 1.5 megabytes per second but EarthLink's proposed free service would only operate at 300 kilobytes per second. If users want something comparable or faster than DSL, they must pay a monthly fee of $21.95 to upgrade. EarthLink has no obligation to upgrade their services nor do they have an obligation to keep up with the pace of technology.

What is the City giving away to get this plan?

The City is giving away the exclusive right to public infrastructure, including light poles and public rights of way. Not only does this provide EarthLink-Google with a competitive advantage but it potentially grants them a monopoly.

When the City allows sole access to our public assets, the only guarantee is that the provider will dictate the quality and cost of service. Taxpayers are subsidizing EarthLink-Google's business by paying for its infrastructure while being charged for its service.

Moreover, if your cell phone provider wants to offer wireless broadband services, they would have to buy access from EarthLink. The current proposal is silent on how much EarthLink can charge other providers. If a provider can not afford to buy access, then the consumer does not get that particular provider's service. Hence, consumers lose choice.

What else would the City give away if we agreed to this proposal?

EarthLink-Google may share a users' protected personal information unless the user opts out. But the user opt out only applies to marketing communications. Therefore, you can opt out when your information would be used for marketing purposes, but a vendor can still acquire your information as long as they do not use it for marketing.

If EarthLink-Google shares your information for other purposes, they could do so with no notice to the user. Information gathered for the purposes of civil legal proceedings, for law enforcement, for processing collections, or for national security would all be acceptable under the current proposal as long as EarthLink does this in "good faith."

There is no option to opt out. Given the flaws in the EarthLink-Google plan, should the City forego the pursuit of free and universal WiFi? No, we should not forego the opportunity to have free and universal WiFi. Nor should we rush into a deal that fails to serve the public's needs.

The Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, at the direction of the mayor, moved forward with negotiations with EarthLink for the proposed wireless network without conducting a formal analysis or study of the feasibility of wireless broadband.

According to the budget analyst report, a "Request for Information and Comment" was issued instead. A "Request for Proposals" followed, in which EarthLink-Google won the bid.

Therefore, EarthLink-Google's proposal is not based on a comprehensive study, but solely on public comments. In order to find the best fit for the City's needs, we need to learn about the best practices from other cities. We need to "examine all alternative approaches to promoting digital inclusion in San Francisco."

Free WiFi may be easily provided by a municipally governed enterprise. We can foresee that rates will be cheaper because the City will have no need to pursue profits. The Internet is a community resource. We connect with friends through e-mail, search for jobs, get online tutoring, and become informed about almost anything.

WiFi can "bridge the digital divide" (bring the Internet to everyone) if it is done correctly. In order to do so, we must explore our options, including municipally-owned WiFi. Anything less will jeopardize what is rightfully ours as consumers, taxpayers and residents.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick represents San Francisco's District 1.