Supes Move on Wi-Fi Plan, But Will it Bridge Digital Divide?

by Paul Hogarth, 2007-07-12

After Supervisor Aaron Peskin said he was willing to compromise on the Mayor’s Wi-Fi proposal, the Budget Committee met yesterday to assess the proposed contract with Earthlink to install antennas on utility poles throughout the City. At the meeting, Peskin said that Earthlink must agree to the following to get his support: (a) a shorter contract term, (b) the City’s “right of first refusal” after the contract ends, (c) faster free service, (c) stronger privacy controls, and (d) negotiate service standards now – rather than later.

The last point is crucial, because the plan’s current standards have raised legitimate questions about whether it will truly address the digital divide. And Google – who will sub-contract with Earthlink to install the antennas – has a questionable track record when it comes to under-served communities. The above map shows Google’s new “Street View” feature that lets you zoom in on daily street activities in San Francisco. Notice that it currently does not include anything south of Cesar Chavez Avenue – including Bayview-Hunters Point and the Excelsior.

When Mayor Newsom brought his Wi-Fi proposal to City Hall, he urged the Board of Supervisors to “make amendments” if they had problems with it – but not to oppose this “fundamental component of addressing the digital divide.” This was a marked departure from his prior “take-it-or-leave-it” approach, and yesterday the Supervisors were pleased that some type of compromise was in the works. “There’s got to be a team effort,” said Tom Ammiano. “The Giants are more than Barry Bonds.”

Board President Aaron Peskin began by explaining that he had met with Earthlink about his concerns, and that they would send it back to their corporate headquarters in Atlanta for further discussions. But he did outline to the Budget Committee what those concerns were, and what changes he would like to see in the final product.

“I want to ensure,” said Peskin, “that this does not become a franchise.” The contract is with Earthlink and Google, and many progressives have worried that it’s a corporate give-away that will eventually lead to a private monopoly like Comcast or PG&E. Peskin’s first demand would be to cut down the contract from sixteen years to eight years, and afterwards the City must have the right to purchase the technology at fair market value.

Secondly, the service is slow. Under the current contract, Earthlink would provide free access at 300 kilobites (kb) per second – and a faster service at 1 Megabite (MB) per second for paying customers. While 300 kb is faster than dial-up, it is slower than DSL or cable, and if many people use the connection at the same time they will get cut off. Google already provides its home town of Mountain View with free Wi-Fi at 1 MB, so “the free service should be accelerated to 500 kb,” said Peskin. This prompted one speaker during public comment to reply that the City should not settle at 500 kb.

Many opponents of the Wi-Fi plan have complained about the privacy issue, as it allows Google and Earthlink to track the websites that free customers use. The program has some privacy component, but only for the premium customers – a serious issue that Nicole Ozer of the ACLU pointed out. “Those who can’t pay for the service,” she said, “should not have to pay for it with their privacy.” Peskin said that Earthlink must agree to extend the privacy component to free customers in order for the plan to pass.

But privacy, speed and privatization are issues that concern people who already have Internet access. Because progressive opponents of the Wi-Fi plan have focused on these parts of the plan, Newsom has been able to use black and Asian-American leaders to paint his opponents as white elitists who are insensitive to communities of color. And there is a far more fundamental flaw with the Google-Earthlink plan – it probably won’t even provide free Internet access to low-income people who can’t afford it.

There are serious questions about whether the Internet access will “penetrate” the inside of buildings. Because Google will install the antennas on utility poles, the signal will only reach homes that are on the first or second floor of a building – and that have window access on side of the street. So if you’re an apartment tenant who lives in the back of a building, the only way you can get “free” Wi-Fi is to purchase a repeater that will cost $50-$150.

Free Wi-Fi will be super-convenient for someone like me who has a laptop and could check the Internet while I’m sipping a cappuccino at my local Starbucks, but let’s get real. The public housing tenant in Bayview who currently doesn’t have Internet access is not going to have a laptop. If the Wi-Fi service is going to be accessible to everyone, it must be able to reach personal computers inside the homes of apartment tenants. Without that component, the whole “digital divide” rhetoric is nothing but a press release.

Which brings us to Peskin’s last – and most critical – demand. Under the current proposal, all of these “service standards” that would delve into details of access would only be negotiated after the Board of Supervisors approves the contract. “That’s a blank check,” said Peskin, “and completely backwards. We should know precisely what the standards are. We need to make sure there is no economic discrimination, and that neighborhoods are not being redlined.” No legislative body in their right mind should trust a corporation to negotiate these basic service questions later.

And speaking of redlining, Aaron Peskin has every right to be skeptical about Google’s commitment to bridging the digital divide. As Sasha Magee wrote in an earlier Beyond Chron piece, “there are several neighborhoods where it’s currently impossible to get broadband internet access, because the companies involved don’t see the potential for profit in those areas.”

In June, Google launched a new feature on their “Google-Maps” site that is bound to become a huge procrastination tool at every workplace computer. Called “Street-View,” the feature allows viewers to zoom in on particular streets in San Francisco, Denver, Miami and New York – and get a three-dimensional view of the houses, parks and everyday street activity. While some have expressed concern that it’s an invasion of privacy, it’s an undeniably cool feature that shows the potential of online access.

But “Street-View” doesn’t reach every part of San Francisco. While they probably have plans to expand the service, you currently can’t zoom in on any street in the Excelsior, Visitacion Valley, Crocker-Amazon, or Bayview-Hunters Point – whereas the Marina, Pacific Heights and the Castro are fully visible. But only 51% of Bayview households have Internet access (as opposed to a citywide average of 78.6%), so Google probably figured that nobody there will be logging in to get a close-up view of their street.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org