Terman Library in the Terman Community Center, 661 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA
Councilman Joe Huber was introduced and the meeting was turned over to a discussion on the City's telecommunications activities. There haven't been any meetings of the advisory committee since the last PA-COMNET meeting. The interests of our group were discussed, starting with Keith. The focus is on getting computer networking to serve our community and improve the functioning and operation of the area. Recent increases in interest and uses of the Internet make it clear that this will be a major factor in the future. The summary provided by Kathryn of the on-line discussions regarding desirable features of an on-line community and possible City roles in telecommunications was referenced.
First point Keith made is the need for universal access. Providers such as MFS only serve businesses. Other areas such as East Palo Alto and E. Menlo Pk. will be slighted initially because they are low income. Areas such as these also must have access to communications.
Second, the network must[should] be symmetrical with high data transfer capability in both directions. It was said that cable isn't symmetrical but that is incorrect, since there is the technical ability to provide such service, but it's not yet economically practical. In fact tests of 2-way data at rates up to 30 mega-bits/sec.or mbps each way have been under test on the Cable Co-op system for months. At present only PacBell provides 2-way bandwidth, but it's limited to T-1 speeds of 1.54 mbps that is much slower. Higher 2-way speeds are desirable so that everyone can be both a consumer and provider of information. It should be noted that very few individuals will need such high speed upstream. In most cases is is more practical and less expensive to have high speed for downstream data and no more then T1 speeds upstream.
Third, there should be an open, competitive market, not a monopoly situation. There are advantages to having the City provide the bandwidth because it could assure open access, and might be able to limit the number of organizations tearing up city streets. Jay noted that the issue of City ownership of a cable system can raise issues of control of the media, providing equal access to all in the community, and assuring fair treatment for everyone. The City should work to provide a means for creating a sense of community, developing programs of local interest, and looking beyond narrow economics to building and supporting community solidarity. Whoever gets use of such a publically financed system should be required to provide services of public and community benefit. This may not be possible if the laws don't require providers to get franchises, or Federal laws may prevent enforcing franchise agreements. Issues get down to how will the network be built, how will the infrastructure be built, who will own it, and who will have access to it. If it's owned by big business it may prevent average citizens from having equal access. Best network technology now looks like fiber, because it has the best bandwidth and capability. It's not economically feasible to extend fiber to the home now, but it should be later. Meanwhile fiber to the node is a reasonable approach for the shorter term, and it can be upgraded. It's premature to get too deeply into technology or details of what to do or how to do it yet.
Joe noted that he's not technologically savvy, but is very interested. He agrees with the desirability of universal access, but is dubious about the City getting deeply involved in a competitive business. However the City probably needs to be involved, but maybe as partners.
Cable partnering is a possible pattern. He finds this discussion very interesting and useful. He read the e-mail discussion which Kathryn sent him and finds it very helpful, raising many important issues.
Liza noted that there is a difference between universal access, universal service, and public access. Access is not the same as know how. There is a public responsibility to show people how to use the system or participation may not be wide enough.
Jay noted the importance of separating the editorial function from providing the service, to assure that the City doesn't get into a First Amendment issue. It would be best if the City did not get involved with content, except issues the City is involved in.
Bernie thanked us for the background document and our discussion. It's unclear what the City will do in the end. They may just stand back and do nothing. If they wait too long to decide how to proceed it might be too late to get involved later. The consultants completed Phase 3, and will present an array of options from doing nothing to having a fully City owned system, plus everything in between, including partnering with others such as Cable Co-op. After reviewing and discussing these alternatives the Utility Advisory Commission (UAC) will decide what to do or recommend. Input from the community, including PA-COMNET, is very important and will help the City focus on how to proceed. The consultant's report is going to the Telecommunications Advisory Panel (TAP) this week, and will be reviewed and discussed before it goes to the UAC Nov. 3, and then to the Council Nov. 20.
The question of when the report will be accessible, and how accessible it will be was discussed. It would be nice if it was on-line. The City hasn't been able to post reports or minutes yet, just agendas. There are problems with legal aspects of releasing the report, possibly competitive issues, and a need for balancing public access and participation with matters that may be confidential if all of the report is published or disclosed prematurely. The advice of the City Attorney is an important factor when deciding what to issue and when. The final report that goes to the UAC will be public and available.
Avron noted that the telecommunications field is changing rapidly, and the City will not be able to expect long term stability equivalent to a power utility. Whatever is built should be flexible and capable of expansion and modification as technology advances. The only given is that in 5 years whatever we have today will be obsolete. This applies especially to the digital cable converter or set-top box and interfaces, not so much to the transport mechanism such as the fiber trunk. Bob noted that almost all companies, cable, telcos, and others worldwide are building fiber networks to nodes, with each node serving about 500 homes. This allows expansion of fiber to each home as demand requires.
Joe and Bernie expressed their appreciation for PA-COMNET's willingness to help and be involved, and urged our continued participation. They found the discussion to be very valuable.
Jay noted that he attended the Marilyn Davis presentation on electronic democracy last night. The presentation went well in general. There were about 24 people present. The entire presentation experience raised the issue of how and when the group participates and represents itself, and is represented. Marilyn created issues and raised objections regarding the involvement of others in the event. Apparently there are some misunderstandings and lack of clear communications. It is important that the group decide what it wants to support or decides when and under what conditions we want to officially sponsor an activity or position. The original concept for the group apparently was on encouraging community networking, and building an on-line presence and sense of community, not electronic democracy per se. Unfortunately it was not possible to get all the parties involved in the dispute to sit together and discuss the issues. Points of view were not clearly expressed and reconciled. One issue is getting people to work effectively together and have general agreement. Another is how and when events are sponsored [by PA-COMNET]. If at the beginning of each event we have an explanation and disclaimer as to who we are and how we are structured it should clarify roles and the restrictions on endorsements by PA-COMNET. It was noted that we do not want to sponsor or be associated with commercial ventures or to be thought to endorse products. In Marilyn's absence we deferred further discussion.
It is unfortunate that she missed the last meeting and today's meeting, making it hard to establish accurate communications with the group.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 AM.
The next meeting will be Wed. Nov. 8, 7:30 AM at Terman Library.
Submitted by Bob Moss