Rick spoke on the legal and policy aspects of "Letting Local Nets Work", with emphasis on the infrastructure and fiber loop. Rick began where Brian Reid left off last June in his talk to PA-ComNet and Community Center Neighbors regarding citywide delivery of information and encouraging multiple delivery services. Most of the conversation on PA-ComNet to date has been about the infrastructure, financial issues, and possible applications. There has been little talk about policy or legal hurdles to be cleared. At the higher levels the FCC and the State PUC and the courts are making broad decisions along somewhat different, uncoordinated timelines about general issues, competition, opening the phone system to more providers, - even deciding who has jurisdiction to decide novel questions which have broad impacts. Local communities that want results are left on their own to find a clear path through these higher level decisions.
Rick showed how it might be possible to minimize but not eliminate the number of places where builders of local networks encounter unnecessary political entanglements while trying to get technical work done.
He presented a chart showing element by element how connections are made - and more importantly, who owns or controls or shares control of each part. Connections from the final user to the outside world run from (1) property (homeowner) to (2)another (city right of way) to (3) the hub feed (on private or city property) to (4) another feed to the hub (private or city property) and finally to (5) network services or Internet gateway (private or public). Although content can vary widely, little service beyond voice and dial up modems is readily available. Rick's table showed, for example, how the voice path for telephone voice signals is controlled variously by Palo Alto Utilities and the phone company, and how the FCC and PUC get their policy hands on a few segments.
A similar chart for cable systems shows variations in the policies affecting elements within the cable system policy boundary. There is more direct involvement by Palo Alto and the FCC in the total system, and more ownership of the wires and hubs by the cable company. Most of content delivered is video, but unlike other cable systems Cable Co-op infrastructure has 2-way capability in the coax, for data services as well as conventional video.
A third chart showed the idealized goal of local nets in which private residential ownership or co-ownership characterizes most of the segments connecting the home to content providers. At every step from the home to the fiber ring there should be either a maximum choice of providers and connections, or minimum barriers to upgrading equipment to eliminate any bottlenecks to future growth or innovation. The cost to use the city fiber ring needs to be at least a full cost recovery price. We need to avoid introducing new hidden subsidies since that is a place where politics can get in the way of launching new technology.
Rick suggested there might be a new kind of organization whose form could help reduce the complexity and delay that faces city government, staff, public utilities, and for profit organizations trying to install fiber services. Local groups of residents engaged in self-help who have not formed a for profit corporation have more room under the law than do corporations, which must apply to the CPUC and be certified as service providers. There must be an incorporated profit or non-profit organization to get formal utility status. ISPs, and cable companies are not utilities and operate under different regulations. In fact some cable companies have delayed offering phone service because they were not ready to deal with the PUC or be regulated like a phone company. It is plausible that a community organization could be established to interface only with certain managers of city-owned property, and off load most of the regulatory burden on the providers of service-laden bit streams at the content end.
Residents can reach their goals for ownership and control of their part of the network possibly by relabeling their proposal in a form that lets them push the process more quickly, rather than waiting years for the city to act. Focus on how the policy issues change if we take a smaller bite, for a moment, instead of labeling the proposal "fiber trial".
Consider a residential fiber loop hookup as a connection which requires an encroachment permit. Homeowners or neighborhood groups might submit a coordinated encroachment and lease permit application to Palo Alto under City Code Chapter 12.12. City staff can grant such a permit if there is a showing that it doesn't interfere with co-located facilities, and isn't detrimental to the best interests of the city. This might be less difficult and easier to evaluate than launching the city staff's proposed FTTH (Fiber To The Home) trial. It is easier to approve a clear proposal with drawings and addresses, than to a proposal which is being developed by a consultant with little collaboration from residents.
Present delays in the FTTH trial are due to legal issues that just came up, such as the recent CPUC rulings on shared facilities, and the City Attorney is uncertain about how best to proceed with no or minimal legal risk.
Question: How does a neighborhood group handle maintenance and operation of such a connection in the future? We need a reliable service and good system maintenance, not just reliance on volunteers or the neighborhood. People won't be happy if the system goes down and it take volunteers to fix it.
Answer: They can buy the equipment, and rent service support to draw blueprints for encroachment permits. Future repairs and maintenance of the system once it is operating can be done by the group as individuals or with volunteers, or it can be contracted out. Also we need a way to pacify the neighbors who will object to the project and to community involvement because they aren't interested or don't want to be bothered with details. The city FTTH trial is the only game in town now, but when the city does it there is baggage attached. For one thing it is not clear whether the trial will be continued and made permanent, what happens to the equipment, will the connections to homes be retained, etc. City legal advisors need to assess any new kinds of liability that may occur, but the community must resist being drawn into the maze of regulations and government concerns about telecommunications.
To remain exempt from many kinds of utility regulations, Rick thought that the organization probably should remain neighborhood in character and avoid incorporation. If residents want to establish a non-profit corporation to look after installed lines and equipment, the cost to incorporate is about $2000 to $10,000 for legal help, filing fees, proper insurance, etc.
If a community corporation was set up to be a utility and provide service Palo Alto Utilities should welcome the competition based on established city policy.
Conversations on the fiber loop and FTTH have focused on the upstream provider, or gateway because that is where the city involvement is clearly understood to end. If the owner of the "local nets" connections is a community group there still is the need to get agreements between the users and Internet connection providers. But that task then becomes one more of private negotiation than central city planning.
Moss reported that Cable Co-op voted last night to reduce significantly the cost of cable modems, effective in December. There will be a formal announcement in a few weeks, with details and specific offers.
Next PA-ComNet meeting will be 7:30 AM, Wed. Dec. 2, still in the Fireside room at Lucie Stern center. Topic and speaker to be determined.
Adjourned at 8:45 AM.
Respectfully submitted, Bob Moss
webmaster - Louis Bookbinder (650) 494-1589 booky1@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~booky1 - revised 16 Nov 1998