San Francisco broadband update

Several people have chastised me for failing to cover the broadband news over the last couple weeks. There have, in fact, been some events of note in the fight to ensure universal access to the internet, especially here in San Francisco.

The biggest news, of course, was the PUC's approval of a $300k study to determine whether the city should take advantage of ongoing infrastructure work to lay cable or fiber. The study still has to be approved by the Board of Supes, but it's still a significant potential step forward.

Let me mention here that I am not necessarily in favor of the City laying fiber or cable. It is certainly possible that we may be able to achieve universal access via wireless of some kind. However, I think it's smart for San Francisco to seriously study the possibilities. As Tom Ammiano said in a guest editorial in the Examiner,

Imagine if San Francisco were the most wired city in America, with every home, apartment building and business served by fiber-optic cable and a choice of numerous cable TV, phone and Internet providers.

In addition to lower cost, improved telecommunications services for homeowners, the economic development potential of such an investment would be significant. Consider all the communications and information-based companies that would be attracted to do business in San Francisco.

Not everybody was happy about the vote, however. Our own right-wing think tank made an appearance, and they weren't too happy about even studying the possibility:

there are serious unintended consequences associated with government-run broadband that could have a detrimental effect on the private sector. For instance, if San Francisco were to offer wireless service for free, it would undercut the very businesses that are driving innovation in this area.

She didn't bring it up at the PUC, but in an article, PRI's Sonia Arrison felt it necessary to dust off the red-baiting stick:

At any level, government-provided broadband -- what some call "socialized" communication -- has always been a bad idea. The time has come for policymakers to drop it because governments do not operate the same way businesses do.

Now, leaving aside that it's pretty much for that reason that we want the city to look into providing broadband, someone ought to tell Ms. Arrison that "Socialism" is out as the all-purpose bogyman, and "Terrorism" is in.

She did make one interesting--if not quite as devastating as she seems to think--point in her testimony:

FCC data show that when all San Francisco zip codes are taken together, the number of high-speed Internet providers (DSL, cable modem, wireless, satellite, fiber) offering broadband service to at least one customer is around 12. When one examines the zip codes of poorer neighborhoods, like the Bayview District, Hunters Point, and Western Addition, the data show they are serviced by the same number as the city average.

That's actually good news, if it's true, but it avoids the main problem, which is that the cost involved is still fairly significant, especially for low-income residents of San Francisco. According to the California PUC, there's still a pretty big gap between access to the internet for low-income folks and those with higher incomes.

Meanwhile, SFSOS is calling on its members to write their supervisor in favor of ignoranceto oppose the study.

I'll say more on this issue this week, including looking at some business groups that are taking a more principled stand on this issue.

Update: Via Wi-Fi Networking News I see that Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute is not up on the latest demonology either.