Posted February 21, 2007
By GREG RICHARDSON
Editor’s note: Civitium, a suburban Atlanta-based consulting firm, finds itself in the middle of a growing debate about how the City of San Francisco should proceed with a city-wide wireless fidelity (WiFi) network. Civitium worked with the city in setting up the project, as it has with other cities such as Philadelphia. Recently, the San Francisco city council divided over whether to move ahead with a proposed EarthLink-Google privately owned solution or a city-owned network.
The following commentary was written by Greg Richardson, founder and managing partner of Civitium. For length reasons, the blog is being published in two parts. The second will be published on Friday.
ALPHARETTA, Ga. - The ongoing debate in San Francisco about how the City proceeds with its Wi-Fi initiative demonstrates - more than any similar initiative to date - how ideology plays a central role in the world of public broadband. Decisions are not made based solely on financial analysis and technical assumptions; they are clearly grounded in ideology. And increasingly, far-right and far-left viewpoints are dominating the debate.
I argue that the far-left viewpoints being expressed by the ACLU (on electronic consumer privacy) and ILSR (on public ownership) are as damaging to the public broadband movement as the far-right viewpoints advanced in 2005 by conservative think tanks and special interest groups. Just like the far-right arguments we heard in 2005 that “cities are too stupid to own or manage communications networks” and “cities are wasting taxpayer money, competing with the private sector,” far-left organizations are now hijacking the debate on public broadband, and leaving little ground in the middle for moderate, level-headed viewpoints.
And it’s time for this to change.
For proof, watch the comments that will be posted to this article, ripping me to shreds - and I predict there will be many – but keep in mind that those who are on the far-sides of these issues are the ones who raise their voices the loudest. And as you watch this, take care not to assume that these loud voices represent the mainstream viewpoint, as I believe they do not.
Now I am being naïve of course. Moderate, level-headed viewpoints don’t make for interesting news stories; at least not with the level of intrigue, the passionate pronouncements and the dueling editorials that characterize the far-left vs. far-right debate in San Francisco papers.
Take the recent “Board of Obstructionist” editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle. While I find myself agreeing with some of the author’s underlying arguments in that editorial, taking it to the level of suggesting that those on the San Francisco Board who are opposed to private ownership are intentionally trying to obstruct the process - or playing politics - is a bit unfair in my opinion. The editorial steps over the line, with rudeness and disrespect. While I may not agree with the opponents on the Board who argue for public ownership of Wi-Fi (I have made my opinion on this issue clear in open forums with the Board,) I assume that their viewpoints are grounded in an honest conviction that public ownership is best for their constituents.
Let’s consider the ACLU’s recent criticism, which is based on a viewpoint that the agreement with EarthLink does not provide for adequate consumer privacy protections. On the surface, most would agree that having more protections in this area is better than have fewer protections. But, this fails to put the issue into context, by assuming automatically that the “gold standard for consumer privacy” that the ACLU (together with EPIC and EFF) has advanced is the standard that should be applied. I argue that it is not the right standard. Rather than defend “why we didn’t restrict A and B in the EarthLink agreement,” I openly object to the argument that we should have applied all of those standards in the first place. Why?
• There are dozens of existing federal and state laws that regulate in some way electronic consumer privacy, but none of these laws require the protections called for in the ACLU’s gold standard; if they did, there would be no reason to regulate EarthLink on these points at a local level.
• I have reviewed the privacy policies for incumbent broadband providers in San Francisco, finding that none of them would come close to meeting the gold standard called for by the ACLU.
• Protections in the EarthLink agreement go far beyond those in similar Wi-Fi public-private-partnership agreements. If the ACLU thinks the protections in the San Francisco-EarthLink agreement are weak, they should go read the Philadelphia agreement, or those in numerous other major U.S. cities. The only thing required in most of those agreements is that operators discloses their privacy policy and require users’ explicit acceptance before service is provisioned.
• I happen to have my own ideological belief that consumers are smart enough to make informed decisions about whether to use any given product or service, and that my use of a service is a contract between me and my provider. I don’t want a world where the products and services available to me are based on the ones that the ACLU has decided meet their standard.
If the ACLU feels so passionately that these standards should apply, why not address this at a federal and/or state level? Why fight a battle that wouldn’t win the war? This would have the added benefit of making sure that all providers would be on a level playing field, and that the DSL and cable companies in San Francisco would be required to provide the same protections. Even for the ACLU, the outcome would be better, as they wouldn’t have to argue their points in each and every city involved in a Wi-Fi initiative with a private operator.
Several provisions exists in the agreement with EarthLink that no-one seems to have recognized the significance of. First is the requirement that EarthLink abide by Applicable Laws (which you will find this in various parts of the Privacy section of the agreement.) Now, it’s understandable why no-one finds this interesting or relevant, since it seems obvious that they would have to abide by any applicable laws, and that this kind of language can seem like lawyerly fluff. Second, in the Broadband Non-Discrimination (aka network neutrality) section of the agreement, it says “More specific standards may be established by a separate ordinance of general applicability, which would apply to all similarly situated providers of broadband service.”
So, to the Board I would say “don’t delay Wi-Fi for San Franciscans by imposing valid, justifiable restrictions on the EarthLink agreement - in a way that is discriminatory; instead create local regulations and apply them to all broadband providers in San Francisco.”
Isn’t this a more moderate, level-headed way of thinking about the issue? Of course it is. It recognizes that the number of regulations placed on a competitive entrant to the San Francisco broadband market (EarthLink in this case) should not go far beyond those placed on incumbent providers, who most would agree hold more market power, and have a greater ability to abuse that market power.
So, in the end, the ACLU doesn’t appear to be opposed to the terms of the EarthLink agreement, but rather they appear to be opposed to Applicable Law, and naïve to the precedent set by dozens of major U.S. cities. There are different remedies for that, and the right one is not to delay the right of San Franciscans to have free citywide Wi-Fi.
Are public private partnerships for Wi-Fi truly partnerships? Are they really just opportunities for cities to gain every single concession imaginable by special interest groups, academics and far-right or far-left ideologists? Should cities be trying to create a “telecom policy panacea” that feels like a win to policy makers, but guarantees that the competitive Wi-Fi entrant will be disadvantaged against existing providers? Is the role of cities to “get back” every bad concession that many of us feel have been made in national broadband policy through regulations at a local level? Are we trying to impose the national broadband policy that we wish was in place at a national level on competitive entrants at a local level, but leaving established providers playing by the same old - some would say more favorable - rules? These are critically important issues, but again the far-left has us focused on their out-of-context, discrete special interests instead.
Part Two: Time for ChangeCopyright 2012 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Municipal Wi-deology: How Politics Are Driving Public Broadband Debate
Post a comment
Print this storyE-mail story
Share
The following commentary was written by Greg Richardson, founder and managing partner of Civitium. For length reasons, the blog is being published in two parts. The second will be published on Friday.
ALPHARETTA, Ga. - The ongoing debate in San Francisco about how the City proceeds with its Wi-Fi initiative demonstrates - more than any similar initiative to date - how ideology plays a central role in the world of public broadband. Decisions are not made based solely on financial analysis and technical assumptions; they are clearly grounded in ideology. And increasingly, far-right and far-left viewpoints are dominating the debate.
I argue that the far-left viewpoints being expressed by the ACLU (on electronic consumer privacy) and ILSR (on public ownership) are as damaging to the public broadband movement as the far-right viewpoints advanced in 2005 by conservative think tanks and special interest groups. Just like the far-right arguments we heard in 2005 that “cities are too stupid to own or manage communications networks” and “cities are wasting taxpayer money, competing with the private sector,” far-left organizations are now hijacking the debate on public broadband, and leaving little ground in the middle for moderate, level-headed viewpoints.
And it’s time for this to change.
For proof, watch the comments that will be posted to this article, ripping me to shreds - and I predict there will be many – but keep in mind that those who are on the far-sides of these issues are the ones who raise their voices the loudest. And as you watch this, take care not to assume that these loud voices represent the mainstream viewpoint, as I believe they do not.
Now I am being naïve of course. Moderate, level-headed viewpoints don’t make for interesting news stories; at least not with the level of intrigue, the passionate pronouncements and the dueling editorials that characterize the far-left vs. far-right debate in San Francisco papers.
Take the recent “Board of Obstructionist” editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle. While I find myself agreeing with some of the author’s underlying arguments in that editorial, taking it to the level of suggesting that those on the San Francisco Board who are opposed to private ownership are intentionally trying to obstruct the process - or playing politics - is a bit unfair in my opinion. The editorial steps over the line, with rudeness and disrespect. While I may not agree with the opponents on the Board who argue for public ownership of Wi-Fi (I have made my opinion on this issue clear in open forums with the Board,) I assume that their viewpoints are grounded in an honest conviction that public ownership is best for their constituents.
Let’s consider the ACLU’s recent criticism, which is based on a viewpoint that the agreement with EarthLink does not provide for adequate consumer privacy protections. On the surface, most would agree that having more protections in this area is better than have fewer protections. But, this fails to put the issue into context, by assuming automatically that the “gold standard for consumer privacy” that the ACLU (together with EPIC and EFF) has advanced is the standard that should be applied. I argue that it is not the right standard. Rather than defend “why we didn’t restrict A and B in the EarthLink agreement,” I openly object to the argument that we should have applied all of those standards in the first place. Why?
• There are dozens of existing federal and state laws that regulate in some way electronic consumer privacy, but none of these laws require the protections called for in the ACLU’s gold standard; if they did, there would be no reason to regulate EarthLink on these points at a local level.
• I have reviewed the privacy policies for incumbent broadband providers in San Francisco, finding that none of them would come close to meeting the gold standard called for by the ACLU.
• Protections in the EarthLink agreement go far beyond those in similar Wi-Fi public-private-partnership agreements. If the ACLU thinks the protections in the San Francisco-EarthLink agreement are weak, they should go read the Philadelphia agreement, or those in numerous other major U.S. cities. The only thing required in most of those agreements is that operators discloses their privacy policy and require users’ explicit acceptance before service is provisioned.
• I happen to have my own ideological belief that consumers are smart enough to make informed decisions about whether to use any given product or service, and that my use of a service is a contract between me and my provider. I don’t want a world where the products and services available to me are based on the ones that the ACLU has decided meet their standard.
If the ACLU feels so passionately that these standards should apply, why not address this at a federal and/or state level? Why fight a battle that wouldn’t win the war? This would have the added benefit of making sure that all providers would be on a level playing field, and that the DSL and cable companies in San Francisco would be required to provide the same protections. Even for the ACLU, the outcome would be better, as they wouldn’t have to argue their points in each and every city involved in a Wi-Fi initiative with a private operator.
Several provisions exists in the agreement with EarthLink that no-one seems to have recognized the significance of. First is the requirement that EarthLink abide by Applicable Laws (which you will find this in various parts of the Privacy section of the agreement.) Now, it’s understandable why no-one finds this interesting or relevant, since it seems obvious that they would have to abide by any applicable laws, and that this kind of language can seem like lawyerly fluff. Second, in the Broadband Non-Discrimination (aka network neutrality) section of the agreement, it says “More specific standards may be established by a separate ordinance of general applicability, which would apply to all similarly situated providers of broadband service.”
So, to the Board I would say “don’t delay Wi-Fi for San Franciscans by imposing valid, justifiable restrictions on the EarthLink agreement - in a way that is discriminatory; instead create local regulations and apply them to all broadband providers in San Francisco.”
Isn’t this a more moderate, level-headed way of thinking about the issue? Of course it is. It recognizes that the number of regulations placed on a competitive entrant to the San Francisco broadband market (EarthLink in this case) should not go far beyond those placed on incumbent providers, who most would agree hold more market power, and have a greater ability to abuse that market power.
So, in the end, the ACLU doesn’t appear to be opposed to the terms of the EarthLink agreement, but rather they appear to be opposed to Applicable Law, and naïve to the precedent set by dozens of major U.S. cities. There are different remedies for that, and the right one is not to delay the right of San Franciscans to have free citywide Wi-Fi.
Are public private partnerships for Wi-Fi truly partnerships? Are they really just opportunities for cities to gain every single concession imaginable by special interest groups, academics and far-right or far-left ideologists? Should cities be trying to create a “telecom policy panacea” that feels like a win to policy makers, but guarantees that the competitive Wi-Fi entrant will be disadvantaged against existing providers? Is the role of cities to “get back” every bad concession that many of us feel have been made in national broadband policy through regulations at a local level? Are we trying to impose the national broadband policy that we wish was in place at a national level on competitive entrants at a local level, but leaving established providers playing by the same old - some would say more favorable - rules? These are critically important issues, but again the far-left has us focused on their out-of-context, discrete special interests instead.
Part Two: Time for ChangeCopyright 2012 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Featured
E-mail Preferences
