Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Energy / Utilities »

May 7, 2008 5:00 AM | last updated May 6, 2008 4:22 PM
Utility poles owned by the City of Seattle.

Utility poles owned by the City of Seattle. (Chuck Taylor)

Advertisement
Advertisement

The city's own series of tubes

Would municipal broadband service for all residents be better and cheaper than what the free market is providing now? Seattle City Hall wants to find out.

By Peter Lewis

Prompted in part by broadband envy, Seattle is dusting off an idea that's been kicking around more than a decade – jumping into the Internet business.

The City Council recently authorized spending $185,000 to develop a request for proposals (RFP) aimed at attracting a partner to provide a fiber-to-the-premises network similar to what Verizon has done privately in some neighboring suburbs. The goal: affordable "true broadband connectivity for all Seattle residents by 2015," as envisioned three years ago by a city task force.

A fiber-optic broadband network with speeds of up to 100 mbps could reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by supporting telecommuting, increase citizen participation in government, let the city offer improved services, give people the means to communicate with friends and family in new ways, and otherwise enhance entertainment options, including two-way HDTV.

The idea is to offer residents and businesses the Holy Grail triple play – video, telephony, and Internet, the latter at speeds several times faster than Comcast's current residential rates – and charge them about 20 per cent less.

The city wants to ensure it's not left in the "dark ages," as one elected official put it, just as some Eastside suburbanites are slated to get a triple play — but not comparably reduced rates – via Verizon's FiOS fiber optic service network, an option unavailable to Qwest customers in Seattle. (Verizon spokesman Jon Davies said the company will launch triple-play service in Washington during the third quarter, but he could not say what it will charge; the price for high-end, triple-play service in California, with download speeds of 30 mbps and upload of 15 mbps, is $215 per month, he said.)

It remains an open question whether Seattle can induce anyone to step up and build a comparable network, at an estimated cost of $450 million.

Bruce Harrell, the rookie council member who heads the energy and technology committee that has taken testimony on the city's broadband initiative, has no illusions. "I'm not naïve enough to think that these companies such as a Verizon or Comcast and Earthlink are not looking at exactly the same thing" in areas they already serve — providing faster service. "You can't force a market onto companies that study markets for a living."

At a committee hearing in March, and again in a recent interview with Crosscut, Harrell expressed ambivalence about moving forward with the RFP but said that ultimately he was unwilling to abandon a strategy he'd inherited.

With the full council's approval, the broadband initiative ball now bounces back to the city's chief technology officer, Bill Schrier. His mission over the next several months will include amassing an inventory of city assets to entice a partner. The goodies include about 340 miles worth of already strung city-owned fiber, city-owned utility poles, City Light substations that could serve as nodes for a fiber-optic network, and expedited permitting.

The city also will need to address legal issues surrounding the extent to which it can offer up such assets, and what it would need in return. Also on the table is the possibility that Seattle City Light might build a separate, parallel broadband network to piggyback on an upgrade of the utility's energy management system.

Such a project would generate an additional set of legal issues in the wake of a painful court ruling that the utility illegally tacked charges onto ratepayer bills for services (streetlights) not directly related to electrical power consumed.

The council's instructions for developing an RFP also include the possibility of a hybrid network including Wi-Fi. On that score, Schrier is certain of a path to avoid — the one followed by Portland

and San Francisco, both of which have struggled to introduce free, citywide Wi-Fi.

"This was so doggoned predictable," Schrier said recently, referring to the Wi-Fi fiascos. "When I was asked to comment on Philadelphia's original plan for a New York Times reporter years ago, I expressed skepticism. ... It's not that I'm clairvoyant, far from it. But there never was a business plan that could make any money at this 'free Wi-Fi' stuff. How otherwise-smart companies like Earthlink and MetroFi ... got sucked into this is beyond me."

Seattle first considered diving into the Internet business back in the mid-1990s, when Jane Noland and Martha Choe were on the City Council. Leaders balked at the cost and the pace of emerging technologies, opting to let the private sector have at it.

Fast forward a dozen years, though, and Seattle residents are complaining about relatively slow speeds and high costs. A city-commissioned feasibility study released a year ago this month found that more than 60 percent of Seattle households said they would buy telephone, cable TV, and/or data services from a city-sponsored fiber network if it offered lower prices.

CCG Consulting noted it had done similar research for municipalities and commercial concerns and found that Seattle results were "very positive and are higher than the results seen in many other surveys we have conducted. We guess that the high positive response is a result of a combination of some underlying dissatisfaction with the current providers and/or a very positive feeling about the city [government]."

Harrell said he has no interest in championing a broadband program financed solely by Seattle. He also is wary of a scenario in which the city might act as a "market stimulator" and inadvertently create a monopoly. For now, he is content to allow an RFP to emerge and let the chips falls where they may.

Schrier anticipates returning to the council in late summer or early fall with a set of "potential policy issues" related to the RFP, meaning the proposal itself might not be issued before September.

Sid Parakh, a technology analyst at McAdams Wright Regan in Seattle, agrees that it makes more sense for the city to look for a partner than to make a solo play. The RFP's details will determine the feasibility of any partnership, he said.

Meantime, what some might view as an inspiring, forwarding-looking quote from Mayor Greg Nickels stays splashed across at the top of the city's broadband Web site: "A state of the art technology infrastructure is vital to taking Seattle into the future. We are looking for a partner who has the vision and ability to join us in this exciting endeavor."

Asked for his take, Harrell said the mayor's line begs an underlying question: Who, if anyone, wants to dance with the city?

  • Peter Lewis is a Seattle freelance writer and former Seattle Times reporter. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
Comments
Time to Modernize
Report a violationPosted by: sonny on May 7, 2008 9:01 AM
I would love to see a good broadband network in this city. I recently moved a few blocks north from my home in Wallingford, where I had decent DSL, and found it became slower in my new house.
The funny part of the article was "increasing citizen participation in government". I have attempted to contact the mayor, the city council, SDOT, and the 'newly reformed' Office of Police Accountability regarding various issues. My Emails were never responded to. Being a bit jaded in my old age: At least we can have a higher speed system by which to be ignored.
Tacoma has it right
Report a violationPosted by: John on May 7, 2008 10:26 AM
The model for municipal broadband is Tacoma, where the city-owned Click! network offers cable TV and high-speed Internet services at rates that are competitive with commercial providers. As fas as I know, the service is self-supporting. The competition has forced the commercial providers to hold down their costs and offer a decent level of customer support.

Click! customers may have their own bad experiences to report (and I would love to hear about them), but looking at it from the outside, it appears to be one very good solution to a complex probelm.
And old story
Report a violationPosted by: Sawman on May 7, 2008 12:34 PM
Editor's Pick This discussion about a municipal cable system echoes the controversy over 100 years ago with the establishment of a water department, a municipal lighting plant, and the Port of Seattle. Residents of Seattle and the Northwest found the privately-owned operations to be lacking such as when the fire hydrants didn't work on June 6, 1889. All of downtown burned.

City Light came into being because the private company, owned by a Boston conglomerate, charged too much for electricity and was slow to extend service to residential neighborhoods. As soon as competition entered the picture rates dropped dramatically.

The arguments against municipal ownership were that it was un-American and socialistic. And the City could not provide the customer service and efficiency of private enterprise.

The big question about the new proposal is will municipal service be better and cheaper?
Previous fiber RFP; Wi-Fi networks not mostly free
Report a violationPosted by: Glenn_Fleishman on May 7, 2008 1:23 PM
Editor's Pick First, there's no mention of the city's 2006 Request for Internet, which produced a lot of replies, but took two years to reach the RFP stage today. I'm curious why this took so long, when the 2006 effort was pitched as being a fast track to getting the pieces together to bid the network.

Second, as commenter John notes, Tacoma Power's Click! network has been in operation as a mixed fiber/coax (fiber backbone, coax to the home) network for several years, and offers a single cable choice (Click!) and wholesales broadband to several business and residential resellers. The argument has been made that the fiber network saved Tacoma's nearly failed telecom infrastructure, and led to its rebirth today.

Third, Seattle CTO Bill Schrier is entirely misinformed about municipal Wi-Fi. It's something I've covered closely since its real inception in 2004, and while it has failed, it's not for the reason or in the manner Schrier is quoted as saying. You write, "Schrier is certain of a path to avoid — the one followed by Portland and San Francisco, both of which have struggled to introduce free, citywide Wi-Fi....'But there never was a business plan that could make any money at this 'free Wi-Fi' stuff. How otherwise-smart companies like Earthlink and MetroFi ... got sucked into this is beyond me.'"

MetroFi offered free service and their only big market was and is Portland; they offered a choice between ad-supported free and for-fee service. EarthLink *never* offered free service, and they had contracted with dozens of cities of all scales.

The failure of this kind of Wi-Fi had to do with the model going in. Cities didn't want to commit to untried technology, and EarthLink agreed to install networks (as did some other competitors) at no cost to the city, and offer a variety of services, including some subsidized accounts for low-income residents. (In some cases, those accounts were funded out of utility pole fees or other city facility charges.)

If cities had from the onset seen Wi-Fi as a way to get a network across a city as a first step, say, in building a fiber network, or even as a critical part of municipal infrastructure, and put public access as a secondary concern, the networks would have been built, built well, and conserved city finances by reducing the cost of telecom and increasing efficiency of city workers. This has been proven out in cities that have opted just for municipal or public safety networks.
Oh, really?
Report a violationPosted by: AW on May 7, 2008 9:27 PM
Can you spell "monorail?"
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement