Wireless (and Wired) Minneapolis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 
Green Party Second Ward Council Member Cam Gordon Calls For Study of Publicly-Owned Wi-Fi
 
Statement on Minneapolis’ Broadband Wireless Communication Initiative
 
By Cam Gordon, Council Member, Second Ward
 
February 19, 2006
 
The prospect of bringing wireless broadband communication to Minneapolis is exciting and promising.  High-speed broadband access offers enormous potential to serve the public safety, communication and regulatory service needs of city government, as well as those of businesses and residents throughout the city.
 
The City has already taken a number of significant steps towards bringing broadband service to all the residents of Minneapolis and soon two pilot projects will begin. While it would be disappointing to see any delay in the realization of a “wireless Minneapolis,” serious concerns have been raised in recent months about the direction, process and policy decisions that have led us to this point. 
 
Government works best when policymakers make decisions based on the most complete information and as full participation of residents as possible.  I believe that the previous City Council could have done a better job on both of these fronts when it decided to proceed with the Request for Proposals (RFP) process to build a privately-owned wireless broadband internet system in Minneapolis.  All working groups about the network, but one, released their reports after the Council decided to move forward with a private ownership model.  The one that met before the vote, the public safety working group, did have significant concerns about transmitting public safety information over a privately-owned network. 
 
I believe that it is the best interest of the city and the future success of any citywide high-speed broadband wireless network to continue to move forward with the current proposal but also take the time to be better informed about all our options, as has not been done to date.  First we need to create a meaningful public participation process before a vendor is selected and before we review ownership options. At the same time we need to do a more careful analysis of our ownership options.
 
There are three basic options facing the City for the future of broadband in Minneapolis. 
1)      The status quo, in which City needs (for emergency responders and inspection staff, primarily) are not met and no broadband umbrella exists for resident users. 
2)      The proposed privately-owned broadband system in which the City would be an anchor tenant. 
3)      Publicly-owned broadband infrastructure in which the city would meet its own needs and could charge Internet Service Providers user fees to use the system to meet resident needs.
 
We have relatively good information on options one and two.  However, I believe that we do not have reliable information on any public ownership options.  I have heard numerous conflicting assertions about the public ownership model from City staff, other Council Members and residents of Minneapolis, including residents of my Ward.  None of the assertions operate from the same understanding of the basic facts.
 
The City Council cannot make an informed decision between different ownership models without a common, substantiated understanding of the facts.  We need to know what it would take to finance and launch a publicly-owned Minneapolis wi-fi system and who the city could partner with to make this possible.  Then we can determine if it is worth the investment. We can’t make an informed choice without comparing costs, risks and benefits.
 
I call on my colleagues on the City Council to support a study of the options before us that would answer the following questions about a publicly-owned wi-fi system:
 
·        How much would it cost to build public wireless infrastructure that would meet the City’s internal needs and provide potential service to all Minneapolis residents?
·        What is the annual debt service on a ten-year bond for that amount?
·        What are the breakdowns of those costs (i.e. $X for hardware, $Y for installation, etc.)?
·        How much annual revenue could the City count on from user fees?
·        How much would the City be charged annually for contracted-out maintenance and upkeep?
·        What is the likely average annual cost to a private Minneapolis resident for use of a publicly-owned wireless broadband system?
·        What are the legal risks involved with the various models of public ownership and how can these risks be mitigated?
·        What would be the cost per square mile to build a publicly-owned system?
 
The following questions about the current proposed privately-owned system:
 
·        How much will the city be charged annually to meet its internal needs?
·        What is the likely average annual cost for a private Minneapolis resident to use the wireless broadband system?
·        What would be the cost per square mile to build a privately-owned system?
 
This is the bottom line: would the long-term costs of the proposed privately-owned wi-fi network be greater or less than a public ownership model, for the City and its residents?
After such a study we can examine if the current course is the right one. If we do affirm that it is in our best interest to move forward with the current plan let’s do so with the public, City staff, and elected officials working across jurisdictional lines engaged together in drafting the contract, crafting a Community Benefits Agreement and answering these additional questions:
·        What “community requirements” ought to be negotiated into the final agreement? 
·        How can our neighborhood associations, governmental jurisdictions, City departments and other community-based organizations make the most optimal use of this network?  What are the vendors prepared to offer to ensure this?
·        What kind of community based content will be featured in this system (Community portals, links to community media services like the Daily Planet, etc.)?
·        Should there be an “exit clause” for the city if at any time the vendor fails to live up to the agreement? 
·        Should the city reserve the right to “buy out” the vendor and take control of the system (like a “first option to purchase” or a “right of first refusal agreement”)?
As we embark on this new and exciting venture let us do so thoughtfully with residents, businesses and government moving forward as partners. The decisions we make now will likely have far reaching and long lasting effects on the success or failure, value and usefulness of this promising technology for decades to come.
***