Fifth Utility FAQ draft

The U.S. is now 16th in broadband penetration.

Q: Why does our city need fiber optic Interet infrastructure?

A: For the same reason it needs roads, water, waste treatment and electricity. The Internet is becoming a "fifth utility" no less essential than those other four. Fiber optic cabling is the best form of "pipe" for carrying the Net. It is also the most "green" and has enormous capacity. One fiber optic pair can carry thousands -- even millions -- of times more data than any form of copper wiring, or any form of wireless connection.

Q: Why not do wireless infrastructure instead of fiber?

A: Because fiber is best suited for infrastructure while wireless is best suited for "last acre" deployment. Even cities opting for wireless delivery to homes and businesses still need to connect to fiber "backbones." If cities want to deliver maximum Net capacity to everybody, however, fiber is the best way to do that -- because it has the most capacity. And it is easier to add wireless to fiber infrastructure than vice versa.

Q: Isn't the Internet just a service we already get from cable or phone companies?

A: No. The Net is a pure infrastructural utility, like water and electric power. The Internet cares no more about how you use it than your electric outlets care what you plug into them, or than your water faucet cares about whether you're washing dishes or filling a cup.

The Internet is not itself a "service." It's a means for transporting data between devices anywhere -- without regard for the distance between them or the routes between them or the contents of the communications over those distances. It was also designed with an "end-to-end" architecture, which makes the "middle" of the network as transparent, uncomplicated and cost-free as possible.

The Internet is what some technologists call a "stupid" network. That is, one designed to support intelligence at its ends, as simply and "stupidly" as possible.

This makes it radically different than telephone, cable TV and every other kind of familiar network. It does not exist for its own sake, or for one particular kind of use. It exists to support whatever anybody wants to build on it, or use it for. Without costing anything for itself.

Yet the Internet itself is not inherently scarce -- as are water, electricity and roads. The Internet was designed as way to remove distance between every computing device. There is no "long distance" to the Interent. Once a device is "on" the Net, it is zero distance from every other device in the world that's also on the Net. That's because the Net was designed so the distance between any two keyboards in the world is no greater than the distance between those keyboards and their screens.

The Net has been compared to a "giant 3-D zero" because it puts everybody and everything zero distance from everybody and everything else.

Q: Doesn't the Net cost money to operate?

A: Yes, it does. But the cost is more like roads than like phone or cable TV. There are maintenance costs. There are costs for real estate, and for facilities that house routers and other necessary gear. There is also a need to pay the companies that own the Net's long "backbone" trunks. As more competition develops among backbone companies, those costs will come down. As for the cost of the Net itself, we're mostly talking about light blinking into fiber optic "pipes". Unlike electricity, this light has no physical effect on the cabling it runs through. "Dark" fiber is physically no different than "lit" fiber. That's why it's so "green." It generates no heat, no static, no stray radio waves, no interference to other equipment.

As for the "last mile" and "last acre" of copper and wireless service, it's

Q: Isn't what we get from the telephone and cable companies good enough? We have email. We can browse the Web. We can do instant messaging. We can search on Google and buy stuff from Amazon.

A: The phone and cable companies deserve credit for offering Internet services, and contributing to the expanded reach of the Net. But it is important to understand two things. First, the Net is far more than just an extra service provided by telephone and cable companies -- even though that's how those companies sell and bill for it. Second, the Internet is a third-priority offering for both telephone and cable companies. Right now telcos and cablecos are working much harder at getting into each others' core businesses than they are at expanding Internet services.

Q: If the Net is fundamental communications infrastructure, doesn't that threaten telephone and cable companies?

A: The Net is definitely a threat to traditional telephone and cable *businesses*. That's because audio and video are just forms of data. Anybody can talk to anybody over the Net for free, anywhere in the world. And anybody can send video to anybody, for free, anywhere in the world.

But in fact the Net presents enormous opportunities to telephone and cable companies -- opportunities to provide countless services in addition to their traditional ones. That's because there is no limit to what you can do with the Net. And there is no limit to the advantages telephone and cable companies have, in the form of local facilities and existing relationships with thousands or millions of customers. Instead of being in one, two, or three businesses (the phone, cable and Net "triple play" businesses they're in now), these companies can offer an infinite variety of value-added services to individuals and companies and organizations that use the Net.

Q: Why do cities and counties need to build out Net infrastructure? Why not let the marketplace take care of it?

A: Unfortunately, the marketplace we have is limited to a regulated "duopoly" of telephone and cable companies, and neither side has shown much interest in putting Net build-out ahead of their core businesses. In fact, they have from the beginning crippled Net services, and there is no sign that they'll stop doing that. Both telephone and cable operators have powerful lobbying forces in Washington, and at the state level as well, working to protect their traditional businesses from the "threat" of Internet growth.

While the Internet was born in the U.S., neither our federal government nor its protected communications monopolies have shown much interest in the Net's development. Nor have they paid much attention to how well the Internet supports and sustains economic growth. Other countries -- Korea, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands and France, for example -- have encouraged Net build-out for most of the last decade. As a result, the U.S. is now 16th in "broadband" penetration. By deciding to leave Net build-out to the monopolists who feel threatened by it, our federal and state governments have assured limits on our economic growth, and have reduced our competitiveness in the world marketplace.

Q: How have the carriers crippled our Internet service?

A: The Internet was designed as a symmetrical system. That means the "upstream" and "downstream" speeds should be the same. That's the kind of Internet connection we find in universities, and inside large companies. But it's not what the telephone and cable companies provide to our homes and small businesses. What we get is asymmetrical: much higher downstream than upstream. Your basic Cox connection, for example, is 3Mb down and 300Kb up. That's a 10-to-1 difference. You'll find a similar difference with Verizon's DSL, which is really called ADSL. The A stands for asymmetrical.

The reasons are not necessarily bad ones. Most of us consume far more data than we produce. This is especially true when we download large graphical files, watch a YouTube video or listen to the live stream of a radio station over the Net. The carriers have optimized their systems for asymmetries between production and consumption.

The problem is, these asymmetrical lines isolate everybody in a consumer role, and prevent us from becoming producers as well. This limitation is compounded by what are called "port blockages." This is where our phone or cable company prevents us from setting up our own Web server, or running our own mail server. Again, they have some good reasons for blocking the ports on our computers that those services could run on. Spammers, for example, can take advantage of open mail server ports on our computers. But these port blockages also prevent all kinds of uses, including the ability to set up home businesses of many kinds.

So, instead of, say, offering services that aid in the development of small and home businesses, the carriers just shut off possibilities to avoid hassles that might distract from their focus on their core phone and cable TV businesses.

There is also, in both the telephone and cable businesses, a traditional high-charge orientation toward business customers. If you're a business, they want to charge you a lot more money for the same level of service provided to "consumers" that produce nothing other than a monthly payment. The carriers will talk about providing a higher grade of service for the money, but the costs are so high that they drive businesses away. As a result businesses don't take advantage of what the Net has to offer. They buy the lowest-price offering and stick to browsing the Web and doing email.

If we provide pure open Internet infrastructure, there will be countless opportunities for companies to grow, and for service businesses to help those companies do that.

Q: Where does Santa Barbara stand, versus other cities and counties in the degree of Net build-out?

A: We're falling behind. That's because right now all the build-out is being done by our local duopoly -- Cox and Verizon -- and we're a low-priority region for both of those companies. Santa Barbara is the smallest market Cox serves, and -- from what we gather -- all of Cox's other markets get expanded Internet services before we do. Meanwhile, Verizon is rolling out a fiber optic service called FiOS (which is optimized for television rather than Internet) in many communities across the country. Santa Barbara is not one of those communities, and it doesn't appear we will be any time soon.

This is why we are taking up the challenge of building out our own fiber infrastructure.

Q: Isn't this a case of government competing with private industry?

A: No. It's a case of citizens finding a way to do what a protected duopoly cannot. What we are doing is also not competitive. We want to open our new fiber infrastructure to use by anybody, including Cox and Verizon. We have their interests at heart too. Both companies have been good corporate citizens for many years, and we respect that. By building out pure Net infrastructure -- rather than competing cable TV and phone systems -- we are protecting and supporting their core businesses.

Q: Isn't this different than what we're seeing in other cities across the country, which are rolling out "triple play" fiber systems that do compete with cable and phone companies?

A: Yes, it is. By just installing the "transport", and leaving the services up to other parties (including the phone and cable companies), we are doing two things. First, we're saving money by not getting into businesses and facilities that actually cost a lot to start and maintain. Second, we are treating the Net as the simple utility it needs to be. As a city, we know how to maintain roads, water treatment and waste facilities, and so on. We also know how those support businesses rather than compete with them.

Q: What will it cost to bring fiber optic cabling to homes and businesses?

A: We have estimates of up to $2500 per "drop." But the cost of fiber optic cabling itself is actually less than the labor cost of burying it in the ground or hanging it from poles. There is much we can do to drive costs down for the city, and make it easy for citizens to connect to the network as they need it. For example, we can require that conduit and fiber be put in the ground everywhere a trench is dug. We can hang fiber on poles first and work out the individual drops later. We can create a regulatory and procedural environment that encourages citizens and local businesses to build their own neighborhood fiber networks, which we can then connect to our citizen-owned "backbone" whenever they're ready. We would love to create an environment where local businesses do much of the build-out, and make money in the process.

Q: If you're not selling phone and cable TV services, how are you going to pay back the cost of installing the fiber cabling?

A: We'll have to approach this the same way we approach building out any new public infrastructure -- just as we did when we built the Lake Gibralter and Cachuma water systems, our waste treatment plants, our roads. We need to think creatively about this, but also take advantage of what we already know about building utility infrastructure.

Q: What do you expect will be the economic benefits of this?

A: We can begin to hint at those by looking back at what the Internet has done for our lives, and our economies, over the last ten years or more -- and multiplying it by countless citizens and businesses that are finally able to do what they want with a Net infrastructure that truly supports it.

Right now Santa Barbara is in serious threat of becoming pidgeon-holed as a resort and retiree community and a Hamptons for Los Angeles. It's easy to forget that Santa Barbara has an enormous and diverse community of professionals in technical, medical and other specialties. It is sometimes said that the largest employer in Santa Barbara is "self." Hundreds or perhaps thousands of people here work in Hollywood or Silicon Valley or Wall Street without commuting there -- thanks to the Internet. Many of those professionals will be able to perform at much higher capacities with faster and more capable Net connections.

Independent film and video production (which is now all-digital) is sure to blossom here, as soon as we create the infrastructure to support it.

Mediccal care today depends increasingly on high-speed and high-quality Internet connectivity. X-ray and MRI images can be shared with medical specialists elsewhere. Even surgery, which is increasingly done by surgeons manipulating digitally-controlled instruments while looking at digital screens -- can be performed live over the Net.

There is no limit to what can be seen and done, once we free ourselves from the notion that the Net is just gravy on top of telephone and cable TV -- and realize that it is now essential infrastructure for civilization itself.

Our goal -- to become the most connected city in the country -- may not seem modest, but it is. Compared to the cost of building out any other form of base infrastructure, fiber is cheap. It also lasts longer and needs less maintenance. And the upside for everybody is beyond measure.

Q: Are there any downsides to building this out?

No. And that's the real bottom line.

Q: What is Broadband?
A: Broadband has been defined by the FCC as any network connection above 300Kbps
(300,000 Bits Per Second). More realistically however, it is usually defined in terms of MEGA bits per second (1,000,000 bps); typically this is in the 100 Mbps range.

Q: Is speed the only factor?
A: No. Another important factor is the aspect of symmetry. Current services sold in the US are often asymmetrical, meaning that the download speed is much higher than the upload speed. This severely restricts the ability to participate, effectively building-in a one-way mechanism. The Net is a marketplace, which of course requires participation.

Q: Why is Muni networking important?
A: The Net has become a major factor in keeping an economy vibrant. Moreover, in the global marketplace, we are competing not just with US cities, but those around the world. Regions which do not have widespread networks comparable to those being built in the most advanced countries are bound to suffer.

Q: Why can't the telco's and cableco's provide the necessary infrastructure?
A: The Net is not a value-added service to either the telephony, or the cable-vision industries. Although the Net began in this country by using the telephony infrastructure (and more recently the cable infrastructure), it is not suited to either. Just as the horse-drawn carriage-works industry was not suited to cars, the cable and telephony carriers are not suited to the Net.

Q: What infrastructure in needed?
A: The most future-proof infrastructure is fiber. Each year there are new developments which increase the already amazing carrying capacity of a single strand of fiber (and the min # of strands pulled today is 148).

Q: What about Wireless ("Wi-fi")?
A: Although wi-fi is useful for certain cases, it still needs to be connected to fiber uplinks. Each square mile requires approx 25 access points (or "nodes") and for every 6 nodes, one needs to be linked into the fiber.

Q: Why should the government start competing with businesses? Isn't this unfair?
A: No one suggests that the airlines should own airports, or trucking companies own the roads. In the same vein, the infrastructure for something as crucial as the Net should be open for any business to provide services over it.

Q: What is Net Neutrality, and how does it relate to community networking?
A: Net neutrality is the notion that there should not be discrimination or preferential treatment given to any traffic or "packets" on the network. Just as free speech is a fundamental tenet of our society, open and non-discriminatory carriage is crucial to the Net.

Q: How many communities in the US are building networks?
A: As of Nov 2006, the estimate is between 400 and 800 (need to get more accurate #)

Lot's missing, but that's it for now. I'm sitting in Tottenham Court in Ojai (just dropped a basestation on them so I can use their DSL while the kids play tennis).

kdb