From rob at omsoft.com Sun Jun 2 10:03:48 2019 From: rob at omsoft.com (Robert Nickerson) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:03:48 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> Hi Drama! The first time I met DC he was negative on municipal broadband, and has refused to meet with DavisGIG. Other residents have talked to him on the subject and? they report him as very pessimistic and negative. He ha as hardened it seems. There is language used here that I heard about a month ago from a report on one of those meetings, and so he seems determined to shut it down, and has likely convinced the rest of the CC to do the same. To get him so agitated to put out such a strong hit piece means something. The city staff report too is trying to shut this off hard at the next meeting. Methinks they doth protest too much.? Whether is covering for the Comcast franchise debacle, or huge corporations are their friends, or a personality conflict I cant say. Here is a link to the OpEd you all helped create that went live this morning: https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/commentary-kicking-the-tires-on-broadband/ At this point, I'm carrying on with my final letters to CC today, will speak at the meeting, but we will have to see where it goes from there. It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. Any thoughts? Take Care RAN --- Commentary: Municipal broadband network would be a huge risk By Dan Carson Special to The Enterprise This Tuesday, the Broadband Advisory Task Force will step forward with its final comments on whether the city of Davis should build and operate a municipal fiber network that could bring higher broadband speeds and new services and technology to our community. BATF?s community broadband advocates wrapped up three years of hard work as citizen volunteers with a letter endorsing such a venture in concept. The panel did not offer a specific plan to accomplish their dream, calling instead for more financial and technical studies of building such a system. All Davis citizens should read and consider the conclusions of BATF and its response by city staff. I welcome their advice and thank them for their public service. But don?t just read their latest letter ? read all of the information the task force produced. Under the auspices of BATF, the city hired one of the top teams of telecom experts in the country, CCG Consulting and Finley Engineering, to assess the feasibility of a municipal fiber network in Davis and whether local residents would sign up for it. They determined that a municipal broadband project would be costly and risky and that community interest in committing to pay for such a service is weak. Specifically, they found that: * Building such a network in Davis would be costly. The entire system would have to be buried underground. Our high population density means conduit and fiber must be laid down both sides of residential streets, instead of the customary one side. High labor costs would boost construction and operating costs. * The total cost of construction would exceed $100 million, comparable to the cost of a new water system or sewage treatment plant. Bond issuance fees, working capital, capitalized interest and a debt service reserve would bump up borrowing costs for construction to as much as $140 million. * Similar ventures have failed in Monticello, Minn., Crawfordsville, Ind., and Alameda. * Because investors view broadband revenue bonds as pretty risky, the city might have to pursue a general obligation bond (requiring two-thirds voter approval) and make our General Fund a backstop for paying off bonds if the broadband venture failed. That could put pressure on the funding source used to pay for police, fire, parks, and roads. * Even under fairly optimistic assumptions about the number of customers who would sign up for municipal fiber, the consultants said, ?the financial projections for building fiber within the city were not as good as the city had hoped for.? Operating losses would occur on Day 1 and range from $34 million to $81 million over 25 years. Competitive pressures mean that the system would be unable to charge higher rates to customers to match Davis? higher costs. * Because customer fees would likely fall short of supporting a municipal fiber system, the city would have to seek voter approval for a tax hike to provide between $33 million and $60 million in taxpayer subsidies. A sales tax increase of a half-cent or more is considered most likely. Locking up tax money for a municipal fiber system would require two-thirds voter approval. The consultants said winning over Davis voters, who recently rejected a parcel tax hike for road repairs, ?would undoubtedly require a major effort to educate the public and get community buy-in.? * Comcast, our biggest local broadband provider, has a track record of cutting rates and improving its bundled services to crowd out competitors. A Davis municipal broadband network might need even more public taxpayer dollars to compete. * Davis has good broadband options today, even without the development of a municipal fiber system. Comcast is now advertising 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps internet download speeds in their ?Gigabit? and ?Gigabit Pro? packages. Only 16 percent of Davis residents are unhappy with their internet services. * A college town could be tough for Davis broadband, with students likely to be fickle customers. Moreover, large student apartment complexes in Davis have locked in long-term deals with various private providers for internet and cable services, and Comcast and AT&T are moving aggressively to lure more such customers. * Only 21 percent of Davis residents said they would definitely buy their service from a city system. ?This is significantly lower than what we have seen in other markets,? the consultants stated, and ?indicates a market that is not massively unhappy with the incumbent providers and not wildly enthusiastic about fiber. It?s a market where a new provider would need to prove themselves and expend significant marketing effort to win over customers.? Recent developments make a large public investment in broadband seem more risky than ever in a highly competitive, and increasingly disruptive, broadband marketplace. The FCC last year opened the gates for cellular wireless 5G service by imposing strict time limits for cities to allow the installation of 5G equipment on utility and light poles. Two companies have already filed permits to establish 5G networks in the city of Davis ? permits it has no legal choice but to approve. And, the master of all business disrupters, Amazon, has begun launching thousands of low-level satellites into orbit capable of providing broadband worldwide. Competitors like SpaceX**are hot on their heels. Broadband technology is morphing rapidly and the market is fragmenting. Despite the troubling findings in the CCG and Finley Engineering reports, task force members remain steadfast in their support of the concept of a municipal fiber system. They are asking the city to spend more money on studying such ideas as building a municipal fiber network in stages or levying assessments instead of taxes to pay for it. I look forward to hearing more about these ideas, but worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle in which construction starts only to find out that the rest of the money needed to finish a network isn?t coming. Davis could end up building a ?network to nowhere.? Imposing citywide assessments or taxes could force Davis consumers who want to keep their Comcast or AT&T bundles to pay a second time for a municipal broadband system they don?t want. That doesn?t seem fair. Nobody disputes the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation and addressing the digital divide. The question is, how do we get these benefits without saddling our taxpayers with huge financial risks? We already face an $8 million a year funding gap for basic city services over the next 20 years. This Tuesday, I would also like to get the community?s feedback on a different approach I call, ?If you can?t beat ?em, join ?em.? Instead of further studies of municipal broadband, should we explore how we can forge innovative partnerships with the private sector and UC Davis to foster high-speed broadband competition that will improve service and reduce monthly bills for Davis businesses and residents? On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 10:42:45 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson wrote: Hi I'd get your coments in early. They dont want to be reading this stuff at the last minute. As this could be our last hurrah, Im sending 3 emails, past present future. Attached is the first one, I hope to have the others out tonight. Is this too strong or? offensive a thing to say something like: "City Staff has been wrong all along. Harriet was wrong about Comcast. Astound on consent with no BATF input was wrong. This staff report analysis of municipal fiber is also wrong...etc" On 6/1/2019 10:26 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: To facilitate this process I have attached three Word documents (1) the original BATF memo to Council from 2018, (2) the side-by-side discussion document that has what Chris proposed as the text of the second BATF memo to Council on the left, and (most of) the suggested revisions on the right,. (3) the various suggestions provided by BATF members in the April BATF members Being able to copy and paste from those documents should help avoid unnecessary retyping between now and Tuesday. Matt On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 8:35:07 AM PDT, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: Good suggestion Jim. I will try to talk with Lori about that today. > On May 31, 2019, at 10:13 PM, Jim Frame > wrote: > > Mike Webb made it clear to me that city staff isn't going to solicit a contract from Lori Raineri unless the CC directs them to do so.? My suggestion would be for Lori to draft a contract, package it with a CV and a cover letter, and submit it to Mike with cc's to the councilmembers.? Although it's too late to get that onto the Tuesday agenda, it would introduce the city players to the possibility.? Even a letter of intent from Lori (along with a CV; that's important because Mike told me doesn't know anything about her) would be better than nothing. > > On 5/31/2019 1:05 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >> The BATF did recommend working with a muni finance expert on funding options, that was one of the two next steps recommended, it just didn?t name Lori. >>> On May 31, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Robert Nickerson >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Since it didn't come from the BATF the city wont consider it. If we could get actual BATF members to sign off on it they might be more receptive. >>> >>> As a BATF member how do you feel about Staff seemingly going totally against the BATF recommendation as expressed in? its letter? Anything we 'd need to do should be sent out by tomorrow am at the latest. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> RAN >>> >>> On 5/31/2019 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>>> Just thinking out loud, but in the interest of time I?ll send these initial thoughts for y?all to react to. >>>> >>>> Staff is recommending the entire municipal effort be put to rest, and the big fear they?re playing on is cost. So my thought would be to bring CC a next step recommendation that costs almost nothing and could make the project seem more feasible from a cost perspective. That is, recommend that city execute a pro bono contract with Lori Raineri to explore and lay out potential financing approaches, working with a city staff person and a small group of citizen volunteers from among this email list, perhaps others. But small (3 people or so) so it can start moving quickly and minimize scheduling problems, and report back to CC in a couple months. I?d emphasize including someone with financing expertise (e.g., Matt, David) and focus narrowly on the funding aspects of the project rather than the technical. >>>> >>>> On a parallel track, it might make sense for a few more technically oriented folks (e.g., Rob, David, Jeff) to sketch out what would be needed from a consultant to address the second BATF recommended next step, the technical. I wouldn?t expect city staff to be working on this yet, since Diane did say they?re planning to come back with the Wave contract. But if CC approves step 1 to begin working formally with Lori, then we could have step 2 ready in a month or so, to lay out a rough SOW for a consultant on the technical, cost, etc. elements of the phased implementation. A main argument for Wave is that ?there is no other proposal on the table.? >>>> >>>> Other thoughts? >>>> >>>> ? Lorenzo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Robert Nickerson >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Folks >>>>> >>>>> Yowch folks, take a look at Diane Parro's staff report. It reads like it was written from the POV of a large incumbent carrier, lol. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose anything we send in support needs to counter Diane's points one at a time. There is absolutely no positive evidence about this presented in the staff report. >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas on how to go from here? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> RAN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: ??? [Davisgig] PLEASE READ Staff Report >>>>> Date: ??? Thu, 30 May 2019 22:10:13 -0700 >>>>> From: ??? rob > >>>>> To: davisgig at list.omsoft.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HI All >>>>> >>>>> The agenda is out and the staff report item on community broadband is out. I don't think we are going to have any luck as Diane Parro is saying this should be shut down. None of the points in this memo were covered at any BATF meetings, the product of which was the attached letter. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> RAN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> <08-Broadband-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> -- >>> Robert Nickerson >>> UCD Class of 1996 >>> CEO, Om Networks >>> >>> cell: 5308483865 >>> www.omsoft.com >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>> believed to be clean. >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >> believed to be clean. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jim Frame jhframe at dcn.org ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 530.756.8584 > Frame Surveying & Mapping? ? ? ? 609 A Street? ? ? ? Davis, CA 95616 > -----------------------< Davis Community Network >------------------- > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Robert Nickerson UCD Class of 1996 CEO, Om Networks cell: 5308483865 www.omsoft.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c2crawford at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 11:31:23 2019 From: c2crawford at gmail.com (Christine Crawford) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 11:31:23 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Davisgig Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559A4F5C-4636-4EF5-A821-B067A421B16A@gmail.com> I think a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that citywide municipal broadband is an expensive and significant undertaking with ?meh? public support from the statically valid survey. And to suggest a narrative that this is due instead to some conspiracy is irresponsible. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, davisgig-request at list.omsoft.com wrote: > > Send Davisgig mailing list submissions to > davisgig at list.omsoft.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > davisgig-request at list.omsoft.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > davisgig-owner at list.omsoft.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Davisgig digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise (Robert Nickerson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:03:48 -0700 > From: Robert Nickerson > To: Davis gig > Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise > Message-ID: <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f at omsoft.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Hi > > Drama! > > The first time I met DC he was negative on municipal broadband, and has > refused to meet with DavisGIG. Other residents have talked to him on the > subject and? they report him as very pessimistic and negative. He ha as > hardened it seems. There is language used here that I heard about a > month ago from a report on one of those meetings, and so he seems > determined to shut it down, and has likely convinced the rest of the CC > to do the same. > > To get him so agitated to put out such a strong hit piece means > something. The city staff report too is trying to shut this off hard at > the next meeting. > > Methinks they doth protest too much.? Whether is covering for the > Comcast franchise debacle, or huge corporations are their friends, or a > personality conflict I cant say. > > Here is a link to the OpEd you all helped create that went live this > morning: > > https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/commentary-kicking-the-tires-on-broadband/ > > At this point, I'm carrying on with my final letters to CC today, will > speak at the meeting, but we will have to see where it goes from there. > It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this > at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. > > Any thoughts? > > Take Care > > RAN > > > > > --- > > > Commentary: Municipal broadband network would be a huge risk > > > By Dan Carson > Special to The Enterprise > > This Tuesday, the Broadband Advisory Task Force will step forward with > its final comments on whether the city of Davis should build and operate > a municipal fiber network that could bring higher broadband speeds and > new services and technology to our community. > > BATF?s community broadband advocates wrapped up three years of hard work > as citizen volunteers with a letter endorsing such a venture in concept. > The panel did not offer a specific plan to accomplish their dream, > calling instead for more financial and technical studies of building > such a system. All Davis citizens should read and consider the > conclusions of BATF and its response by city staff. I welcome their > advice and thank them for their public service. > > But don?t just read their latest letter ? read all of the information > the task force produced. Under the auspices of BATF, the city hired one > of the top teams of telecom experts in the country, CCG Consulting and > Finley Engineering, to assess the feasibility of a municipal fiber > network in Davis and whether local residents would sign up for it. They > determined that a municipal broadband project would be costly and risky > and that community interest in committing to pay for such a service is > weak. Specifically, they found that: > > * Building such a network in Davis would be costly. The entire system > would have to be buried underground. Our high population density means > conduit and fiber must be laid down both sides of residential streets, > instead of the customary one side. High labor costs would boost > construction and operating costs. > > * The total cost of construction would exceed $100 million, comparable > to the cost of a new water system or sewage treatment plant. Bond > issuance fees, working capital, capitalized interest and a debt service > reserve would bump up borrowing costs for construction to as much as > $140 million. > > * Similar ventures have failed in Monticello, Minn., Crawfordsville, > Ind., and Alameda. > > * Because investors view broadband revenue bonds as pretty risky, the > city might have to pursue a general obligation bond (requiring > two-thirds voter approval) and make our General Fund a backstop for > paying off bonds if the broadband venture failed. That could put > pressure on the funding source used to pay for police, fire, parks, and > roads. > > * Even under fairly optimistic assumptions about the number of customers > who would sign up for municipal fiber, the consultants said, ?the > financial projections for building fiber within the city were not as > good as the city had hoped for.? Operating losses would occur on Day 1 > and range from $34 million to $81 million over 25 years. Competitive > pressures mean that the system would be unable to charge higher rates to > customers to match Davis? higher costs. > > * Because customer fees would likely fall short of supporting a > municipal fiber system, the city would have to seek voter approval for a > tax hike to provide between $33 million and $60 million in taxpayer > subsidies. A sales tax increase of a half-cent or more is considered > most likely. Locking up tax money for a municipal fiber system would > require two-thirds voter approval. The consultants said winning over > Davis voters, who recently rejected a parcel tax hike for road repairs, > ?would undoubtedly require a major effort to educate the public and get > community buy-in.? > > * Comcast, our biggest local broadband provider, has a track record of > cutting rates and improving its bundled services to crowd out > competitors. A Davis municipal broadband network might need even more > public taxpayer dollars to compete. > > * Davis has good broadband options today, even without the development > of a municipal fiber system. Comcast is now advertising 1 Gbps and 2 > Gbps internet download speeds in their ?Gigabit? and ?Gigabit Pro? > packages. Only 16 percent of Davis residents are unhappy with their > internet services. > > * A college town could be tough for Davis broadband, with students > likely to be fickle customers. Moreover, large student apartment > complexes in Davis have locked in long-term deals with various private > providers for internet and cable services, and Comcast and AT&T are > moving aggressively to lure more such customers. > > * Only 21 percent of Davis residents said they would definitely buy > their service from a city system. ?This is significantly lower than what > we have seen in other markets,? the consultants stated, and ?indicates a > market that is not massively unhappy with the incumbent providers and > not wildly enthusiastic about fiber. It?s a market where a new provider > would need to prove themselves and expend significant marketing effort > to win over customers.? > > Recent developments make a large public investment in broadband seem > more risky than ever in a highly competitive, and increasingly > disruptive, broadband marketplace. > > The FCC last year opened the gates for cellular wireless 5G service by > imposing strict time limits for cities to allow the installation of 5G > equipment on utility and light poles. Two companies have already filed > permits to establish 5G networks in the city of Davis ? permits it has > no legal choice but to approve. And, the master of all business > disrupters, Amazon, has begun launching thousands of low-level > satellites into orbit capable of providing broadband worldwide. > Competitors like SpaceX**are hot on their heels. Broadband technology is > morphing rapidly and the market is fragmenting. > > Despite the troubling findings in the CCG and Finley Engineering > reports, task force members remain steadfast in their support of the > concept of a municipal fiber system. They are asking the city to spend > more money on studying such ideas as building a municipal fiber network > in stages or levying assessments instead of taxes to pay for it. > > I look forward to hearing more about these ideas, but worry about a > bullet train-style boondoggle in which construction starts only to find > out that the rest of the money needed to finish a network isn?t coming. > Davis could end up building a ?network to nowhere.? Imposing citywide > assessments or taxes could force Davis consumers who want to keep their > Comcast or AT&T bundles to pay a second time for a municipal broadband > system they don?t want. That doesn?t seem fair. > > Nobody disputes the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for > economic development, education, technological innovation and addressing > the digital divide. The question is, how do we get these benefits > without saddling our taxpayers with huge financial risks? We already > face an $8 million a year funding gap for basic city services over the > next 20 years. > > This Tuesday, I would also like to get the community?s feedback on a > different approach I call, ?If you can?t beat ?em, join ?em.? Instead of > further studies of municipal broadband, should we explore how we can > forge innovative partnerships with the private sector and UC Davis to > foster high-speed broadband competition that will improve service and > reduce monthly bills for Davis businesses and residents? > > > > On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 10:42:45 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson > wrote: > > > Hi > > I'd get your coments in early. They dont want to be reading this stuff > at the last minute. > > As this could be our last hurrah, Im sending 3 emails, past present future. > > Attached is the first one, I hope to have the others out tonight. > > > Is this too strong or? offensive a thing to say something like: > > "City Staff has been wrong all along. Harriet was wrong about Comcast. > Astound on consent with no BATF input was wrong. This staff report > analysis of municipal fiber is also wrong...etc" > > > On 6/1/2019 10:26 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: > To facilitate this process I have attached three Word documents > > (1) the original BATF memo to Council from 2018, > (2) the side-by-side discussion document that has what Chris > proposed as the text of the second BATF memo to Council on the > left, and (most of) the suggested revisions on the right,. > (3) the various suggestions provided by BATF members in the > April BATF members > > Being able to copy and paste from those documents should help avoid > unnecessary retyping between now and Tuesday. > > Matt > > > On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 8:35:07 AM PDT, Lorenzo Kristov > wrote: > > > Good suggestion Jim. I will try to talk with Lori about that today. > > >> On May 31, 2019, at 10:13 PM, Jim Frame > wrote: >> >> Mike Webb made it clear to me that city staff isn't going to solicit > a contract from Lori Raineri unless the CC directs them to do so.? My > suggestion would be for Lori to draft a contract, package it with a CV > and a cover letter, and submit it to Mike with cc's to the > councilmembers.? Although it's too late to get that onto the Tuesday > agenda, it would introduce the city players to the possibility.? Even a > letter of intent from Lori (along with a CV; that's important because > Mike told me doesn't know anything about her) would be better than nothing. >> >>> On 5/31/2019 1:05 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>> The BATF did recommend working with a muni finance expert on funding > options, that was one of the two next steps recommended, it just didn?t > name Lori. >>>> On May 31, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Robert Nickerson >> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Since it didn't come from the BATF the city wont consider it. If we > could get actual BATF members to sign off on it they might be more > receptive. >>>> >>>> As a BATF member how do you feel about Staff seemingly going > totally against the BATF recommendation as expressed in? its letter? > Anything we 'd need to do should be sent out by tomorrow am at the latest. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> RAN >>>> >>>>> On 5/31/2019 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>>>> Just thinking out loud, but in the interest of time I?ll send > these initial thoughts for y?all to react to. >>>>> >>>>> Staff is recommending the entire municipal effort be put to rest, > and the big fear they?re playing on is cost. So my thought would be to > bring CC a next step recommendation that costs almost nothing and could > make the project seem more feasible from a cost perspective. That is, > recommend that city execute a pro bono contract with Lori Raineri to > explore and lay out potential financing approaches, working with a city > staff person and a small group of citizen volunteers from among this > email list, perhaps others. But small (3 people or so) so it can start > moving quickly and minimize scheduling problems, and report back to CC > in a couple months. I?d emphasize including someone with financing > expertise (e.g., Matt, David) and focus narrowly on the funding aspects > of the project rather than the technical. >>>>> >>>>> On a parallel track, it might make sense for a few more > technically oriented folks (e.g., Rob, David, Jeff) to sketch out what > would be needed from a consultant to address the second BATF recommended > next step, the technical. I wouldn?t expect city staff to be working on > this yet, since Diane did say they?re planning to come back with the > Wave contract. But if CC approves step 1 to begin working formally with > Lori, then we could have step 2 ready in a month or so, to lay out a > rough SOW for a consultant on the technical, cost, etc. elements of the > phased implementation. A main argument for Wave is that ?there is no > other proposal on the table.? >>>>> >>>>> Other thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> ? Lorenzo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Robert Nickerson >> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Folks >>>>>> >>>>>> Yowch folks, take a look at Diane Parro's staff report. It reads > like it was written from the POV of a large incumbent carrier, lol. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suppose anything we send in support needs to counter Diane's > points one at a time. There is absolutely no positive evidence about > this presented in the staff report. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any ideas on how to go from here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> RAN >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: ??? [Davisgig] PLEASE READ Staff Report >>>>>> Date: ??? Thu, 30 May 2019 22:10:13 -0700 >>>>>> From: ??? rob > >>>>>> To: davisgig at list.omsoft.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HI All >>>>>> >>>>>> The agenda is out and the staff report item on community > broadband is out. I don't think we are going to have any luck as Diane > Parro is saying this should be shut down. None of the points in this > memo were covered at any BATF meetings, the product of which was the > attached letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> RAN >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* > , and is >>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>> <08-Broadband-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , > and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>> -- >>>> Robert Nickerson >>>> UCD Class of 1996 >>>> CEO, Om Networks >>>> >>>> cell: 5308483865 >>>> www.omsoft.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , > and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , > and is >>> believed to be clean. >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Jim Frame jhframe at dcn.org ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > 530.756.8584 >> Frame Surveying & Mapping? ? ? ? 609 A Street? ? ? ? Davis, CA 95616 >> -----------------------< Davis Community Network >------------------- >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > -- > Robert Nickerson > UCD Class of 1996 > CEO, Om Networks > > cell: 5308483865 > www.omsoft.com > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > > The Davis Gig Wiki > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Davisgig Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 > *************************************** From tjswift at omsoft.com Sun Jun 2 13:23:28 2019 From: tjswift at omsoft.com (Ted Swift) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 13:23:28 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Davisgig Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <559A4F5C-4636-4EF5-A821-B067A421B16A@gmail.com> References: <559A4F5C-4636-4EF5-A821-B067A421B16A@gmail.com> Message-ID: It may not be a formal conspiracy, but presenting municipal broadband as hugely expensive overlooks that Comcast would be extracting an equivalent amount of money from Davis, with no guarantee of actual responsiveness. DC writes of ?partnership with private industry?, but it?s really ?a captive market paying through the nose to a monopoly?. I?ve avoided renting cable for that very reason: ITS monthly costs are too high. -Ted > On Jun 2, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Christine Crawford wrote: > > I think a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that citywide municipal broadband is an expensive and significant undertaking with ?meh? public support from the statically valid survey. And to suggest a narrative that this is due instead to some conspiracy is irresponsible. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, davisgig-request at list.omsoft.com wrote: >> >> Send Davisgig mailing list submissions to >> davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> davisgig-request at list.omsoft.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> davisgig-owner at list.omsoft.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Davisgig digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise (Robert Nickerson) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:03:48 -0700 >> From: Robert Nickerson >> To: Davis gig >> Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise >> Message-ID: <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f at omsoft.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> Hi >> >> Drama! >> >> The first time I met DC he was negative on municipal broadband, and has >> refused to meet with DavisGIG. Other residents have talked to him on the >> subject and? they report him as very pessimistic and negative. He ha as >> hardened it seems. There is language used here that I heard about a >> month ago from a report on one of those meetings, and so he seems >> determined to shut it down, and has likely convinced the rest of the CC >> to do the same. >> >> To get him so agitated to put out such a strong hit piece means >> something. The city staff report too is trying to shut this off hard at >> the next meeting. >> >> Methinks they doth protest too much.? Whether is covering for the >> Comcast franchise debacle, or huge corporations are their friends, or a >> personality conflict I cant say. >> >> Here is a link to the OpEd you all helped create that went live this >> morning: >> >> https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/commentary-kicking-the-tires-on-broadband/ >> >> At this point, I'm carrying on with my final letters to CC today, will >> speak at the meeting, but we will have to see where it goes from there. >> It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this >> at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Take Care >> >> RAN >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> Commentary: Municipal broadband network would be a huge risk >> >> >> By Dan Carson >> Special to The Enterprise >> >> This Tuesday, the Broadband Advisory Task Force will step forward with >> its final comments on whether the city of Davis should build and operate >> a municipal fiber network that could bring higher broadband speeds and >> new services and technology to our community. >> >> BATF?s community broadband advocates wrapped up three years of hard work >> as citizen volunteers with a letter endorsing such a venture in concept. >> The panel did not offer a specific plan to accomplish their dream, >> calling instead for more financial and technical studies of building >> such a system. All Davis citizens should read and consider the >> conclusions of BATF and its response by city staff. I welcome their >> advice and thank them for their public service. >> >> But don?t just read their latest letter ? read all of the information >> the task force produced. Under the auspices of BATF, the city hired one >> of the top teams of telecom experts in the country, CCG Consulting and >> Finley Engineering, to assess the feasibility of a municipal fiber >> network in Davis and whether local residents would sign up for it. They >> determined that a municipal broadband project would be costly and risky >> and that community interest in committing to pay for such a service is >> weak. Specifically, they found that: >> >> * Building such a network in Davis would be costly. The entire system >> would have to be buried underground. Our high population density means >> conduit and fiber must be laid down both sides of residential streets, >> instead of the customary one side. High labor costs would boost >> construction and operating costs. >> >> * The total cost of construction would exceed $100 million, comparable >> to the cost of a new water system or sewage treatment plant. Bond >> issuance fees, working capital, capitalized interest and a debt service >> reserve would bump up borrowing costs for construction to as much as >> $140 million. >> >> * Similar ventures have failed in Monticello, Minn., Crawfordsville, >> Ind., and Alameda. >> >> * Because investors view broadband revenue bonds as pretty risky, the >> city might have to pursue a general obligation bond (requiring >> two-thirds voter approval) and make our General Fund a backstop for >> paying off bonds if the broadband venture failed. That could put >> pressure on the funding source used to pay for police, fire, parks, and >> roads. >> >> * Even under fairly optimistic assumptions about the number of customers >> who would sign up for municipal fiber, the consultants said, ?the >> financial projections for building fiber within the city were not as >> good as the city had hoped for.? Operating losses would occur on Day 1 >> and range from $34 million to $81 million over 25 years. Competitive >> pressures mean that the system would be unable to charge higher rates to >> customers to match Davis? higher costs. >> >> * Because customer fees would likely fall short of supporting a >> municipal fiber system, the city would have to seek voter approval for a >> tax hike to provide between $33 million and $60 million in taxpayer >> subsidies. A sales tax increase of a half-cent or more is considered >> most likely. Locking up tax money for a municipal fiber system would >> require two-thirds voter approval. The consultants said winning over >> Davis voters, who recently rejected a parcel tax hike for road repairs, >> ?would undoubtedly require a major effort to educate the public and get >> community buy-in.? >> >> * Comcast, our biggest local broadband provider, has a track record of >> cutting rates and improving its bundled services to crowd out >> competitors. A Davis municipal broadband network might need even more >> public taxpayer dollars to compete. >> >> * Davis has good broadband options today, even without the development >> of a municipal fiber system. Comcast is now advertising 1 Gbps and 2 >> Gbps internet download speeds in their ?Gigabit? and ?Gigabit Pro? >> packages. Only 16 percent of Davis residents are unhappy with their >> internet services. >> >> * A college town could be tough for Davis broadband, with students >> likely to be fickle customers. Moreover, large student apartment >> complexes in Davis have locked in long-term deals with various private >> providers for internet and cable services, and Comcast and AT&T are >> moving aggressively to lure more such customers. >> >> * Only 21 percent of Davis residents said they would definitely buy >> their service from a city system. ?This is significantly lower than what >> we have seen in other markets,? the consultants stated, and ?indicates a >> market that is not massively unhappy with the incumbent providers and >> not wildly enthusiastic about fiber. It?s a market where a new provider >> would need to prove themselves and expend significant marketing effort >> to win over customers.? >> >> Recent developments make a large public investment in broadband seem >> more risky than ever in a highly competitive, and increasingly >> disruptive, broadband marketplace. >> >> The FCC last year opened the gates for cellular wireless 5G service by >> imposing strict time limits for cities to allow the installation of 5G >> equipment on utility and light poles. Two companies have already filed >> permits to establish 5G networks in the city of Davis ? permits it has >> no legal choice but to approve. And, the master of all business >> disrupters, Amazon, has begun launching thousands of low-level >> satellites into orbit capable of providing broadband worldwide. >> Competitors like SpaceX**are hot on their heels. Broadband technology is >> morphing rapidly and the market is fragmenting. >> >> Despite the troubling findings in the CCG and Finley Engineering >> reports, task force members remain steadfast in their support of the >> concept of a municipal fiber system. They are asking the city to spend >> more money on studying such ideas as building a municipal fiber network >> in stages or levying assessments instead of taxes to pay for it. >> >> I look forward to hearing more about these ideas, but worry about a >> bullet train-style boondoggle in which construction starts only to find >> out that the rest of the money needed to finish a network isn?t coming. >> Davis could end up building a ?network to nowhere.? Imposing citywide >> assessments or taxes could force Davis consumers who want to keep their >> Comcast or AT&T bundles to pay a second time for a municipal broadband >> system they don?t want. That doesn?t seem fair. >> >> Nobody disputes the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for >> economic development, education, technological innovation and addressing >> the digital divide. The question is, how do we get these benefits >> without saddling our taxpayers with huge financial risks? We already >> face an $8 million a year funding gap for basic city services over the >> next 20 years. >> >> This Tuesday, I would also like to get the community?s feedback on a >> different approach I call, ?If you can?t beat ?em, join ?em.? Instead of >> further studies of municipal broadband, should we explore how we can >> forge innovative partnerships with the private sector and UC Davis to >> foster high-speed broadband competition that will improve service and >> reduce monthly bills for Davis businesses and residents? >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 10:42:45 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi >> >> I'd get your coments in early. They dont want to be reading this stuff >> at the last minute. >> >> As this could be our last hurrah, Im sending 3 emails, past present future. >> >> Attached is the first one, I hope to have the others out tonight. >> >> >> Is this too strong or? offensive a thing to say something like: >> >> "City Staff has been wrong all along. Harriet was wrong about Comcast. >> Astound on consent with no BATF input was wrong. This staff report >> analysis of municipal fiber is also wrong...etc" >> >> >> On 6/1/2019 10:26 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: >> To facilitate this process I have attached three Word documents >> >> (1) the original BATF memo to Council from 2018, >> (2) the side-by-side discussion document that has what Chris >> proposed as the text of the second BATF memo to Council on the >> left, and (most of) the suggested revisions on the right,. >> (3) the various suggestions provided by BATF members in the >> April BATF members >> >> Being able to copy and paste from those documents should help avoid >> unnecessary retyping between now and Tuesday. >> >> Matt >> >> >> On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 8:35:07 AM PDT, Lorenzo Kristov >> wrote: >> >> >> Good suggestion Jim. I will try to talk with Lori about that today. >> >> >>> On May 31, 2019, at 10:13 PM, Jim Frame > > wrote: >>> >>> Mike Webb made it clear to me that city staff isn't going to solicit >> a contract from Lori Raineri unless the CC directs them to do so.? My >> suggestion would be for Lori to draft a contract, package it with a CV >> and a cover letter, and submit it to Mike with cc's to the >> councilmembers.? Although it's too late to get that onto the Tuesday >> agenda, it would introduce the city players to the possibility.? Even a >> letter of intent from Lori (along with a CV; that's important because >> Mike told me doesn't know anything about her) would be better than nothing. >>> >>>> On 5/31/2019 1:05 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>>> The BATF did recommend working with a muni finance expert on funding >> options, that was one of the two next steps recommended, it just didn?t >> name Lori. >>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Robert Nickerson > >> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Since it didn't come from the BATF the city wont consider it. If we >> could get actual BATF members to sign off on it they might be more >> receptive. >>>>> >>>>> As a BATF member how do you feel about Staff seemingly going >> totally against the BATF recommendation as expressed in? its letter? >> Anything we 'd need to do should be sent out by tomorrow am at the latest. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> RAN >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/31/2019 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>>>>> Just thinking out loud, but in the interest of time I?ll send >> these initial thoughts for y?all to react to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Staff is recommending the entire municipal effort be put to rest, >> and the big fear they?re playing on is cost. So my thought would be to >> bring CC a next step recommendation that costs almost nothing and could >> make the project seem more feasible from a cost perspective. That is, >> recommend that city execute a pro bono contract with Lori Raineri to >> explore and lay out potential financing approaches, working with a city >> staff person and a small group of citizen volunteers from among this >> email list, perhaps others. But small (3 people or so) so it can start >> moving quickly and minimize scheduling problems, and report back to CC >> in a couple months. I?d emphasize including someone with financing >> expertise (e.g., Matt, David) and focus narrowly on the funding aspects >> of the project rather than the technical. >>>>>> >>>>>> On a parallel track, it might make sense for a few more >> technically oriented folks (e.g., Rob, David, Jeff) to sketch out what >> would be needed from a consultant to address the second BATF recommended >> next step, the technical. I wouldn?t expect city staff to be working on >> this yet, since Diane did say they?re planning to come back with the >> Wave contract. But if CC approves step 1 to begin working formally with >> Lori, then we could have step 2 ready in a month or so, to lay out a >> rough SOW for a consultant on the technical, cost, etc. elements of the >> phased implementation. A main argument for Wave is that ?there is no >> other proposal on the table.? >>>>>> >>>>>> Other thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> ? Lorenzo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Robert Nickerson > >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yowch folks, take a look at Diane Parro's staff report. It reads >> like it was written from the POV of a large incumbent carrier, lol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose anything we send in support needs to counter Diane's >> points one at a time. There is absolutely no positive evidence about >> this presented in the staff report. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any ideas on how to go from here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RAN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: ??? [Davisgig] PLEASE READ Staff Report >>>>>>> Date: ??? Thu, 30 May 2019 22:10:13 -0700 >>>>>>> From: ??? rob > >>>>>>> To: davisgig at list.omsoft.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HI All >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The agenda is out and the staff report item on community >> broadband is out. I don't think we are going to have any luck as Diane >> Parro is saying this should be shut down. None of the points in this >> memo were covered at any BATF meetings, the product of which was the >> attached letter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> RAN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* >> , and is >>>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>>> <08-Broadband-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , >> and is >>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> -- >>>>> Robert Nickerson >>>>> UCD Class of 1996 >>>>> CEO, Om Networks >>>>> >>>>> cell: 5308483865 >>>>> www.omsoft.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , >> and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , >> and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jim Frame jhframe at dcn.org ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> 530.756.8584 >>> Frame Surveying & Mapping? ? ? ? 609 A Street? ? ? ? Davis, CA 95616 >>> -----------------------< Davis Community Network >------------------- >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> >> believed to be clean. >> >> -- >> Robert Nickerson >> UCD Class of 1996 >> CEO, Om Networks >> >> cell: 5308483865 >> www.omsoft.com >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> The Davis Gig Wiki >> >> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start >> >> Davisgig mailing list >> Davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Davisgig Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2 >> *************************************** > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig ---------------------------- Ted Swift "The boundary is the best place to gain knowledge" tjswift at omsoft.com -Paul Tillich From mattwill at pacbell.net Sun Jun 2 13:41:39 2019 From: mattwill at pacbell.net (Matthews Williams) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 20:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> Message-ID: <972234112.7832107.1559508099575@mail.yahoo.com> I agree with Rob, Council member Carson's strategically timed OpEd is a clear indication that his position against Municipal Fiber has hardened.? He does seem determined to shut Municipal Fiber down.? Where Rob and I differ is in the statement "has likely convinced the rest of the CC to do the same."? I believe the opposite is true.? If Dan has truly convinced his fellow CC members there would be no necessity for the overt public lobbying of today's OpEd.? If there ever was atime to reach out to the five Council members (including Dan), now is the time.,? The e-mail address to reach all five at once is citycouncilmembers at cityofdavis.org I realize not everyone will agree, but reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably. Matt On Sunday, June 2, 2019, 10:03:56 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson wrote: Hi Drama! The first time I met DC he was negative on municipal broadband, and has refused to meet with DavisGIG. Other residents have talked to him on the subject and? they report him as very pessimistic and negative. He has hardened it seems. There is language used here that I heard about a month ago from a report on one of those meetings, and so he seems determined to shut it down, and has likely convinced the rest of the CC to do the same. To get him so agitated to put out such a strong hit piece means something. The city staff report too is trying to shut this off hard at the next meeting. Methinks they doth protest too much.? Whether is covering for the Comcast franchise debacle, or huge corporations are their friends, or a personality conflict I cant say.? Here is a link to the OpEd you all helped create that went live this morning: https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/commentary-kicking-the-tires-on-broadband/ At this point, I'm carrying on with my final letters to CC today, will speak at the meeting, but we will have to see where it goes from there. It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. Any thoughts? Take Care RAN --- Commentary: Municipal broadband network would be a huge risk By Dan Carson Special to The Enterprise This Tuesday, the Broadband Advisory Task Force will step forward with its final comments on whether the city of Davis should build and operate a municipal fiber network that could bring higher broadband speeds and new services and technology to our community. BATF?s community broadband advocates wrapped up three years of hard work as citizen volunteers with a letter endorsing such a venture in concept. The panel did not offer a specific plan to accomplish their dream, calling instead for more financial and technical studies of building such a system. All Davis citizens should read and consider the conclusions of BATF and its response by city staff. I welcome their advice and thank them for their public service. But don?t just read their latest letter ? read all of the information the task force produced. Under the auspices of BATF, the city hired one of the top teams of telecom experts in the country, CCG Consulting and Finley Engineering, to assess the feasibility of a municipal fiber network in Davis and whether local residents would sign up for it. They determined that a municipal broadband project would be costly and risky and that community interest in committing to pay for such a service is weak. Specifically, they found that: * Building such a network in Davis would be costly. The entire system would have to be buried underground. Our high population density means conduit and fiber must be laid down both sides of residential streets, instead of the customary one side. High labor costs would boost construction and operating costs. * The total cost of construction would exceed $100 million, comparable to the cost of a new water system or sewage treatment plant. Bond issuance fees, working capital, capitalized interest and a debt service reserve would bump up borrowing costs for construction to as much as $140 million. * Similar ventures have failed in Monticello, Minn., Crawfordsville, Ind., and Alameda. * Because investors view broadband revenue bonds as pretty risky, the city might have to pursue a general obligation bond (requiring two-thirds voter approval) and make our General Fund a backstop for paying off bonds if the broadband venture failed. That could put pressure on the funding source used to pay for police, fire, parks, and roads. * Even under fairly optimistic assumptions about the number of customers who would sign up for municipal fiber, the consultants said, ?the financial projections for building fiber within the city were not as good as the city had hoped for.? Operating losses would occur on Day 1 and range from $34 million to $81 million over 25 years. Competitive pressures mean that the system would be unable to charge higher rates to customers to match Davis? higher costs. * Because customer fees would likely fall short of supporting a municipal fiber system, the city would have to seek voter approval for a tax hike to provide between $33 million and $60 million in taxpayer subsidies. A sales tax increase of a half-cent or more is considered most likely. Locking up tax money for a municipal fiber system would require two-thirds voter approval. The consultants said winning over Davis voters, who recently rejected a parcel tax hike for road repairs, ?would undoubtedly require a major effort to educate the public and get community buy-in.? * Comcast, our biggest local broadband provider, has a track record of cutting rates and improving its bundled services to crowd out competitors. A Davis municipal broadband network might need even more public taxpayer dollars to compete. * Davis has good broadband options today, even without the development of a municipal fiber system. Comcast is now advertising 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps internet download speeds in their ?Gigabit? and ?Gigabit Pro? packages. Only 16 percent of Davis residents are unhappy with their internet services. * A college town could be tough for Davis broadband, with students likely to be fickle customers. Moreover, large student apartment complexes in Davis have locked in long-term deals with various private providers for internet and cable services, and Comcast and AT&T are moving aggressively to lure more such customers. * Only 21 percent of Davis residents said they would definitely buy their service from a city system. ?This is significantly lower than what we have seen in other markets,? the consultants stated, and ?indicates a market that is not massively unhappy with the incumbent providers and not wildly enthusiastic about fiber. It?s a market where a new provider would need to prove themselves and expend significant marketing effort to win over customers.? Recent developments make a large public investment in broadband seem more risky than ever in a highly competitive, and increasingly disruptive, broadband marketplace. The FCC last year opened the gates for cellular wireless 5G service by imposing strict time limits for cities to allow the installation of 5G equipment on utility and light poles. Two companies have already filed permits to establish 5G networks in the city of Davis ? permits it has no legal choice but to approve. And, the master of all business disrupters, Amazon, has begun launching thousands of low-level satellites into orbit capable of providing broadband worldwide. Competitors like SpaceX are hot on their heels. Broadband technology is morphing rapidly and the market is fragmenting. Despite the troubling findings in the CCG and Finley Engineering reports, task force members remain steadfast in their support of the concept of a municipal fiber system. They are asking the city to spend more money on studying such ideas as building a municipal fiber network in stages or levying assessments instead of taxes to pay for it. I look forward to hearing more about these ideas, but worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle in which construction starts only to find out that the rest of the money needed to finish a network isn?t coming. Davis could end up building a ?network to nowhere.? Imposing citywide assessments or taxes could force Davis consumers who want to keep their Comcast or AT&T bundles to pay a second time for a municipal broadband system they don?t want. That doesn?t seem fair. Nobody disputes the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation and addressing the digital divide. The question is, how do we get these benefits without saddling our taxpayers with huge financial risks? We already face an $8 million a year funding gap for basic city services over the next 20 years. This Tuesday, I would also like to get the community?s feedback on a different approach I call, ?If you can?t beat ?em, join ?em.? Instead of further studies of municipal broadband, should we explore how we can forge innovative partnerships with the private sector and UC Davis to foster high-speed broadband competition that will improve service and reduce monthly bills for Davis businesses and residents? On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 10:42:45 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson wrote: Hi I'd get your coments in early. They dont want to be reading this stuff at the last minute. As this could be our last hurrah, Im sending 3 emails, past present future. Attached is the first one, I hope to have the others out tonight. Is this too strong or? offensive a thing to say something like: "City Staff has been wrong all along. Harriet was wrong about Comcast. Astound on consent with no BATF input was wrong. This staff report analysis of municipal fiber is also wrong...etc" On 6/1/2019 10:26 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: To facilitate this process I have attached three Word documents (1) the original BATF memo to Council from 2018, (2) the side-by-side discussion document that has what Chris proposed as the text of the second BATF memo to Council on the left, and (most of) the suggested revisions on the right,.? (3) the various suggestions provided by BATF members in the April BATF members Being able to copy and paste from those documents should help avoid unnecessary retyping between now and Tuesday. Matt On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 8:35:07 AM PDT, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: Good suggestion Jim. I will try to talk with Lori about that today. > On May 31, 2019, at 10:13 PM, Jim Frame wrote: > > Mike Webb made it clear to me that city staff isn't going to solicit a contract from Lori Raineri unless the CC directs them to do so.? My suggestion would be for Lori to draft a contract, package it with a CV and a cover letter, and submit it to Mike with cc's to the councilmembers.? Although it's too late to get that onto the Tuesday agenda, it would introduce the city players to the possibility.? Even a letter of intent from Lori (along with a CV; that's important because Mike told me doesn't know anything about her) would be better than nothing. > > On 5/31/2019 1:05 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >> The BATF did recommend working with a muni finance expert on funding options, that was one of the two next steps recommended, it just didn?t name Lori. >>> On May 31, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Robert Nickerson > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Since it didn't come from the BATF the city wont consider it. If we could get actual BATF members to sign off on it they might be more receptive. >>> >>> As a BATF member how do you feel about Staff seemingly going totally against the BATF recommendation as expressed in? its letter? Anything we 'd need to do should be sent out by tomorrow am at the latest. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> RAN >>> >>> On 5/31/2019 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: >>>> Just thinking out loud, but in the interest of time I?ll send these initial thoughts for y?all to react to. >>>> >>>> Staff is recommending the entire municipal effort be put to rest, and the big fear they?re playing on is cost. So my thought would be to bring CC a next step recommendation that costs almost nothing and could make the project seem more feasible from a cost perspective. That is, recommend that city execute a pro bono contract with Lori Raineri to explore and lay out potential financing approaches, working with a city staff person and a small group of citizen volunteers from among this email list, perhaps others. But small (3 people or so) so it can start moving quickly and minimize scheduling problems, and report back to CC in a couple months. I?d emphasize including someone with financing expertise (e.g., Matt, David) and focus narrowly on the funding aspects of the project rather than the technical. >>>> >>>> On a parallel track, it might make sense for a few more technically oriented folks (e.g., Rob, David, Jeff) to sketch out what would be needed from a consultant to address the second BATF recommended next step, the technical. I wouldn?t expect city staff to be working on this yet, since Diane did say they?re planning to come back with the Wave contract. But if CC approves step 1 to begin working formally with Lori, then we could have step 2 ready in a month or so, to lay out a rough SOW for a consultant on the technical, cost, etc. elements of the phased implementation. A main argument for Wave is that ?there is no other proposal on the table.? >>>> >>>> Other thoughts? >>>> >>>> ? Lorenzo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Robert Nickerson > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Folks >>>>> >>>>> Yowch folks, take a look at Diane Parro's staff report. It reads like it was written from the POV of a large incumbent carrier, lol. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose anything we send in support needs to counter Diane's points one at a time. There is absolutely no positive evidence about this presented in the staff report. >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas on how to go from here? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> RAN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: ??? [Davisgig] PLEASE READ Staff Report >>>>> Date: ??? Thu, 30 May 2019 22:10:13 -0700 >>>>> From: ??? rob >>>>> To: ??? davisgig at list.omsoft.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HI All >>>>> >>>>> The agenda is out and the staff report item on community broadband is out. I don't think we are going to have any luck as Diane Parro is saying this should be shut down. None of the points in this memo were covered at any BATF meetings, the product of which was the attached letter. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> RAN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> <08-Broadband-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>> -- >>> Robert Nickerson >>> UCD Class of 1996 >>> CEO, Om Networks >>> >>> cell: 5308483865 >>> www.omsoft.com >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >>> believed to be clean. >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is >> believed to be clean. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jim Frame? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? jhframe at dcn.org? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 530.756.8584 > Frame Surveying & Mapping? ? ? ? 609 A Street? ? ? ? Davis, CA 95616 > -----------------------< Davis Community Network >------------------- > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Robert Nickerson UCD Class of 1996 CEO, Om Networks cell: 5308483865 www.omsoft.com _______________________________________________ Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start Davisgig mailing list Davisgig at list.omsoft.com http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dawalter at dcn.org Sun Jun 2 15:12:19 2019 From: dawalter at dcn.org (Douglas A. Walter) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 15:12:19 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <972234112.7832107.1559508099575@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <972234112.7832107.1559508099575@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi all. The Council can still chose to do much better than the staff's report. I am telling Council members that I am for what the BATF recommends, and that this is a terrible juncture at which to shut off the possibility of a Community-Owned Fiber-Optical Ring (COFOR). Whether such a less-expensive investment would ever be expanded is a fit subject for further study, by experts rather than a group of "stakeholders," as the BATF was. A COFOR would be open to expansion or connection to 100 percent of Davis' neighborhoods - at the right time, rather than ASAP, as was the model in the consultant's study of municipal broadband. Someone on Council needs to make a motion in pursuit of the Task Force's recommendations. I'll write more later, perhaps after I've written to Council. On Jun 2, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Matthews Williams wrote: > I agree with Rob, Council member Carson's strategically timed OpEd is a clear indication that his position against Municipal Fiber has hardened. He does seem determined to shut Municipal Fiber down. > > Where Rob and I differ is in the statement "has likely convinced the rest of the CC to do the same." I believe the opposite is true. If Dan has truly convinced his fellow CC members there would be no necessity for the overt public lobbying of today's OpEd. If there ever was atime to reach out to the five Council members (including Dan), now is the time., The e-mail address to reach all five at once is citycouncilmembers at cityofdavis.org > > I realize not everyone will agree, but reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably. > > Matt > > > > > On Sunday, June 2, 2019, 10:03:56 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson wrote: > > > Hi > Drama! > The first time I met DC he was negative on municipal broadband, and has refused to meet with DavisGIG. Other residents have talked to him on the subject and they report him as very pessimistic and negative. He has hardened it seems. There is language used here that I heard about a month ago from a report on one of those meetings, and so he seems determined to shut it down, and has likely convinced the rest of the CC to do the same. > To get him so agitated to put out such a strong hit piece means something. The city staff report too is trying to shut this off hard at the next meeting. > Methinks they doth protest too much. Whether is covering for the Comcast franchise debacle, or huge corporations are their friends, or a personality conflict I cant say. > Here is a link to the OpEd you all helped create that went live this morning: > > https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/commentary-kicking-the-tires-on-broadband/ > At this point, I'm carrying on with my final letters to CC today, will speak at the meeting, but we will have to see where it goes from there. It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. > Any thoughts? > Take Care > > RAN > > > > > > --- > > Commentary: Municipal broadband network would be a huge risk > > By Dan Carson > Special to The Enterprise > > This Tuesday, the Broadband Advisory Task Force will step forward with its final comments on whether the city of Davis should build and operate a municipal fiber network that could bring higher broadband speeds and new services and technology to our community. > > BATF?s community broadband advocates wrapped up three years of hard work as citizen volunteers with a letter endorsing such a venture in concept. The panel did not offer a specific plan to accomplish their dream, calling instead for more financial and technical studies of building such a system. All Davis citizens should read and consider the conclusions of BATF and its response by city staff. I welcome their advice and thank them for their public service. > > But don?t just read their latest letter ? read all of the information the task force produced. Under the auspices of BATF, the city hired one of the top teams of telecom experts in the country, CCG Consulting and Finley Engineering, to assess the feasibility of a municipal fiber network in Davis and whether local residents would sign up for it. They determined that a municipal broadband project would be costly and risky and that community interest in committing to pay for such a service is weak. Specifically, they found that: > > * Building such a network in Davis would be costly. The entire system would have to be buried underground. Our high population density means conduit and fiber must be laid down both sides of residential streets, instead of the customary one side. High labor costs would boost construction and operating costs. > > * The total cost of construction would exceed $100 million, comparable to the cost of a new water system or sewage treatment plant. Bond issuance fees, working capital, capitalized interest and a debt service reserve would bump up borrowing costs for construction to as much as $140 million. > > * Similar ventures have failed in Monticello, Minn., Crawfordsville, Ind., and Alameda. > > > * Because investors view broadband revenue bonds as pretty risky, the city might have to pursue a general obligation bond (requiring two-thirds voter approval) and make our General Fund a backstop for paying off bonds if the broadband venture failed. That could put pressure on the funding source used to pay for police, fire, parks, and roads. > > * Even under fairly optimistic assumptions about the number of customers who would sign up for municipal fiber, the consultants said, ?the financial projections for building fiber within the city were not as good as the city had hoped for.? Operating losses would occur on Day 1 and range from $34 million to $81 million over 25 years. Competitive pressures mean that the system would be unable to charge higher rates to customers to match Davis? higher costs. > > * Because customer fees would likely fall short of supporting a municipal fiber system, the city would have to seek voter approval for a tax hike to provide between $33 million and $60 million in taxpayer subsidies. A sales tax increase of a half-cent or more is considered most likely. Locking up tax money for a municipal fiber system would require two-thirds voter approval. The consultants said winning over Davis voters, who recently rejected a parcel tax hike for road repairs, ?would undoubtedly require a major effort to educate the public and get community buy-in.? > > * Comcast, our biggest local broadband provider, has a track record of cutting rates and improving its bundled services to crowd out competitors. A Davis municipal broadband network might need even more public taxpayer dollars to compete. > > * Davis has good broadband options today, even without the development of a municipal fiber system. Comcast is now advertising 1 Gbps and 2 Gbps internet download speeds in their ?Gigabit? and ?Gigabit Pro? packages. Only 16 percent of Davis residents are unhappy with their internet services. > > > * A college town could be tough for Davis broadband, with students likely to be fickle customers. Moreover, large student apartment complexes in Davis have locked in long-term deals with various private providers for internet and cable services, and Comcast and AT&T are moving aggressively to lure more such customers. > > * Only 21 percent of Davis residents said they would definitely buy their service from a city system. ?This is significantly lower than what we have seen in other markets,? the consultants stated, and ?indicates a market that is not massively unhappy with the incumbent providers and not wildly enthusiastic about fiber. It?s a market where a new provider would need to prove themselves and expend significant marketing effort to win over customers.? > > Recent developments make a large public investment in broadband seem more risky than ever in a highly competitive, and increasingly disruptive, broadband marketplace. > > The FCC last year opened the gates for cellular wireless 5G service by imposing strict time limits for cities to allow the installation of 5G equipment on utility and light poles. Two companies have already filed permits to establish 5G networks in the city of Davis ? permits it has no legal choice but to approve. And, the master of all business disrupters, Amazon, has begun launching thousands of low-level satellites into orbit capable of providing broadband worldwide. Competitors like SpaceX are hot on their heels. Broadband technology is morphing rapidly and the market is fragmenting. > > Despite the troubling findings in the CCG and Finley Engineering reports, task force members remain steadfast in their support of the concept of a municipal fiber system. They are asking the city to spend more money on studying such ideas as building a municipal fiber network in stages or levying assessments instead of taxes to pay for it. > > > I look forward to hearing more about these ideas, but worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle in which construction starts only to find out that the rest of the money needed to finish a network isn?t coming. Davis could end up building a ?network to nowhere.? Imposing citywide assessments or taxes could force Davis consumers who want to keep their Comcast or AT&T bundles to pay a second time for a municipal broadband system they don?t want. That doesn?t seem fair. > > Nobody disputes the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation and addressing the digital divide. The question is, how do we get these benefits without saddling our taxpayers with huge financial risks? We already face an $8 million a year funding gap for basic city services over the next 20 years. > > This Tuesday, I would also like to get the community?s feedback on a different approach I call, ?If you can?t beat ?em, join ?em.? Instead of further studies of municipal broadband, should we explore how we can forge innovative partnerships with the private sector and UC Davis to foster high-speed broadband competition that will improve service and reduce monthly bills for Davis businesses and residents? > > > > On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 10:42:45 AM PDT, Robert Nickerson wrote: > > > Hi > I'd get your coments in early. They dont want to be reading this stuff at the last minute. > As this could be our last hurrah, Im sending 3 emails, past present future. > Attached is the first one, I hope to have the others out tonight. > > Is this too strong or offensive a thing to say something like: > "City Staff has been wrong all along. Harriet was wrong about Comcast. Astound on consent with no BATF input was wrong. This staff report analysis of municipal fiber is also wrong...etc" > > On 6/1/2019 10:26 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: > > To facilitate this process I have attached three Word documents > (1) the original BATF memo to Council from 2018, > (2) the side-by-side discussion document that has what Chris proposed as the text of the second BATF memo to Council on the left, and (most of) the suggested revisions on the right,. > (3) the various suggestions provided by BATF members in the April BATF members > Being able to copy and paste from those documents should help avoid unnecessary retyping between now and Tuesday. > > Matt > > > On Saturday, June 1, 2019, 8:35:07 AM PDT, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: > > > Good suggestion Jim. I will try to talk with Lori about that today. > > > > On May 31, 2019, at 10:13 PM, Jim Frame wrote: > > > > Mike Webb made it clear to me that city staff isn't going to solicit a contract from Lori Raineri unless the CC directs them to do so. My suggestion would be for Lori to draft a contract, package it with a CV and a cover letter, and submit it to Mike with cc's to the councilmembers. Although it's too late to get that onto the Tuesday agenda, it would introduce the city players to the possibility. Even a letter of intent from Lori (along with a CV; that's important because Mike told me doesn't know anything about her) would be better than nothing. > > > > On 5/31/2019 1:05 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: > >> The BATF did recommend working with a muni finance expert on funding options, that was one of the two next steps recommended, it just didn?t name Lori. > >>> On May 31, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Robert Nickerson > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Since it didn't come from the BATF the city wont consider it. If we could get actual BATF members to sign off on it they might be more receptive. > >>> > >>> As a BATF member how do you feel about Staff seemingly going totally against the BATF recommendation as expressed in its letter? Anything we 'd need to do should be sent out by tomorrow am at the latest. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> RAN > >>> > >>> On 5/31/2019 12:00 PM, Lorenzo Kristov wrote: > >>>> Just thinking out loud, but in the interest of time I?ll send these initial thoughts for y?all to react to. > >>>> > >>>> Staff is recommending the entire municipal effort be put to rest, and the big fear they?re playing on is cost. So my thought would be to bring CC a next step recommendation that costs almost nothing and could make the project seem more feasible from a cost perspective. That is, recommend that city execute a pro bono contract with Lori Raineri to explore and lay out potential financing approaches, working with a city staff person and a small group of citizen volunteers from among this email list, perhaps others. But small (3 people or so) so it can start moving quickly and minimize scheduling problems, and report back to CC in a couple months. I?d emphasize including someone with financing expertise (e.g., Matt, David) and focus narrowly on the funding aspects of the project rather than the technical. > >>>> > >>>> On a parallel track, it might make sense for a few more technically oriented folks (e.g., Rob, David, Jeff) to sketch out what would be needed from a consultant to address the second BATF recommended next step, the technical. I wouldn?t expect city staff to be working on this yet, since Diane did say they?re planning to come back with the Wave contract. But if CC approves step 1 to begin working formally with Lori, then we could have step 2 ready in a month or so, to lay out a rough SOW for a consultant on the technical, cost, etc. elements of the phased implementation. A main argument for Wave is that ?there is no other proposal on the table.? > >>>> > >>>> Other thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> ? Lorenzo > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On May 31, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Robert Nickerson > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Folks > >>>>> > >>>>> Yowch folks, take a look at Diane Parro's staff report. It reads like it was written from the POV of a large incumbent carrier, lol. > >>>>> > >>>>> I suppose anything we send in support needs to counter Diane's points one at a time. There is absolutely no positive evidence about this presented in the staff report. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any ideas on how to go from here? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> RAN > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- > >>>>> Subject: [Davisgig] PLEASE READ Staff Report > >>>>> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 22:10:13 -0700 > >>>>> From: rob > >>>>> To: davisgig at list.omsoft.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> HI All > >>>>> > >>>>> The agenda is out and the staff report item on community broadband is out. I don't think we are going to have any luck as Diane Parro is saying this should be shut down. None of the points in this memo were covered at any BATF meetings, the product of which was the attached letter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> RAN > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and > >>>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > >>>>> believed to be clean. > >>>>> <08-Broadband-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and > >>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > >>>> believed to be clean. > >>> -- > >>> Robert Nickerson > >>> UCD Class of 1996 > >>> CEO, Om Networks > >>> > >>> cell: 5308483865 > >>> www.omsoft.com > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and > >>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > >>> believed to be clean. > >> -- > >> This message has been scanned for viruses and > >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > >> believed to be clean. > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jim Frame jhframe at dcn.org 530.756.8584 > > Frame Surveying & Mapping 609 A Street Davis, CA 95616 > > -----------------------< Davis Community Network >------------------- > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > -- > Robert Nickerson > UCD Class of 1996 > CEO, Om Networks > > cell: 5308483865 > www.omsoft.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig Doug Walter (home account) dawalter at dcn.org "Wag more, bark less" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elt at pacbell.net Sun Jun 2 10:36:07 2019 From: elt at pacbell.net (Eric Thompson) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 10:36:07 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> Message-ID: I?d agree I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave Eric T > On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson wrote in part: > > It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. > > Any thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bileet at prodigy.net Sat Jun 1 14:00:09 2019 From: bileet at prodigy.net (Bill Leet) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 15:00:09 -0600 Subject: [Davisgig] Fwd: Re: Fiber-optic network for Davis In-Reply-To: <768B8967-EAE7-417F-AD1A-4C366D77BBE8@cityofdavis.org> References: <768B8967-EAE7-417F-AD1A-4C366D77BBE8@cityofdavis.org> Message-ID: Hi - I was very surprised to get a response to my comments. Obviously Dan C and probably others have made up their minds /prior to the hearing. /Am I naive to think that AT&T and Comcast are contributing to election coffers or some other influential but nasty fund? Good luck,? Bill -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Fiber-optic network for Davis Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 20:20:37 +0000 From: Dan Carson To: Bill Leet Bill, Thanks for your comments. I know what a heartfelt wish it is by you and others for this city to have its own muni fiber system. ?But in my view there is more to this issue that I must consider as a council member ? very large city costs and risks for our taxpayers identified by the Broadband Task Force itself and a consultant they oversaw for development of such a system ?Attached please find an article that will appear in tomorrow?s Enterprise outlining these challenges. In any case, whether or not you agree with me, I welcome your continued participation in our city discussions about these matters. ?This is a very important matter for all of us. Dan Dan Carson Councilmember, City of Davis dcarson at cityofdavis.org (530) 400-1447 23 Russell Boulevard, Suite 1 Davis, CA ?95616 > On Jun 1, 2019, at 6:13 AM, Bill Leet > wrote: > > As a citizen of Davis, I urge you to favor and go forward with a > fiber-optic network as evaluated in the BATF report. Commerce depends > more each day on fast computer access. For the city of Davis not to > have the leading technology in this area defies reason and good sense. > This is a simple situation in which city managers /must /acknowledge > that the experts who spent several years of research to prepare the > feasibility study are better qualified to judge the merits of such a > system than any political body. It is a case in which the people and > the BATF should be heard. To reject the merits of the system and the > desires of the majority of the people would be foolhardy and would > make a mockery of a government that is elected to serve the people. > > Thank you,?? William S. Leet?? > > -- > www.wsleet.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2018-09-16 at 12.20.50 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 9938 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Muni Fiber Poses Huge Financial Risks.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 75130 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mattwill at pacbell.net Mon Jun 3 11:15:14 2019 From: mattwill at pacbell.net (Matthews Williams) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:15:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> Message-ID: <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the technical and financial issues.? That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to.? The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited.? The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope.? It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach. That is meaningful on a number of levels.? The consultants built $800 per household of Marketing costs into their estimates.? The public utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn?t clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their $106 million cost estimate.? Regardless of the amount, there will be a substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach. The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of the state?s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the BATF. ? The Public Utility approach would? change the political approval process under the provisions of Proposition 218.? It would also segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund, separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured that way.? The Sewer Fund is structured that way.? The Solid Waste Fund is structured that way.? The Utility Service Advisory Commission oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the associated service costs. Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson?s comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the revenues.? There is no committed revenue stream from the public/consumers for the bullet train.? It is a ?build it and they will come? approach.? If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services currently.? In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per month for Comcast?s lowest level of Internet service.? The monthly bill from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would save money every month.? That is the antithesis of the bullet train. In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would be set for five years.? No consumer would be subject to the annual haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price increase. Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see the wisdom of siding with Dan?s second statement about the the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side with Dan?s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle. If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can.? The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings. Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis. Matt Williams On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: I?d agree I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave Eric T On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson wrote in part: It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. Any thoughts? _______________________________________________ Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start Davisgig mailing list Davisgig at list.omsoft.com http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From szsherm at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 11:23:57 2019 From: szsherm at yahoo.com (Shneor Sherman) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Davisgig] Fwd: Re: Fiber-optic network for Davis References: <731150755.963300.1559586237762.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <731150755.963300.1559586237762@mail.yahoo.com> Campaign contributions in Davis are limited to $100 (maybe raised a bit recently), so that's not a reason for any postion taken cy a city council member. Funding has ben an issue from the beginning of the discussion in 2015. We don't know how much dark fiber is already installed, which could be part of the plan. We don't know how much UC Davis would pay for participation, or the school district or Yolo County. We don't know about state, federal or private grants that could be awarded for this project. These are all issues the BATF could investigate. We don't know if anyone has contacted our elected state and federal legislators to ask for help - that would be a job for the city council. Sh eor Sherman -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 6/1/19, Bill Leet wrote: Subject: [Davisgig] Fwd: Re: Fiber-optic network for Davis To: davisgig at list.omsoft.com Date: Saturday, June 1, 2019, 2:00 PM Hi - I was very surprised to get a response to my comments. Obviously Dan C and probably others have made up their minds prior to the hearing. Am I naive to think that AT&T and Comcast are contributing to election coffers or some other influential but nasty fund? Good luck,? Bill -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Fiber-optic network for Davis Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 20:20:37 +0000 From: Dan Carson To: Bill Leet Bill, Thanks for your comments. I know what a heartfelt wish it is by you and others for this city to have its own muni fiber system. ?But in my view there is more to this issue that I must consider as a council member ? very large city costs and risks for our taxpayers identified by the Broadband Task Force itself and a consultant they oversaw for development of such a system ?Attached please find an article that will appear in tomorrow?s Enterprise outlining these challenges. In any case, whether or not you agree with me, I welcome your continued participation in our city discussions about these matters. ?This is a very important matter for all of us. Dan Dan Carson Councilmember, City of Davis dcarson at cityofdavis.org (530) 400-1447 23 Russell Boulevard, Suite 1 Davis, CA ?95616 On Jun 1, 2019, at 6:13 AM, Bill Leet wrote: As a citizen of Davis, I urge you to favor and go forward with a fiber-optic network as evaluated in the BATF report. Commerce depends more each day on fast computer access. For the city of Davis not to have the leading technology in this area defies reason and good sense. This is a simple situation in which city managers must acknowledge that the experts who spent several years of research to prepare the feasibility study are better qualified to judge the merits of such a system than any political body. It is a case in which the people and the BATF should be heard. To reject the merits of the system and the desires of the majority of the people would be foolhardy and would make a mockery of a government that is elected to serve the people. Thank you,?? William S. Leet?? -- www.wsleet.com _______________________________________________ Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start Davisgig mailing list Davisgig at list.omsoft.com http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -----Inline Attachment Follows----- From ls at whitewavedigital.com Mon Jun 3 11:32:22 2019 From: ls at whitewavedigital.com (Larry Dieterich) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:32:22 +0000 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <972234112.7832107.1559508099575@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <972234112.7832107.1559508099575@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Matthews Williams > wrote: The e-mail address to reach all five at once is citycouncilmembers at cityofdavis.org I just sent this note to the citycouncil email address: Davis has a legacy of pioneering good ideas (curbside recycling, greenbelts, bike lanes) and none of these were without financial risk. The Davisgig effort is a good example of what makes Davis special; intelligent citizen activism and creative thinking. The importance of network connectivity is only increasing. It?s been compared to roads already. I?m comparing it to water. Trusting a corrupt duopoly to equitably provide an essential public service is naive. I ask the Davis City Council to refrain from scuttling the Davisgig effort. There has been a lot of good work done here, and it warrants further evaluation with a cool head. It doesn?t cost us anything to keep our options open. Larry Dieterich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggalamba at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 14:42:09 2019 From: ggalamba at gmail.com (George Galamba) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] [Davisgig-announce] Task Force Positive - City Staff Negative - Next Step for Community Broadband Needs your Help In-Reply-To: <454042a8-98b8-1bde-00ec-ce9ab28d73c1@dcn.org> References: <454042a8-98b8-1bde-00ec-ce9ab28d73c1@dcn.org> Message-ID: "...the staff report that the BATF letter is attached to ..." \I got the "Ring Design Principle..." document, but don't see the city's staff report. Am I missing something? On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:53 PM help--- via Davisgig-announce < davisgig-announce at list.davisgig.org> wrote: > Hi Davisites > > We need your input at the next City Council meeting on Tuesday 6/4/19. > > Last Wed was the final Broadband Advisory Task Force meeting. After > fulfilling its charge The BATF unanimously approved its final product, a 3 > page letter, which unequivocally states a Fiber Based Community Broadband > network is feasible, should be further analyzed and pursued by technical > and financial professionals in coordination with city engineering staff, > and urges timely action. > > This process went on 3 full years and was entering its 4th. It produced > an excellent Feasibility Study Report, evaluated information, talked to > vendors, and generated and reviewed the results of a phone survey and > online poll in its final analysis. > > Personally, I?m truly thankful these community leaders took their time to > evaluate and follow this process of evaluating feasibility to this > conclusion, and now it is time for DavisGIG to be more active again with > the Council to help move it onward. > > In stark contrast, the staff report that the BATF letter is attached to is > very negative on cost alone due to the feasibility report we wrote about > last year.. Not a surprise for a report that states an $800 per house > marketing cost just to get the customer to join the community fiber > network. > > The staff report draws on the very conservative Feasibility study report > which describes the costs of building the most expensive type of fiber > network, all at once, and with a business model of a traditional ISP that > competes against the Very Large ISPs. It also relies on the phone survey > about broadband we advised would be lackluster due to the fact that no one > does phone surveys any more. It really parrots points put forward by the > large incumbent carriers, to discourage municipal broadband, and does not > refer to any of the many economic development, social justice, and pro > competitive, smart city benefits a municipal fiber investment would make. > The staff report does not examine any alternative designs, financing > mechanisms or future needs which make local control of Internet > infrastructure desirable. > > It completely ignores further analysis put forward by a subcommittee of > the BATF, as reported in a memo approved unanimously at the 3/27 meeting > that shows that the electronics are substantially cheaper, and a phased > installation approach allowing for project expansion based on revenues from > the initial phase. That memo advocates for the construction of the core > backbone ring and sub rings, that go throughout the entire city, has > substantial numbers of homes businesses and apartments passed, and serves > as an anchor ring that will generate immediate revenue and allow the build > out remaining neighborhoods. > > It makes no mention of the network as a valuable asset that the City would > realize revenue from from citizens, business, and other companies through > leases. It makes no mention of working with community partners. It ignores > the fact that city and school buildings would have permanent usable > Internet connections for a one time cost. City Community and Business > Engagement staff, wants to end the effort and bring in big fiber provider > Grande/Wave/RCN, owned by private equity firm TPG Capital to just carry on > with the status quo, cherry picking neighborhoods and giving away valuable > city conduit for little return. This will setup another monopoly control > situation over physical Internet infrastructure and fiber will be the last > one installed, like Comcast?s control of Coax, and ATT?s control of Copper. > > So we need to put some effort into encouraging Council to do the right > thing here, which is follow the BATF letter and not the staff report. > Continue the effort of technical and financial analysis for a phased build > approach to a city-owned, community-operated open access fiber ring or > more. > > This will be presented at the City Council on 6/4/19. Please provide > public comment via email or in person at the beginning of the meeting. The > BATF item is at the end of the evening, and I?d hate for you all to be > stuck at the meeting very late. > > In support of that, we have generated a ?talking points? type document > which refers to benefits identified by the Feasibility Study and addresses > concerns citizens identified in the DavisGIG broadband poll. We hope you > can use this to educate your neighbors and colleagues as to why this will > make everyone's quality of life better. As well, attached is a sample > letter you can use to send indicating your support for community owned > broadband and DavisGIG. Send it to citycouncilmembers at cityofdavis.org > > Thank you for your support > > Davis GIG Committee of DCN > > > _______________________________________________ > Davisgig-announce mailing list > Davisgig-announce at list.davisgig.org > %To unsubscribe(web_page_url)slistinfo/davisgig-announce > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omrob at omsoft.com Mon Jun 3 18:50:58 2019 From: omrob at omsoft.com (Robert Nickerson) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:50:58 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Fwd: BBC Immediately Hits Data Cap With First 5G Broadcast In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51f5697c-b5ca-a7e3-3a8c-e04185f71226@omsoft.com> Hi Thx EricT! RAN FYI Eric T. https://gizmodo.com/bbc-goes-to-conduct-its-first-broadcast-over-5g-immedi-1835119262 From elt at pacbell.net Tue Jun 4 08:45:05 2019 From: elt at pacbell.net (Eric Thompson) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:45:05 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> Sorry but I have conflicting plans Things to consider 30+ years ago We were part of the Davis community Cable before Comcast replaced it. Was that considered successful or failure? Would the city get more revenue from say, Wave, in property taxes/ licenses versus a nonprofit or city owned cable provider? Is this a built in bias? Do any council members have cable companies stock? Eric > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: > > Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the technical and financial issues. That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to. The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited. The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope. > > It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach. > That is meaningful on a number of levels. The consultants built $800 per household of Marketing costs into their estimates. The public utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn?t clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their $106 million cost estimate. Regardless of the amount, there will be a substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach. > > The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of the state?s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the BATF. The Public Utility approach would change the political approval process under the provisions of Proposition 218. It would also segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund, separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured that way. The Sewer Fund is structured that way. The Solid Waste Fund is structured that way. The Utility Service Advisory Commission oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the associated service costs. > > Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson?s comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the revenues. There is no committed revenue stream from the public/consumers for the bullet train. It is a ?build it and they will come? approach. If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services currently. In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per month for Comcast?s lowest level of Internet service. The monthly bill from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would save money every month. That is the antithesis of the bullet train. > > In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would be set for five years. No consumer would be subject to the annual haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price increase. > > Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see the wisdom of siding with Dan?s second statement about the the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side with Dan?s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle. > > If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can. The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings. > > Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis. > > Matt Williams > > > > On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: > > > I?d agree > > I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave > > Eric T > > On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson wrote in part: > > >> It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. >> >> Any thoughts? >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mattwill at pacbell.net Tue Jun 4 10:23:33 2019 From: mattwill at pacbell.net (Matthews Williams) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 17:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> Message-ID: <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you for the response Eric.? Enjoy your evening. I wasn't here when Davis Community Cable happened, so any thoughts I have are anecdotal based on what people have volunteered to tell me.? Their belief is that Davis Community Cable was not a success during its relatively brief lifetime.? Some believe that while it was not a success during its tenure, it did establish a cable foundation that lived on and expanded after the Comcast acquisition.? So, qualified failure. With that said, it is also my understanding that Davis Community Cable was a consumer initiative, much like the Davis Food CoOp, and stayed in the private sector.? That is very different from what is being considered for Municipal Fiber.? The consultant's feasibility study conclusions essentially confirmed that that approach was/is a non-starter.? The Water Utility that serves the City and surrounding neighborhoods is much closer to what has been considered by the BATF.? Is the Davis Water Utility considered successful or a failure?? The Wastewater/Sewer Utility also fits that model. Is the Davis Wastewater/Sewer Utility considered successful or a failure? The proposed agreement that staff and Wave put forward to Council would produce $0 (zero dollars) of revenue, but it would result in the avoidance of $76,000 a year in cost for the City.? The City was giving Wave the license to market its services from the proposed ring in exchange for the $76,000.?? If other Municipal Fiber cities are useful as example templates, any and all service providers (Wave, Comcast, AT&T, etc) would be able to deliver their services over the City network for an annual license fee.? Unlike current packages like "Triple Play," future packages from those licensed service providers would not include an Internet connectivity component.? So, my somewhat educated suspicion is that property taxes/licenses don't produce much of a bias either way. I have no knowledge to be able to answer your last question. On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 8:45:11 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: Sorry but I have conflicting plans? Things to consider? 30+ years ago We were part of the Davis community Cable before Comcast replaced it. Was that considered successful or failure?? Would the city get more revenue from say, Wave, in property taxes/ licenses versus a nonprofit or city owned cable provider? Is this a built in bias?? Do any council members have cable companies stock? Eric On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the technical and financial issues.? That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to.? The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited.? The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope.? It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach. That is meaningful on a number of levels.? The consultants built $800 per household of Marketing costs into their estimates.? The public utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn?t clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their $106 million cost estimate.? Regardless of the amount, there will be a substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach. The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of the state?s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the BATF. ? The Public Utility approach would? change the political approval process under the provisions of Proposition 218.? It would also segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund, separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured that way.? The Sewer Fund is structured that way.? The Solid Waste Fund is structured that way.? The Utility Service Advisory Commission oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the associated service costs. Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson?s comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the revenues.? There is no committed revenue stream from the public/consumers for the bullet train.? It is a ?build it and they will come? approach.? If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services currently.? In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per month for Comcast?s lowest level of Internet service.? The monthly bill from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would save money every month.? That is the antithesis of the bullet train. In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would be set for five years.? No consumer would be subject to the annual haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price increase. Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see the wisdom of siding with Dan?s second statement about the the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side with Dan?s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle. If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can.? The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings. Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis. Matt Williams On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: I?d agree I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave Eric T On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson wrote in part: It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. Any thoughts? _______________________________________________ Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start Davisgig mailing list Davisgig at list.omsoft.com http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig _______________________________________________ Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start Davisgig mailing list Davisgig at list.omsoft.com http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From billjulian at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 4 11:34:44 2019 From: billjulian at sbcglobal.net (Bill Julian) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:34:44 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Matt ? Thanks for your focused, informed comments. I think you have laid out the right path and the right arguments to keep the conversation alive at the City Council. I will try to make it tonight (no promises) to support your suggestions. Bill Julian > On Jun 4, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: > > Thank you for the response Eric. Enjoy your evening. > > I wasn't here when Davis Community Cable happened, so any thoughts I have are anecdotal based on what people have volunteered to tell me. Their belief is that Davis Community Cable was not a success during its relatively brief lifetime. Some believe that while it was not a success during its tenure, it did establish a cable foundation that lived on and expanded after the Comcast acquisition. So, qualified failure. > > With that said, it is also my understanding that Davis Community Cable was a consumer initiative, much like the Davis Food CoOp, and stayed in the private sector. That is very different from what is being considered for Municipal Fiber. The consultant's feasibility study conclusions essentially confirmed that that approach was/is a non-starter. The Water Utility that serves the City and surrounding neighborhoods is much closer to what has been considered by the BATF. Is the Davis Water Utility considered successful or a failure? The Wastewater/Sewer Utility also fits that model. Is the Davis Wastewater/Sewer Utility considered successful or a failure? > > The proposed agreement that staff and Wave put forward to Council would produce $0 (zero dollars) of revenue, but it would result in the avoidance of $76,000 a year in cost for the City. The City was giving Wave the license to market its services from the proposed ring in exchange for the $76,000. > > If other Municipal Fiber cities are useful as example templates, any and all service providers (Wave, Comcast, AT&T, etc) would be able to deliver their services over the City network for an annual license fee. Unlike current packages like "Triple Play," future packages from those licensed service providers would not include an Internet connectivity component. So, my somewhat educated suspicion is that property taxes/licenses don't produce much of a bias either way. > > I have no knowledge to be able to answer your last question. > > On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 8:45:11 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: > > > Sorry but I have conflicting plans > > Things to consider > > 30+ years ago We were part of the Davis community Cable before Comcast replaced it. Was that considered successful or failure? > > Would the city get more revenue from say, Wave, in property taxes/ licenses versus a nonprofit or city owned cable provider? Is this a built in bias? > > Do any council members have cable companies stock? > > Eric > > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Matthews Williams > wrote: > >> Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the technical and financial issues. That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to. The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited. The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope. >> >> It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach. >> That is meaningful on a number of levels. The consultants built $800 per household of Marketing costs into their estimates. The public utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn?t clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their $106 million cost estimate. Regardless of the amount, there will be a substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach. >> >> The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of the state?s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the BATF. The Public Utility approach would change the political approval process under the provisions of Proposition 218. It would also segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund, separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured that way. The Sewer Fund is structured that way. The Solid Waste Fund is structured that way. The Utility Service Advisory Commission oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the associated service costs. >> >> Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson?s comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the revenues. There is no committed revenue stream from the public/consumers for the bullet train. It is a ?build it and they will come? approach. If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services currently. In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per month for Comcast?s lowest level of Internet service. The monthly bill from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would save money every month. That is the antithesis of the bullet train. >> >> In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would be set for five years. No consumer would be subject to the annual haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price increase. >> >> Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see the wisdom of siding with Dan?s second statement about the the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side with Dan?s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle. >> >> If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can. The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings. >> >> Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis. >> >> Matt Williams >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson > wrote: >> >> >> I?d agree >> >> I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave >> >> Eric T >> >> On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson > wrote in part: >> >> >>> It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. >>> Any thoughts? >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: >> >> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start >> >> Davisgig mailing list >> Davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: >> >> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start >> >> Davisgig mailing list >> Davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gary_darling at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 4 14:47:34 2019 From: gary_darling at sbcglobal.net (Gary Darling) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:47:34 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5EBA012F-9D86-4944-BE06-5557C41A1DCF@sbcglobal.net> There are two questions here, was Davis Community Cable a success or failure and was replacing it with Comcast successful. Davis Community Cable was never well capitalized and had maintenance problems but for the most part it worked. When we replaced the system with Comcast there was a big injection of capitol but this quickly faded and there has been little effort to update the now dated cable technology. If you were to go to my backyard you would see coaxial cable lying on the ground going from house to house at the fence line and the power lines are enmeshed around tree branches just waiting for a big windstorm. California?s regulated utilities could plainly use some improvement. But the utilities are also a political juggernaut, of this we should be mindful. I don?t think the solution here is to suspend the broadband task force but instead the task force could try a different solution, public private partnership. I was able to form public private partnership's in telecommunications successfully in the past and I think that others can now, I?ll give three examples. - ca.gov - With the help of the University (Russ Hobby) we were able to make a number of trades to build ca.gov from the department of Water Resources, first DWR traded right of way on the state water project for dark fiber from MCI, we then traded fiber access for support from the university in joining the Internet they then were able to unite the Bay Area Advanced Research Network (BARRnet) and its Southern California counterpart CERFnet to allow California to send Internet traffic from North to South without leaving the State, ca.gov was a byproduct that saved the state many millions of dollars through early Internet access. - Shasta County office of education - For a brief while environmental education was under me at the resources agency, we were able to fund a T1 line from Sacramento county to Shasta county the connection allowed for other in the North to connect to the Internet to sustain the network allowing for rural datafication across Northern California. - Davis Community Network Task Force - This city task force spent a year envisioning what a community network could be and negotiating with Pacific Bell to give its technical and political support to the effort. The documents and small prototype network then facilitated for a grant from Caltrans to start the DCN. In each of these cases quite a bit of time went into figuring out the role of government and the role of the private sector in the implementation of a new technologies and both sides got something from the deal. I think the annual license fee is a great idea and a great start. Let?s look for a win-win here. ?Gary > On Jun 4, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Matthews Williams wrote: > > Thank you for the response Eric. Enjoy your evening. > > I wasn't here when Davis Community Cable happened, so any thoughts I have are anecdotal based on what people have volunteered to tell me. Their belief is that Davis Community Cable was not a success during its relatively brief lifetime. Some believe that while it was not a success during its tenure, it did establish a cable foundation that lived on and expanded after the Comcast acquisition. So, qualified failure. > > With that said, it is also my understanding that Davis Community Cable was a consumer initiative, much like the Davis Food CoOp, and stayed in the private sector. That is very different from what is being considered for Municipal Fiber. The consultant's feasibility study conclusions essentially confirmed that that approach was/is a non-starter. The Water Utility that serves the City and surrounding neighborhoods is much closer to what has been considered by the BATF. Is the Davis Water Utility considered successful or a failure? The Wastewater/Sewer Utility also fits that model. Is the Davis Wastewater/Sewer Utility considered successful or a failure? > > The proposed agreement that staff and Wave put forward to Council would produce $0 (zero dollars) of revenue, but it would result in the avoidance of $76,000 a year in cost for the City. The City was giving Wave the license to market its services from the proposed ring in exchange for the $76,000. > > If other Municipal Fiber cities are useful as example templates, any and all service providers (Wave, Comcast, AT&T, etc) would be able to deliver their services over the City network for an annual license fee. Unlike current packages like "Triple Play," future packages from those licensed service providers would not include an Internet connectivity component. So, my somewhat educated suspicion is that property taxes/licenses don't produce much of a bias either way. > > I have no knowledge to be able to answer your last question. > > On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, 8:45:11 AM PDT, Eric Thompson wrote: > > > Sorry but I have conflicting plans > > Things to consider > > 30+ years ago We were part of the Davis community Cable before Comcast replaced it. Was that considered successful or failure? > > Would the city get more revenue from say, Wave, in property taxes/ licenses versus a nonprofit or city owned cable provider? Is this a built in bias? > > Do any council members have cable companies stock? > > Eric > > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Matthews Williams > wrote: > >> Eric, I hope you will be at City Council at 8:00pm tomorrow to show your support for the BATF recommendation to dig deeper into the technical and financial issues. That is the kind of focused "more time and consideration" that Rob is referring to. The RFP and subsequent consultant agreement was (by the design of staff and the original members of the BATF) focused and therefore limited. The kind of technical evaluation BATF has recommended as a next step was always anticipated to be out of the scope. >> >> It turns out that there was an unintended limitation in the financial area, and as a result the consultant's report provides an incomplete set of options, omitting the public utility approach. >> That is meaningful on a number of levels. The consultants built $800 per household of Marketing costs into their estimates. The public utility approach would not need to expend those millions of unnecessary dollars. $800 times 25,000 households equals $20 million, but it isn?t clear whether the consultants included the full $20 million in their $106 million cost estimate. Regardless of the amount, there will be a substantial cost savings by using the public utility approach. >> >> The Public Utility approach was suggested as an alternative by one of the state?s preeminent financial advisors in a meeting with one of the two BATF subcommittees, who reported the results of that meeting to the BATF. The Public Utility approach would change the political approval process under the provisions of Proposition 218. It would also segregate the funds and funding into an Enterprise Fund, separate/isolated from the General Fund. The Water Fund is structured that way. The Sewer Fund is structured that way. The Solid Waste Fund is structured that way. The Utility Service Advisory Commission oversees both the rates for the Enterprise Fund services and the associated service costs. >> >> Another huge difference between Municipal Fiber and Dan Carson?s comparison to the Bullet Train is the existence and reliability of the revenues. There is no committed revenue stream from the public/consumers for the bullet train. It is a ?build it and they will come? approach. If a Telecommunications Enterprise Fund were established in Davis the revenue stream would be established, with every parcel paying into that fund the same amount or less than they are paying the monopoly suppliers Comcast or AT&T for Internet services currently. In my own personal case, our household is paying $39.95 per month for Comcast?s lowest level of Internet service. The monthly bill from the Telecommunications Fund would be less than that, so I would save money every month. That is the antithesis of the bullet train. >> >> In addition, because of the provisions of Prop 218, the rates would be set for five years. No consumer would be subject to the annual haggling with their monopoly supplier in order to avoid a steep price increase. >> >> Hopefully on Tuesday night Dan, and the rest of the Council will see the wisdom of siding with Dan?s second statement about the the benefits of improved high-speed broadband for economic development, education, technological innovation, and addressing the digital divide rather side with Dan?s first statement of worry about a bullet train-style boondoggle. >> >> If you do come tomorrow to reinforce your message in support of the BATF's next steps ... bring as many friends as you can. The Council showed in its deliberations regarding parking downtown that they do see and hear those who attend their meetings. >> >> Thank you for your support of Municipal Fiber in Davis. >> >> Matt Williams >> >> >> >> On Monday, June 3, 2019, 10:39:02 AM PDT, Eric Thompson > wrote: >> >> >> I?d agree >> >> I got to wonder how much of a commitment has already been made to Wave >> >> Eric T >> >> On Jun 2, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Robert Nickerson > wrote in part: >> >> >>> It would be prudent to ask CC not to make any major decisions about this at that meeting, but to hopefully give it more time and consideration. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: >> >> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start >> >> Davisgig mailing list >> Davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: >> >> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start >> >> Davisgig mailing list >> Davisgig at list.omsoft.com >> http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Jun 4 18:45:57 2019 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 19:45:57 -0600 Subject: [Davisgig] Dueling OpEd's in the Enterprise In-Reply-To: <5EBA012F-9D86-4944-BE06-5557C41A1DCF@sbcglobal.net> References: <1087141572.2326136.1559415247223@mail.yahoo.com> <55b669fd-0f61-a2d8-3b4a-0bff5601504f@omsoft.com> <1232298146.2957108.1559585714815@mail.yahoo.com> <8F580C16-3E99-4F30-8650-D0678A163CAB@pacbell.net> <784611733.8765206.1559669013711@mail.yahoo.com> <5EBA012F-9D86-4944-BE06-5557C41A1DCF@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: A brief e-note from Jacona, NM. As a few of you know, after helping steward DCN for 10 years, I've been New Mexico based, and involved in community broadband planning, in NM and around the country, as contracted. I have maintained my DCN accounts and services all this time, including subscribing to this list and related Davis networking exchanges. I have been so pleased to see the community pursue its next phase of networked society involvements over the past few years. I introduced Doug Dawson to the Davis RFP a couple of years ago. He is among the smarter broadband planners working currently. The City, appropriate community organizations and residents should continue this process, with a clearly determined and agreed next phase and tasks. Gary is correct about PPP, though the nature of this can take many forms. Phased deployment and services provision economic projections need to be provided. The cost concerns that many have are correct, but need to be considered along with income strategies and timelines. Water, communications and energy are fundamental resources that everyone needs, and will pay for. A phased fiber and wireless community broadband initiative in Davis can pay its way and can generate income to reinvest in operations, maintenance and community services provision. There are thousands of cities approximately the size of Davis in this country. Davis could get a lot of financial, legal, technical and other expert help, as what it does may serve as a much needed example/model. Time for some strategic next phase thinking. I'd love to help. The City of Davis and all communities throughout the country, need to be very concerned and vigilant regarding current FCC and incumbent big company telecom. directions. Local-regional scale networking is critical to affordable, open and healthy communities and citizens. It is unfortunate that we are being held hostage by infrastructure battles and corporate advantage- taking, rather than being able to focus on all of the applications, lifelong learning and work/play opportunities we should be using the network for, to improve our lives and livelihoods. You are fortunate to have many remarkable community champions. Don't let this issue go. All networked best at the City this evening. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From davisgig at dabrado.net Wed Jun 5 23:10:31 2019 From: davisgig at dabrado.net (Braden Pellett) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 23:10:31 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Council votes to continue study of municipal broadband Message-ID: <20190606061031.rebjjrt4vbpvujgg@xps13.localdomain> Hi all, Just sending a note as I hadn't seen anything on here since the meeting. At Tuesday's City Council meeting, the council decided to keep looking into municipal broadband. Some articles: https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/council-votes-to-pursue-further-study-of-municipal-broadband/ https://www.davisvanguard.org/2019/06/cautious-council-asks-staff-to-return-with-additional-information-on-broadband/ If you feel like watching yourself, video is provided: http://davis.granicus.com/player/clip/1005 It starts at 2:04:00. (Also, a public comment by one of the task force members at 00:37:20 who couldn't make the agenda item.) - Braden From rob at omsoft.com Sat Jun 8 18:18:01 2019 From: rob at omsoft.com (Robert Nickerson) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 18:18:01 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] MEETING Wed 6/12 6pm - Fwd: | 06.06.19 | AT&T shifts gears on fiber builds In-Reply-To: <332461481.1447163266.1559846141214.JavaMail.root@sjmas01.marketo.org> References: <332461481.1447163266.1559846141214.JavaMail.root@sjmas01.marketo.org> Message-ID: <505d7194-caf3-19d8-3b8b-2d96d5976e85@omsoft.com> Hi All So more confirmation that ATT's fiber build in Davis satisfied merger conditions, and that they aren't continuing really to build out the city. We are having a meeting on 6/12 at 6pm at the downtown Peets to talk about the city council meeting and see what to do from here. Anyone who would like to please come. Thanks RAN -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: | 06.06.19 | AT&T shifts gears on fiber builds Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:35:41 -0500 (CDT) From: FierceTelecom Reply-To: editors at FierceTelecom.com To: rob at omsoft.com Newsletter Tool - Questex To view this email as a web page, click here Home Subscribe Advertise . . June 06, 2019 This week's sponsor is Next Gen Wireless Networks Summit. Today's Rundown * AT&T's Donovan says telco will take a more incremental approach to fiber builds * Microsoft bumps Amazon to take top spot for off-premises cloud services revenue: report * Pluribus bows new virtual multitenant gateway router * ADARA ports SD-WAN offerings onto a single VNF * Akraino Edge stack emerges from LF Edge to provide framework for 5G, IoT * Donovan claims AT&T is ?world leader? in 5G, outlines enterprise strategy Featured Story AT&T's Donovan says telco will take a more incremental approach to fiber builds Wednesday, June 5, 2019 AT&T Communications CEO John Donovan is rightfully proud of his company's fiber build-outs, but starting next month it will take a more incremental approach. As part of its 2015 merger with DirecTV, the FCC required that AT&T expand its deployment of its high-speed, fiber-optic broadband internet service to 12.5 million customer locations by July of this year. This week's sponsor is GL Communications. *FAX Test Solution ? IP | TDM | Analog* GL's*mTOP? multiple interface test platform * can perform load testing of fax servers, T.38 Gateways, ATAs, fax machines and can analyze fax traffic providing "quality of service" assessment across IP, TDM, Analog, or Wireless networks. Top Stories Microsoft bumps Amazon to take top spot for off-premises cloud services revenue: report Thursday, June 6, 2019 Last year Microsoft climbed over Amazon to become the market share leader for total off-premises cloud service revenue, according to a report. Microsoft pulled close to a 14% market revenue share while Amazon posted a 13.2% share, according to a recent report by IHS Markit. Pluribus bows new virtual multitenant gateway router Thursday, June 6, 2019 Pluribus Networks took the wraps off its new white box, multitenant data center gateway router that is optimized for public cloud interconnects. The Pluribus Freedom Series 9532C-XL-R Gateway Router uses Pluribus' Netvisor One operating system to meet the needs of distributed enterprise and service provider networks. ADARA ports SD-WAN offerings onto a single VNF Thursday, June 6, 2019 ADARA has combined its SD-WAN products, previously known as SD-WAN Proxy and SD-WAN Router on AWS Marketplace, onto a single VNF. ADARA said the new combined SD-WAN VNF will offer the same benefits, primarily performance-based WAN virtualization and optimization, within a single virtual machine instance. Akraino Edge stack emerges from LF Edge to provide framework for 5G, IoT Thursday, June 6, 2019 LF Edge, an umbrella organization within the Linux Foundation, announced the availability of Akraino Edge Stack Release 1, setting a framework to address 5G, IoT and a range of edge use cases. Donovan claims AT&T is ?world leader? in 5G, outlines enterprise strategy Thursday, June 6, 2019 While emphasizing enterprise use cases, Donovan said it's too early to tell how 5G will be priced for consumers. *News of Note* * Google is buying analytics startup Looker, which will be added to Google Cloud, for $2.6 billion. (TechCrunch) * Big Switch Networks has entered into an OEM agreement with Mavenir to develop an NFV solution for service providers. (Release) * Huawei has cut or canceled orders to major suppliers of components for its smartphones and telecom equipment following its U.S. blacklisting, the Nikkei reported, but those claims were denied by Huawei. (Reuters) This week's sponsor is Sensors Expo & Conference. Resources [Whitepaper] The Future of NLP & Innovation Sponsored by: AlphaSense Can AI be used to predict the next big breakthrough in emerging technology? [Webinar] Cloudifying the enterprise edge for performance and efficiency Presented by: IHS Markit and 128 Technology The emerging enterprise edge will use a cloud architecture to drive new efficiencies for security, load balancing, SD-WAN, and WAN optimization functions and performance when connecting to the cloud. [Whitepaper] The Total Economic Impact of Customer Service Management for Operators Sponsored by: ServiceNow Learn how a leading service provider invested in Customer Service Management and increased their self-service rate, reduced support costs, reduced SLA-related penalties, and dramatically cut the number of legacy systems they maintained. [Whitepaper] Can Your Cryptographic Module Meet the FIPS Gold Standard? Sponsored by: Aricent Together, Aricent?s ISS framework and engineering services can significantly reduce the uncertainty and time required to launch FIPS-compliant and certified products. Understand how. Events Medical Sensors Design Conference June 25, 2019 | McEnery Convention Center | San Jose, CA Sensors Expo & Conference Conference & Expo | June 25-27, 2019 | McEnery Convention Center | San Jose, CA FierceWireless Executive 5G Panel Series at Mobile World Congress Americas 2019 October 22-23, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA Next Gen Wireless Networks Summit November 19-20, 2019 | Dallas, TX *? 2019 FierceMarkets, a division of Questex, LLC* This email was sent to rob at omsoft.com as part of?the FierceTelecom email list which is administered by FierceMarkets, 1900 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 628-8778. Editor in Chief: Linda Hardesty Editor: Mike Robuck Publisher: Kevin Gray Advertising Information: Contact us Media Kit Manage Your Subscriptions | Unsubscribe Trouble with your subscription? Contact Audience -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Jun 19 07:20:50 2019 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:50 -0600 Subject: [Davisgig] MiniNetworks Article Message-ID: https://muninetworks.org/content/davis-california-examine-incremental-muni-fiber-deployment --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rob at omsoft.com Wed Jun 19 15:29:32 2019 From: rob at omsoft.com (Robert Nickerson) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:29:32 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] MiniNetworks Article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Wow, I wish there were some more enthusiasm at the City Council for this, but you have to work with what you have I guess. Thanks On 6/19/2019 7:20 AM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > https://muninetworks.org/content/davis-california-examine-incremental-muni-fiber-deployment > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute???? 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org???? www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > > Please ref our wiki for details, documents and contacts: > > http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~help/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start > > Davisgig mailing list > Davisgig at list.omsoft.com > http://list.omsoft.com/mailman/listinfo/davisgig -- Robert Nickerson UCD Class of 1996 CEO, Om Networks cell: 5308483865 www.omsoft.com From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Jun 19 15:57:20 2019 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:57:20 -0600 Subject: [Davisgig] MiniNetworks Article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Granted that Davis is not the progressive community it once was, but I think that Davis could take the high road to planning and implementing its broadband networking strategy, while serving as a national example for the many cities of its population size, especially those with universities and other civic resources. This is not the best of times for such large, costly local works. Current federal and corporate broadband strategies are a problem, imposing risk and investment wariness. However, this is the time to prepare; to build a constituency around the issues, especially for phased financial return on phased infrastructure investment. This is the time to continue to meet with and better understand various organizational and structural possibilities for public- private partnerships. I think that Davis could get a lot of expert help from near and far, if it offered a much needed opportunity to set example for scaled community networking and services provision. The School District, UCD(research) and .gov would have to be local partners. Concurrently, the City's Comcast bill needs to be addressed and possibly negotiated/leveraged for less; relieving time pressures. I won't go on, but it seems as though this might be a very productive next developmental phase for this initiative. All eco-networked best, RL On 2019-06-19 16:29, Robert Nickerson wrote: > Hi > > Wow, I wish there were some more enthusiasm at the City Council for > this, but you have to work with what you have I guess. > > Thanks > > On 6/19/2019 7:20 AM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: >> >> https://muninetworks.org/content/davis-california-examine-incremental-muni-fiber-deployment --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rob at omsoft.com Fri Jun 21 12:37:50 2019 From: rob at omsoft.com (Robert Nickerson) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:37:50 -0700 Subject: [Davisgig] Fwd: Michigan Town Approves Fiber Internet Despite Intense Lobbying In-Reply-To: <2B3A6CEB-8BBA-446E-BEC5-4D7A07DC2574@dcn.org> References: <2B3A6CEB-8BBA-446E-BEC5-4D7A07DC2574@dcn.org> Message-ID: <7d712b70-84c3-5b3f-9990-54bff8c201a5@omsoft.com> Fwded from another community member. Still taking time to figure out what to do with all this, appreciate everyone's encouraging thoughts. Have had contacts from Aggie Research Campus, and both CEOs of Neighborly and Lit Networks wanting to "be involved" Community members I run into still ask about it, tell us to keep going and want something positive to happen. We are having advocates likely meeting with the City Manager, so hopefully with that and some more discussion with all you all, Community Members, the DCN Board, we can decide on a way to proceed. All ideas welcome. Thanks RAN RAN, One more town signs up... Michigan Town Approves Fiber Internet Despite Intense Lobbying https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/06/16/1624251/michigan-town-approves-fiber-internet-despite-intense-lobbying -js