Issue Brief: California's Digital Divide

Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Executive Summary Access to affordable, high-speed internet is more critical now than ever before, yet many California households go without or lack sufficient bandwidth to meet their household’s needs. These households are then hindered, among other things, in their ability to access education, contribute to a productive economy, and obtain crucial government services. Due to the cross-cutting and highly-relevant nature of this issue, the Commission is offering this valuable background research on the digital divide and municipal fiber broadband network initiatives in the form of an Issue Brief. In its Brief, the Commission outlines the status of broadband service in both California and the U.S. This research shows that: ◊ California’s broadband coverage, speed, and pricing is rated 13th in the nation with strong access to low-cost plans (defined as less than $60/month) but very slow speeds. ◊ The U.S. ranked 31st out of 36 OECD countries for their internet access among households. A majority of U.S. cities still pay more for slower internet speeds than their counterparts abroad. ◊ Experts attribute higher broadband prices and slower speeds to a lack of competition among internet service providers. The Commission also provides background on initiatives from municipalities – in California and across the globe – to start fiber broadband networks as a way to increase competition and potentially make access more affordable for consumers. The Commission discovered that: ◊ Using public and public-private partnership models respectively, Chattanooga and Stockholm were able to offer fiber broadband connections to businesses and residents. ◊ The South Bay Cities Council of Governments has developed a ring of fiber with connections to data centers, municipal buildings, and public agencies in the South Bay and anticipates that 15 South Bay cities and additional agencies will be connected to the network by the end of the year. ◊ Santa Monica executed a successful effort to bring fiber broadband connections to the city’s business, anchor institutions, and municipal buildings and also provides residential service to some affordable housing units in the city. ◊ Attempts to create public-private partnerships to build fiber broadband networks in California’s more populous cities – San Francisco and Los Angeles – were unsuccessful. We hope this research will serve as a resource for policymakers and others as they weigh opportunities to better serve all Californians. Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Introduction Access to affordable, high-speed internet is more critical now than ever before, yet many California households go without or lack sufficient bandwidth to meet their household’s needs. These households are then hindered, among other things, in their ability to access education, contribute to a productive economy, and obtain crucial government services. Due to the cross-cutting and highly-relevant nature of this issue, the Commission is offering this valuable background research on the digital divide and municipal fiber broadband network initiatives in the form of an Issue Brief. We hope this research will serve as a resource for policymakers and others as they weigh opportunities to better serve all Californians. Definitions1 Broadband: Reliable, high-speed internet. The ◊ Cable: Connects you to the internet through U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the same cables that your TV likely uses. defines broadband as having download speeds of It can have high-speed capabilities and 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and upload speeds is widely available. Because it is possible of 3 Mbps.2 The FCC’s definition of “high-speed” has for many households to share the same evolved as technology has improved and internet cables, especially in highly populated areas, speeds have increased. households may experience slower speeds during peak times. Download speed: How quickly information from the internet travels to your internet-connected device. ◊ Fiber: Relies on fiber-optic cables that are For example, how long it takes for news content to installed underground and are capable of load on a news app on your phone. transmitting a lot of information quickly. While fiber offers the fastest internet connection Upload speed: How quickly information from your available, it can be higher in price and has internet-connected device travels to the internet. limited availability within the United States. For example, how long it would take to attach a Outside of the U.S., fiber is standard in parts document to your email. of Asia and Europe.3 Average speed test: The average rate at which a ◊ Dark fiber: Unused fiber cables that have not yet been “lit” with internet device can send or receive data. service. Types of broadband connections: Wired broadband: Broadband that has a physical connection to a physical location, such as a home ◊ DSL (digital subscriber line): Connects you or business. DSL, cable, and fiber are all wired to the internet through the same wires as broadband connections. a telephone line, without interrupting your phone use. DSL speeds are typically the Wired low-price plans: As defined by slowest, but it is widely available and more BroadbandNow as a wired broadband plan that costs affordable when compared to fiber or cable less than $60 per month. internet services. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 2 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Anchor institutions: Entities such as schools, Institutional Network (I-Net): The network that universities, medical and health care providers, a municipal government requires to carry out its libraries, municipal government buildings that duties. I-Net frequently refers to networks that are provide broadband to members of the community. specifically built for city use by a cable company as The entities can sometimes be connected to fiber part of their franchise agreement with the city. when commercial services are not available. Because of this, they can serve as a connection to the internet infrastructure. Understanding Broadband Speeds DSL vs Cable vs Fiber Speeds4 Technology Download Speed Range Upload Speed Range 5 to 35 Mbps 1 to 10 Mbps DSL 10 to 500 Mbps 5 to 50 Mbps CABLE 250 to 1,000 Mbps 250 to 1,000 Mbps FIBER Internet Speed Capabilities5 0–5 Mbps 5–40 Mbps 40–100 Mbps 100-500 Mbps 500–1,000+ Mbps ◊ Checking email ◊ Streaming video ◊ Streaming HD ◊ Streaming video ◊ Doing a lot of on one device video on a few in UHD on almost anything ◊ Streaming devices multiple screens music on one ◊ Video calling device with Skype or ◊ Multiplayer ◊ Downloading files FaceTime online gaming quickly ◊ Searching on Google ◊ Online gaming ◊ Downloading ◊ Gaming online for for one player large files multiple players LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 3 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Understanding Fiber Broadband Network Architecture Question: Does fiber need to go to your home? Yes and no. There are multiple types of fiber broadband network architecture:6 ◊ Fiber to the home, business or premises (FTTH or FTTB or FTTP): Fiber cables are laid underground and go directly to the customer’s home/business/premises through the installation of a node7 (such as a box on the outside wall of a home), providing faster connection speeds. However, this process can be expensive and if the customer’s house is not “fiber ready” the provider might need to install fiber lines through the customer’s property. ◊ Fiber to the node or neighborhood (FTTN): Providers run fiber to a central node, and then from there through existing copper or coaxial cables to the customers. These cables (think DSL cables) cannot carry the same capacity that fiber lines offer. Because cables are used, FTTN can be more susceptible to problems common with cable internet, such as the potential slowness of a shared connection. Nodes can also potentially be miles away, and the farther away a customer is from a node, the slower speeds they will receive. ◊ Fiber to the curb or cabinet (FTTC): The fiber goes to the cabinet, which can be found on a nearby pole or utility box – not an actual curb. FTTC is similar to FTTN, but the cabinet is closer to the customer’s premises – typically within 1,000 feet. Types of Fiber Broadband Network Architecture8 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 4 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Defining the Digital Divide When looking at the digital divide and broadband more broadly, there are discrepancies in how individuals are defined as “connected.” The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes and enforces the rules and regulations regarding radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. In 2015, the FCC defined its “broadband” benchmark speeds for internet service at 25 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.9 The FCC estimates that 21.3 million Americans lack a connection to internet that meets this benchmark.10 However, due to the methodology used by the FCC to count access, this estimate is considered to be an underestimate of the extent of the problem. The FCC looks by census block to find if there is a single subscriber within the block. If there is, it assumes that there is subscription throughout. This inaccuracy has real-world funding implications as the FCC gives out billions of dollars a year to extend service based on this information.11 Conducting their own analysis, BroadbandNow manually checked availability of over 11,000 addresses using FCC data and estimates that 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, roughly 2.3 million of whom are residents of California.12 Looking closer at California as a whole, BroadbandNow estimates that 94.1 percent of Californians have access to broadband coverage or wired low-price plans (70 percent) with an average speed test of 92.6 Mbps. When taking into account these three factors (internet coverage, speed, and price access), California is ranked 13th in the nation by BroadbandNow. New Jersey was ranked highest overall with 98.1 percent wired broadband access and 78.4 percent low-price plan availability. Alaska was ranked lowest overall, with 60.8 percent wired and fixed broadband access and no low-priced wired plan availability.13 On page 6, find a chart detailing how each state ranked on each of the three factors independently. BroadbandNow manually checked availability of over 11,000 addresses using FCC data and estimates that 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, roughly 2.3 million of whom are residents of California. When looking on the national level, the United States was ranked 31st out of 36 countries14 for their internet access15 among households by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute published a report comparing the cost and speed of internet in 24 U.S. cities and abroad. In their analysis, they found that the majority of U.S. cities (included in the report) pay more for slower internet speeds than their counterparts abroad. When comparing the estimated speeds that a customer could expect for $50, they found U.S. cities fell between 25 and 45 Mbps; with California cities Los Angeles and San Francisco at around 35 and 60 Mbps respectively. When looking internationally, that $50 allowed for dramatically higher internet speeds with Hong Kong and Seoul around 300 Mbps, and Tokyo and Paris around 200 Mbps.16 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 5 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 BroadbandNow United States Broadband Internet Rankings17 State Rankings How Each State Ranked Based on Individual Factors Considered Wired Low-Priced Ranking State State Broadband Access: State State Average Speed Test: Plan Access: 1 New Jersey CT 98.3% RI 88.5% MD 196.2 Mbps 2 New York NJ 98.1% NJ 78.4% VA 193.1 Mbps 3 Maryland NY 96.8% ND 77.7% NY 190.5 Mbps 4 Rhode Island RI 96.2% DC 74.7% MA 188.2 Mbps 5 Florida MA 95.9% NY 70.0% NJ 174.3 Mbps 6 Illinois DC 95.7% CA 70.0% CT 172.0 Mbps 7 DC MD 95.2% TX 67.3% IL 171.3 Mbps 8 Texas DE 94.8% MD 65.4% OK 168.8 Mbps 9 Massachusetts WA 94.6% SD 63.2% CO 168.5 Mbps 10 Connecticut CA 94.1% ID 62.3% FL 167.8 Mbps 11 Pennsylvania FL 92.4% IL 62.2% DC 167.2 Mbps 12 Georgia HI 92.3% FL 59.8% TX 163.7 Mbps 13 California PA 90.5% TN 59.5% RI 163.1 Mbps 14 Delaware MN 89.6% GA 57.4% MN 161.4 Mbps 15 Virginia NH 89.6% DE 57.1% GA 150.6 Mbps 16 Washington NC 89.5% MS 56.8% AZ 149.1 Mbps 17 Tennessee IL 89.3% LA 56.4% WA 149.0 Mbps 18 North Carolina OH 89.3% MI 56.0% PA 144.7 Mbps 19 Michigan UT 88.4% MO 55.2% NH 144.3 Mbps 20 Minnesota ND 86.8% IN 53.4% DE 139.9 Mbps 21 Indiana ME 86.6% AR 52.7% KS 135.9 Mbps 22 North Dakota CO 85.9% OK 52.5% IN 134.1 Mbps 23 New Hampshire NV 85.3% SC 52.4% TN 132.7 Mbps 24 Ohio TX 85.3% PA 51.9% UT 127.5 Mbps 25 Colorado GA 84.9% HI 51.3% WI 126.0 Mbps 26 Oklahoma OR 84.5% VA 51.3% SC 125.0 Mbps 27 Hawaii MI 84.0% KS 51.3% OR 122.5 Mbps 28 Kansas VA 83.4% OH 47.7% NC 115.5 Mbps 29 Utah WI 82.6% NC 46.8% MI 113.3 Mbps 30 Wisconsin TN 82.4% AL 44.4% NV 112.1 Mbps 31 South Carolina KS 82.1% WI 44.0% AL 111.8 Mbps 32 Missouri KY 81.8% MA 43.3% LA 109.4 Mbps 33 Louisiana IA 81.3% KY 39.3% MO 108.4 Mbps 34 Oregon IN 79.8% WV 39.3% WY 108.2 Mbps 35 Nevada SC 79.7% NH 36.4% AR 104.1 Mbps 36 Arizona VT 79.0% CT 30.9% HI 102.6 Mbps 37 South Dakota SD 78.2% UT 26.3% OH 102.1 Mbps 38 Alabama MO 77.3% OR 24.5% WV 101.2 Mbps 39 Idaho LA 75.0% WY 19.6% VT 98.6 Mbps 40 Kentucky NE 74.5% IA 18.5% KY 95.7 Mbps 41 Arkansas AZ 73.8% WA 15.4% NM 93.1 Mbps 42 Mississippi MT 72.4% MN 15.1% CA 92.6 Mbps 43 Maine AL 72.1% NV 13.6% ND 90.5 Mbps 44 West Virginia ID 70.3% NM 12.5% NE 90.3 Mbps 45 Iowa WV 69.2% NE 10.8% ID 88.9 Mbps 46 Wyoming NM 66.5% AZ 8.7% MS 84.5 Mbps 47 Vermont WY 62.1% ME 4.5% ME 82.8 Mbps 48 Nebraska AK 60.8% CO 3.0% MT 81.4 Mbps 49 New Mexico MS 58.7% VT 1.1% IA 78.9 Mbps 50 Montana OK 57.8% MT 0.7% SD 74.5 Mbps 51 Alaska AR 54.3% AK 0.0% AK 58.6 Mbps LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 6 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Global Comparison: Percentage of Households with Internet Access (2019, or latest available)18 Rank Country Percent Rank Country Percent 1 Korea 99.7% 19 Turkey 88.3% 2 Netherlands 98.4% 20 Chile 87.5% 3 Norway 98.4% 21 Czech Republic 87.0% 4 Iceland 97.7% 22 Poland 86.8% 5 Sweden 96.1% 23 Costa Rica 86.3% 6 United Kingdom 95.9% 24 Spain 91.4% 7 Switzerland 95.5% 25 Australia 86.1% 8 Denmark 95.4% 26 Latvia 85.5% 9 Luxembourg 95.2% 27 Italy 85.2% 10 Germany 94.8% 28 Slovak Republic 82.2% 11 Finland 94.4% 29 Lithuania 81.5% 12 Spain 91.4% 30 Portugal 80.9% 13 Ireland 90.6% 31 United States 79.9% 14 Estonia 90.4% 32 Greece 78.5% 15 France 90.2% 33 Israel 74.1% 16 Austria 89.9% 34 Brazil 71.4% 17 Belgium 89.7% 35 Mexico 56.4% 18 Slovenia 89.0% 36 Colombia 52.7% Addressing the Digital Divide The Center for Public Integrity mapped the service areas of broadband providers in five U.S. cities and found that providers will “carve up” territory, avoiding competition with each other. The Center’s analysis found that the lack of competition has resulted in higher broadband prices.19 This is also true in California, which is primarily served by several large national or regional providers.20 Analysis from USC Annenberg of Los Angeles County found that nearly two-thirds of Angelenos live in areas served by a single internet provider that offers speeds that meet the FCC’s definition of “broadband.” Additionally, researchers found that the speeds offered in areas served by monopolies are 35 percent lower than those offered in areas with three or more competitors.21 By looking both domestically and abroad, there are models from other cities that can offer some suggestions on how California can further address this challenge. Municipally-Owned Fiber Networks One idea to address the digital divide is to allow municipalities – such as cities or towns – to start their own fiber networks. Fiber networks, a type of broadband connection, allow for much faster internet speeds than DSL and cable (see chart: DSL vs Cable vs Fiber Speeds on page 3). Fiber networks are also very expensive to install, with the majority of costs coming from having LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 7 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 to physically dig underground to lay the fiber. According to Harvard Law School Professor Susan Crawford, internet service providers have received a lack of pressure from regulators and competitors to upgrade to fiber.22 As a result, across the world, municipalities are taking it upon themselves to install fiber networks and provide their own service, or develop public-private partnerships to lease the service to privately-owned companies, to increase competition as well as internet speeds. A study from Harvard researchers found that community-owned fiber-to-home networks in the U.S. generally do not charge as much for broadband services when compared to their private counterparts. The study also found that they do not make their pricing structure as complex.23 THE PUBLICLY-OWNED MODEL IN CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE One example of a successful municipal network within the U.S. can be found in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. In 2009, the city’s electric company (EPB) used an effort to modernize its electrical grid to limit outages as an opportunity to install fiber-optic cables throughout the city.24 To help fund the project, Chattanooga used a $111 million grant from the Department of Energy. After working past a series of lawsuits from Comcast and local cable operators, Chattanooga became the first city in the United States to offer gigabit internet speeds (1,000 Mbps) to all of its residents through their fiber network in 2010.25 As of 2019, the city’s electric company serves more than 100,000 homes and businesses (nearly two-thirds of the homes and businesses in the community).26 According to a study from the University of Tennessee, the network created between 2,800 and 5,200 new jobs and generated incremental economic and social benefits between $865.3 million and $1.3 billion in Hamilton County between 2011 and 2015. About 75 percent of the benefits accrued have come from new investments, business efficiencies and advantages of the smart grid. Contribution to Value (average of range)27 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 8 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Researchers did not provide a sector breakdown of the new jobs created. They did identify a few companies that either relocated or expanded in Chattanooga because of the city’s fiber-optic investment. These include HomeServe USA, an emergency home repair company, and Claris Networks, a cloud computing company. Researchers also identified firms that invested in the city; including Volkswagen AG, Alstom Power Inc., and Amazon, but due to lack of direct evidence from the firms, researchers acknowledged that it was less clear whether the jobs and investments could be attributed to the fiber investment. However, researchers argue that evidence suggests that high-speed internet access and cost-efficient energy availability play a key role in what sites firms select to expand or relocate to.28 Although it is worth noting that researchers in a separate study from the Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute at New York Law School, suggest alternative factors, such as tax incentives, played a role in at least Amazon and Volkswagen’s decisions to expand and invest in the city.29 With the installation of the fiber network, the city also went through a technological transformation and created what researchers dub a “unique entrepreneur ecosystem.” Chattanooga has become home to multiple start-up accelerators and a handful of new venture capital funds – with some focused specifically on its fiber network. Including GigTank, a 14-week entrepreneur accelerator program launched by CO.LAB (Company Lab), which focused on utilizing Chattanooga’s one gigabit per second internet grid. Gigtank itself has launched several notable startups. In addition to direct economic benefits (such as job creation), researchers also identified the value added from more indirect social benefits such as those stemming from telemedicine, telecommuting, e-business, and e-government.30 THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODEL IN STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN In 1994, Stockholm’s city leaders were looking for a neutral player to provide basic IT infrastructure to the city in the wake of the Swedish government’s decision to allow a former monopoly company to own both the telecommunications infrastructure and sell its services.31 With the goal of stimulating the telecom market and information and communications technology (ICT) in the Stockholm region, the city set up its own passive fiber infrastructure provider, Stokab.32 The municipally-owned provider would be responsible for building, operating, and maintaining the fiber networks; however, it would not be responsible for selling active services but rather it would be required to lease out those connections, to any purchaser on equal terms.33 Using loans backed by the city, Stokab purchased existing duct network and deployed dark fiber34 (unused fiber cables that only work once someone, such as an internet service provider, lights it). At its start, Stokab’s network mainly connected public institutions and universities but soon started leasing circuits to private businesses, allowing the network to expand quickly. Today, over 100 operators and service providers operate on Stokab’s network35 which has provided 100 percent of businesses and over 95 percent of households with the possibility of signing up for a fiber-based connection, at prices ranging from $15 to $35 per month.36 Due to Stokab’s success, other parts of Sweden have since continued this model and there are now over 200 municipal networks throughout the country.37 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 9 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Fiber Broadband Network Efforts in California As of 2018, California is one of 28 states that does not have any substantive roadblocks to establishing municipal broadband networks for its residents.38 California’s final roadblock was removed in 2018 with the passage of AB 1999 (Chau), which expands the authority for municipal and public utility districts to develop public broadband services and requires those entities to adhere to “net neutrality rules” when providing services. Additionally, the bill removes the requirement for Community Service Districts (a form of local government created by a community Municipalities with Broadband Networks in California39 Provider Network Type Services Offered Beverly Hills Fiber Fiber Residential Fiber-to-the-Home, Enterprise. (Network under development.) Burbank Water and Enterprise Services, Dark Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal Power Fiber buildings. City of Anaheim Fiber, Dark Fiber Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. City of Shafter, California Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Connect Anza Fiber Residential Fiber-to-the-Home, Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Culver Connect Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Glendale Dark Fiber Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Loma Linda Connected Fiber Residential Fiber-to-the-Home, Enterprise, Anchor Community institutions and municipal buildings. Long Beach Dark Fiber Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Palo Alto Fiber Fiber, Dark Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Pasadena Fiber, Dark Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Plumas-Sierra Fiber, Wireless Residential, Enterprise. Telecommunications Riverside Dark Fiber Dark Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal Network buildings. San Bruno Municipal Cable, Fiber Residential, Enterprise. Cable TV Santa Clara Dark Fiber Enterprise. Santa Monica CityNet Fiber, Dark Fiber Residential Fiber-to-the-Home, Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. Stockton Fiber Fiber Residential Fiber-to-the-Home. (Network under development.) Truckee Donner Public Fiber Residential, Anchor institutions and municipal Utility buildings. Vernon Light & Power Fiber, Dark Fiber Enterprise, Anchor institutions and municipal buildings. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 10 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 to meet a specific need or needs40) to first try to identify a private company to deploy service, before entering the broadband market and to sell or lease their broadband infrastructure and service to a company that enters the market at a later time.41 ConnectCalifornia.org (also cross-checked with similar information provided by BroadbandNow) found that California has 17 active municipal broadband providers – and an additional two networks that are under development and pending launch – as of June 2020 (see Municipalities with Broadband Networks in California on page 10). The Commission also identified an additional fiber broadband network from the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which is outlined in more detail below. California Case Studies SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SBCCOG) – SOUTH BAY FIBER NETWORK (SBFN) The South Bay Cities Council of Governments, comprised of 16 city councils in Los Angeles County, set out to create a “ring of dark fiber” around the South Bay that would connect all member cities with high-capacity, high-speed internet access.42 In 2017, the South Bay Workforce Investment Board and the South Bay Council of Governments commissioned a feasibility study by Magellan Advisors43 and a request for proposals (RFP) was issued in June 2018.44 During the feasibility study, Magellan advisors found that the South Bay’s digital infrastructure network was extensive, but also inconsistent and fragmented. Looking at costs they found a range – with the city of Redondo Beach paying $6,300 per month for just 100 Mbps upload/download speed while the monthly cost for Rancho Palos Verdes was $275 for 150 Mbps upload/download speed. As a whole, the South Bay Cities were paying about $43 per Mbps download and $63 per Mbps upload per month.45 Broadband Costs in South Bay Cities (May 2017)46 Contracted Actual Mbps Monthly Monthly cost Mbps cost per Mbps City Down Up Down Up Down Up Carson 100 100 100 100 $1,500 $15.00 $15.00 El Segundo 100 10 75 7 $531 $7.08 $75.86 Gardena 200 200 200 200 $2,600 $13.00 $13.00 Hawthorne 50 50 42 19 $3,70047 $88.09 $194.70 Manhattan Beach 100 100 93 42 $7,80048 $83.87 $185.71 Inglewood 1,000 1,000 850 750 $6,000 $7.06 $8.00 Rancho Palos Verdes 150 150 149 152 $275 $1.85 $1.81 Redondo Beach 100 100 40 38 $6,300 $157.50 $165.79 Rolling Hills Estates 50 50 49 46 NA NA NA Torrance 308 317 54 54 $3,933 $72.39 $72.84 Averages $3,627 $49.54 $81.41 Total $32,639 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 11 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 To fund the project, the South Bay Cities submitted a funding request for $4.4 billion in Measure M (transportation tax) funds in September 2019. Because officials were asking for transportation funding, the project leaders needed to establish a transportation component. South Bay officials and the Metro (Transportation Authority) agreed to connect the fiber-optic ring to traffic collection centers and traffic monitoring programs operated by the Metro, Los Angeles County, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance.49 The cities later received an additional $2.5 million50 in additional Measure M funding, as well as $1.2 million51 from the state. Initially, the service will cost $1,000 a month for one gigabit (equal to 1,000 Mbps) with the goal for it to lower in price once more services are connected to the system. For higher rates, service is also available at two, five, and 10 gigabits.52 The project has continued amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the network’s “core ring,” also known as the middle-mile network architecture, became operational at the end of August 2020. Construction to connect municipal facilities and public agencies’ sites to the ring is still underway. As of November 2020, the South Bay Cities has been able to complete 22 lateral connections to the core ring to include two data centers in the South Bay, 10 South Bay municipalities (some with multiple sites), and four public agencies (some with multiple sites). The South Bay Cities anticipates that all 15 South Bay cities (in the SBCCOG’s service territory) as well as a diverse set of agencies – such as the Metro, Beach Cities Health District, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works – will be connected to the network by the end of 2020.53 SANTA MONICA – SANTA MONICA CITYNET Santa Monica recognized the potential value in providing broadband back in 199854 when the city released its Telecommunications Master Plan.55 The Telecommunications Working Group tasked with developing the plan, engaged in workshops; interviewed city departments, key businesses, and individuals; and conducted surveys to businesses, residents, and existing telecommunications providers.56 The plan was meant to serve as a “strategic road map for telecommunications development in the City over the next five years” and called on the city to construct and operate a municipal fiber network.57 In 2002, Santa Monica negotiated with a local cable company that was renewing its lease. The city agreed to lease an institutional fiber network (an internet network that connects municipal buildings but is not open for commercial use) from the company. The Institutional Network connected 43 city buildings, as well as schools and college facilities. Santa Monica paid for the $530,000 in construction costs but shared the ongoing operations and maintenance costs with the school districts and colleges. By operating its own network, the city, school district and college initially reduced their combined telecommunications costs by $400,000 each year (from $1.1 million to $700,000). Within a few years, these savings grew to $500,000 annually. The city then re-invested these savings to help build its own 10 Gbps municipal fiber-optic network.58 Santa Monica was able to slowly expand its network, and reduce costs, by installing the fiber infrastructure underground while the city worked on projects like street renovations and sewer-main installations.59 By adopting a “dig LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 12 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 once” policy, Santa Monica was able to reduce the installation costs by up to 90 percent.60 Starting in 2006, CityNet focused on leasing dark fiber to large businesses (with over 2,000 employees) but in 2009 the city started to provide internet to smaller businesses - that were not inclined to light their own dark fiber and/or could not justify the price for speeds they did not necessarily need. To provide this service, the city leased a connection to One Wilshire, a carrier hotel (a building that houses multiple networks from multiple providers, like a grand central station) in downtown Los Angeles. Hundreds of service providers interconnect at One Wilshire and connections are offered at rates roughly 70 percent lower than prices charged in Santa Monica. By connecting to One Wilshire, CityNet was able to offer more services to local businesses.61 According to Gary Carter, community broadband manager for CityNet, soon businesses started to pay a third of what they had been previously paying private providers for 10 times the speed.62 In 2015, with $175,000 in seed funding as part of the City Council’s Strategic Initiatives, Santa Monica launched a Digital Inclusion Pilot to provide internet to 10 affordable housing buildings in the city. Working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the city was able to later use a $1.85 million of Community Development Block Grant funding to expand to an additional 29 buildings. With this expansion, over 900 low-income housing families were given the option to use the free gigabit broadband in their community rooms, purchase their own internet for $48 per month (for 1 Gbps), or partake in free technology workshops available onsite.63 CityNet has also been able to expand to offer a multitude of benefits to the public. As of 2014, the network supports 550 video cameras for public safety, 55 video cameras for traffic management and synchronizes 80 percent of the traffic signals.64 As of 2016, it has 34 no-cost Wi-Fi hots spots around the city at most of their public spaces and commercial and transit corridors.65 And last year, they started offering free Wi-Fi on select Santa Monica buses.66 As of 2014, the latest revenue details available, CityNet had 110 customers and generated $1.6 million annually in revenue. CityNet costs $1 million annually to operate and also has an additional $500,000 revolving fund. The fund is used to pay the upfront costs of fiber installation for commercial entities, which they will later reimburse the city for.67 Essentially, companies are paying for their own fiber installation. Unsuccessful Efforts in California SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco leaders, including Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor Mark Farrell, looked at building a municipal fiber broadband network to close the digital divide for the approximately 100,000 San Franciscans (12 percent of San Francisco residents68) without internet access at home.69 In 2016, Supervisor Farrell requested the city’s Budget and Legislative Analyst Office (the Office) conduct a financial analysis of constructing, owning, and operating a citywide municipal fiber network that would provide internet access to all residential, commercial, and industrial properties in San Francisco at speeds of at least one Gbps. The Office evaluated the costs and risks of three different approaches to financing and operating the fiber network: LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 13 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 ◊ Public development and ownership. Would pose the most risk to the city and potentially a higher cost (but could be equal to or less than the cost of the public-private partnership, depending on the build-out approach taken). ◊ Private development and ownership. Would provide the least cost and risk to the city, but would also be the least effective at tackling the digital divide. ◊ Public-private partnership development and ownership. Would reduce the costs and risks associated with San Francisco creating and operating a new utility, while also bringing the benefit of competition to the public as more providers would be allowed to use the fiber-optic network.70 Upon release of the study, Supervisor Farrell issued a press release touting that the report concluded that the public-private partnership model was the best model.71 In March 2017, Supervisor Farrell formed the San Francisco Municipal Fiber Blue Ribbon Panel, co-chaired by Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford and composed of internet access, business, and privacy experts. The panel was charged with making recommendations on how to bring fast and affordable internet to San Francisco.72 In June 2017, the panel released a report recommending that San Francisco build out a fiber-optic network citywide.73 In October 2017, San Francisco commissioned a report from an outside consultant, CTC Technology & Energy, to explore costs associated with building out a fiber network and potential business models. CTC found that a public-private partnership would be the easiest and cheapest option74 for the city to build out a fiber network - estimating that it would cost $1.9 billion.75 This drew controversy to the project as internet service providers and other city leaders questioned whether spending money on internet access was as important as other priorities, such as providing affordable housing.76 San Francisco continued to move forward with the project using the public-private partnership model. The citywide fiber network would have been owned by San Francisco but built and managed by a private company under a 15-year contract.77 The network would offer at-cost gigabit-speed internet to all homes and businesses, while the cost would be subsidized for qualifying low-income households.78 In January 2018, the city issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) to find qualified teams (comprised of private companies) to build out the network. After identifying three teams, the city planned to issue a request for proposals (RFP) in which the teams would compete for the final bid to build out the network.79 However, after the teams were selected, the project was put on hold indefinitely in June 2018. One of the next steps in the project was to put a measure on the November 2018 ballot to generate funding. The tax measure would have raised $1.7 billion over 25 years to cover the costs of the project, but a poll indicated that it was shy of the two-thirds of votes needed to pass. Ultimately, Supervisor-turned-Interim Mayor Farrell – who took over the role in January 2018 following the death of Mayor Ed Lee in December 2017 – was leaving office in July and opted to let the deadline pass without submitting a tax proposal for the ballot.80 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 14 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 According to a letter from the Office of Contract Administration to the three bid teams obtained by the San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco wanted to continue to “reduce uncertainties” and “... research a number of factors, including how market conditions and the construction environment would affect the project” over the coming months.81 In July 2018, London Breed was sworn in as mayor but has not taken further action on this project specifically. However, Mayor Breed launched the Fiber to Housing program in 2018 – a collaboration between the Department of Technology, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, and the local internet service provider, Monkeybrains – which works to reduce the digital divide by leveraging existing municipal fiber resources to bring free high-speed internet to residents in affordable housing.82 Monkeybrains is on call to fix any problems that arise and also offers onsite digital literacy training to those who do not know how to use the internet once they have access.83 As of August 2019, the program has provided 1,500 low-income families with access to free, high-speed internet with a plan to serve an additional 1,600 families in the next year.84 Prior to the 2018 effort, San Francisco also made a push for citywide internet in 2007. The city commissioned a report recommending a fiber network,85 but according to Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford, plans did not move forward due to a “lack of leadership and the absence of a concrete plan.”86 LOS ANGELES Over the past decade the city has explored ways to provide free internet access to every resident, including conducting a study of the city’s broadband capabilities. In 2009, the LA WiFi Working Group – composed of representatives from multiple city departments including the Information Technology Agency, Department of Water and Power, and Office of the Mayor – and the consulting firm Civitium released a feasibility study of developing of a citywide wireless network. However, the study concluded that the construction of a citywide network was not feasible, at that present time, due to a variety of technical and financial reasons.87 Then in 2013, Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield launched CityLinkLA, an initiative to ensure that every Los Angeles resident has access to high-speed, high-quality internet. As part of this effort, in April 2014, the Los Angeles City Council issued a Request for Information to gather feedback from potential bidders and the public to provide needed information to create a viable request to build a citywide network.88 In June 2015, the Los Angeles City Council approved a Request for Participants to find one or more providers to commit to deploying wireline and wireless networks that could provide one-gigabit broadband speed or more internet to homes and businesses. The City Council also asked entities to provide a free level of service, at slower speeds (of at least five Mbps), to members of the public – to try and prevent low-income residences from being left without internet access. Due to the size of the city, Los Angeles was divided into four quadrants and the Council asked proposers to serve one or more of the service areas.89 In exchange for serving the city, service providers would be offered discounts and the ability to lease city-owned infrastructure and a streamlined permitting process.90 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 15 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 Los Angeles expected that it would cost $3 to $5 billion to build out the fiber infrastructure, but the cost would be borne by the vender(s). Steve Reneker, Los Angeles Information Technology Agency’s General Manager, told Ars Technica that the winning bidder should make out well as it would gain a lot of new residential, business, and government customers.91 Ultimately, the city never received any workable proposals to build out the network and the project died.92 In March 2018, Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian proposed a motion for a study into the creation of a new city department that would oversee an effort to improve the city’s broadband capabilities.93 Within the motion, Councilmember Krekorian referenced the city’s extensive network of city-owned fiber optic cables, which, in combination with the city’s control of power poles, light poles, and significant plans for street reconstruction and maintenance could, “create a unique opportunity for the voters of the City of Los Angeles to consider the creation of a city-operated broadband utility.”94 After the motion was referred to the City Council’s Information, Technology, and General Services Committee it did not move further within the Council’s process.95 Conclusion Lack in universal access to affordable, high-speed internet is leaving many households behind. These inequities are impacting many Californians’ to ability to access to the necessities and advantages that internet access provides: from the ability to access education and employment opportunities to obtaining critical government services. More information about the Commission and our work is available at www.lhc.ca.gov. Notes 1. Rebecca Lee Armstrong and John Dilley. March 25, 2020. “The 6. John Grother. November 10, 2016. “Why Knowing It’s ‘Fiber’ is Not Consumers Guide to Internet Speed.” HighSpeedInternet.com. Enough.” Telogical Systems. http://www.telogicalsystems.com/ https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/the-consumers- blog/fttn-vs-ftth. Also, PC Mag. “FTTN.” https://www.pcmag.com/ guide-to-internet-speed. Also, Alex Sheehan. May 30, 2019. encyclopedia/term/fttn. Also, Catherine McNally. January 17, 2019. “Everything you need to know about internet speeds.” AllConnect. “How Does Fiber Optic Internet Work?” Reviews.org. https://www. https://www.allconnect.com/blog/consumers-guide-to-internet- reviews.org/internet-service/how-does-fiber-optic-internet-work/ speed. Also, Federal Communications Commission. June 2, 2012. 7. Note: A node or cabinet refers to a mounted communication “WCB Cost Model Virtual Workshop 2012 - Community Anchor device where the customer’s connection plugs into. Institutions.” https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2012/06/01/ 8. “Fiber to the x.” Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/ wcb-cost-model-virtual-workshop-2012-community-anchor- index.php?curid=1919753. Accessed July 2020. institutions. Also, Community Networks. “Glossary.” https:// muninetworks.org/glossary. Also, Broadband Now. “DSL vs Cable 9. Federal Communications Commission, see endnote 2. vs Fiber: Comparing Internet Options.” https://broadbandnow. 10. Federal Communications Commission. May 23, 2019. “2019 com/guides/dsl-vs-cable-vs-fiber. All accessed July 2020. Broadband Deployment Report.” Page 2. https://docs.fcc.gov/ 2. Federal Communications Commission. February 4, 2015. “2015 public/attachments/FCC-19-44A1.pdf. Accessed July 2020. Broadband Progress Report.” https://www.fcc.gov/reports- 11. Joe Garofoli. “The Digital Divide Is Getting Worse.” It’s All Political. research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2015-broadband- San Francisco Chronicle. May 22, 2020. https://www.sfchronicle. progress-report. Accessed July 2020. com/projects/podcasts/its-all-political/. Accessed July 2020. 3. Eric Johnson. January 10, 2019. “America desperately needs fiber 12. John Busby, Julia Tanberk, and BroadbandNow Team. February internet, and the tech giants won’t save us.” Recode. https://www. 3, 2020. “FCC Reports Broadband Unavailable to 21.3 Million vox.com/2019/1/10/18175869/susan-crawford-fiber-book-internet- Americans, BroadbandNow Study Indicates 42 Million Do Not Have access-comcast-verizon-google-peter-kafka-media-podcast. Access.” BroadbandNow Research. https://broadbandnow.com/ Accessed July 2020. research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent. Accessed 4. BroadbandNow, see endnote 1. July 2020. 5. Rebecca Lee Armstrong and John Dilley, see endnote 1. 13. Tyler Cooper and Julia Tanberk. March 3, 2020. “Best and Worst States for Internet Coverage, Prices and Speeds, 2020.” LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 16 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 BroadbandNow Research. https://broadbandnow.com/research/ 31. Marco Forzati and Crister Mattsson. March 4, 2015. “Technical best-states-with-internet-coverage-and-speed. Accessed July 2020. and economic analysis of fibre-based broadband technologies in 14. OECD Data. “Internet Access.” https://data.oecd.org/ict/internet- Stockholm FTTH vs. FTTB.” Acreo Swedish ICT. Page 7. https://www. access.htm. Accessed November 2020. stokab.se/download/18.30ae8a0117353193f441ff/1595312970156/ Techno-economic%20analysis%20of%20fibre-based%20 15. Note: The OECD defines internet access as the percentage of broadband%20technologies%20in%20Stockholm%20FTTH%20 households who reported that they had access to the Internet. vs.%20FTTB%20(2015.pdf. Accessed July 2020. In almost all cases this access is via a personal computer either using a dial-up, ADSL or cable broadband access. This indicator is 32. Benoît Felten. July 2012. “Stockholm’s Stokab: measured in percentage of all households. A Blueprint for Ubiquitous Fiber Connectivity?” Diffraction Analysis. https://www.stokab.se/ 16. Nick Russo, Danielle Kehl, Robert Morgus, and Sarah Morris. download/18.30ae8a0117353193f4414e/1595245044044/ October 30, 2014. “The Cost of Connectivity 2014.” Open Stockholms%20Stokab%20-%20A%20Blueprint%20for%20 Technology Institute. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/policy- Ubiquitous%20Fiber%20Connectivity%20(2012).pdf Accessed July papers/the-cost-of-connectivity-2014/. Accessed July 2020. 2020. 17. Tyler Cooper and Julia Tanberk, see endnote 13. 33. Tracy Cohen and Russel Southwood. February 2008. “Extending 18. OECD Data, see endnote 14. Open Access to National Fibre Backbones in Developing 19. Allan Holmes and Chris Zubak-Skees. May 28, 2015. “U.S. Internet Countries.” International Telecommunication Union. Page 22. Users Pay More and Have Fewer Choices Than Europeans.” The https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Events/Seminars/GSR/GSR08/ Center for Public Integrity. https://publicintegrity.org/inequality- discussion_papers/Cohen_Southwood_web.pdf. Accessed October poverty-opportunity/u-s-internet-users-pay-more-and-have-fewer- 2020. choices-than-europeans/. Accessed July 2020. 34. Susan Crawford, March 3, 2016. “You Didn’t Notice It, But Google 20. The PEW Charitable Trusts. February 2020. “How States Are Fiber Just Began the Golden Age of High Speed Internet Access.” Expanding Broadband Access.” Page 5. https://www.pewtrusts. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/you-didnt-notice-it-but- org/-/media/assets/2020/03/broadband_report0320_final.pdf. google-fiber-just-began-the-golden-age-of-high-speed-internet- Accessed July 2020. access/. Accessed July 2020. 21. Hernán Galperin, Annette M. Kim, and François Bar. March 5, 35. Marco Forzati and Crister Mattsson. March 4, 2015. “Technical 2017. “America’s broadband market needs more competition.” The and economic analysis of fibre-based broadband technologies in Conversation. https://theconversation.com/americas-broadband- Stockholm FTTH vs. FTTB.” Acreo Swedish ICT. Page 8. https://www. market-needs-more-competition-71676. Accessed July 2020. stokab.se/download/18.30ae8a0117353193f441ff/1595312970156/ Techno-economic%20analysis%20of%20fibre-based%20 22. Claire Cain Miller. October 13, 2014. “Why the U.S. Has Fallen broadband%20technologies%20in%20Stockholm%20FTTH%20 Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability.” The New York Times. vs.%20FTTB%20(2015.pdf. Accessed July 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has- fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html. Accessed 36. Susan Crawford, see endnote 34. July 2020. 37. Benoît Felten, see endote 32. 23. David Talbot, Kira Hessekiel, and Danielle Kehl. January 2018. 38. Kendra Chamberlain. May 13, 2020. “Municipal Broadband Is “Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America.” Roadblocked Or Outlawed In 22 States.” BroadbandNow. https:// Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Page 3. https://dash. broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/. harvard.edu/handle/1/34623859. Accessed July 2020. Accessed July 2020. 24. Jason Koebler, October 2, 2016. “The City That Was Saved by the 39. ConnectCalifornia, “Municipal Broadband Providers in California.” Internet.” Vice News. https://www.vice.com/en/article/ezpk77/ https://www.connectcalifornia.com/internet-service/municipal- chattanooga-gigabit-fiber-network. Accessed July 2020. broadband-providers. Accessed July 2020. Also, BroadbandNow. 25. James O’Toole. May 20, 2014. “Chattanooga’s super-fast publicly May 12, 2020. “Municipal Broadband Providers in the US 2020.” owned Internet.” CNN. https://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/ https://broadbandnow.com/municipal-providers. Accessed July technology/innovation/chattanooga-internet/. Accessed July 2020. 2020. 26. EPB. “2019 Annual Report.” Page 9. https://static.epb.com/annual- 40. Twain Harte Community Services District. “What is a Community reports/2019/media/EPB_Annual%20Report_2019.pdf. Accessed Services District.” https://www.twainhartecsd.com/what-is-a- July 2020. community-services-district. Accessed July 2020. 27. Bento J. Lobo. June 18, 2015. “The realized value of fiver 41. AB 1999 (Chau). August 23, 2018. Bill Analysis. Concurrence in infrastructure in Hamilton County, Tennessee.” University of Senate Amendments. Tennessee at Chattanooga. http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/ 42. Bill Higgins. October 2, 2019. “’Ring of Fiber’ to Improve wrcb/pdf/091515EPBFiberStudy.pdf. Accessed July 2020. Connectivity in South Bay (LA)” California Association of Councils 28. Bento J. Lobo, see endnote 27. of Governments. https://calcog.org/ring-of-fiber-to-improve- connectivity-in-south-bay-la/. Accessed July 2020. 29. Charles M. Davidson and Michael J. Santorelli. October 2015. “Understanding the Debate over Government-Owned Broadband 43. Magellan Advisors. May 2017. “Fiber-Optic Networks: Context, Lessons Learned, and a Way Forward For Master Plan.” https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ Policymakers.” Page 4. http://comms.nyls.edu/ACLP/ACLP- b8c0dc_902ad13479b947b79322dbd8bffcf411.pdf. Accessed July Chattanooga-Case-Study-updated-October-2015.pdf. New York 2020. Law School. Accessed July 2020. 44. South Bay Cities Council of Government. Summer 2019. “SBCCOG 30. Bento J. Lobo, see endnote 27. Proudly Announces the Creation of the South Bay Fiber Network.” Page 1. https://12fb482c-642a-18a0-d2e6-789a72c3925c.filesusr. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 17 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 com/ugd/b8c0dc_83a37d366c7a430e8c56b638a4e18eb1.pdf. aspx. Accessed July 2020. Accessed July 2020. 61. Eric Lampland and Christopher Mitchell, see endnote 56. 45. Magellan Advisors, see endnote 43. 62. Karen Robes Meeks. November 6, 2017. “Can Long Beach Be 46. Magellan Advisors, see endnote 43. The Next Burbank Or Santa Monica? A Look At How Two Cities 47. Note: The City of Hawthorne is currently contracted with two Are Connecting Their Public Facilities And Their Residents service providers for 50 Mbps circuits at rates of $2,100 and To The Internet.” Long Beach Business Journal. https://www. $1,500. lbbusinessjournal.com/can-long-beach-be-the-next-burbank-or- santa-monica-a-look-at-how-two-cities-are-connecting-their-public- 48. Note: The costs for Manhattan Beach at the time of the survey in facilities-and-their-residents-to-the-internet/. Accessed July 2020. 2016 were for a 50Mb circuit. In June 2017, the City is transitioning to three 1Gb circuits at a rate of $1300 each for a total of $3900 63. Santa Monica Daily Press. July 23, 2018. “Santa Monica’s Digital per month. This results in a 50% cost reduction while increase Inclusion Pilot Wins Top 25 Programs in American Government transport capacity by 5900%. Reducing the monthly cost per Mbps Award by Harvard.” https://www.smdp.com/santa-monicas-digital- to $2.30. inclusion-pilot-wins-top-25-programs-in-american-government- award-by-harvard/167784. Accessed July 2020. 49. Laura J. Nelson, September 29, 2019. “Over critics’ objections, L.A. Metro approves $4.4 million for South Bay internet project.” 64. Eric Lampland and Christopher Mitchell, see endnote 56. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/ 65. Seascape. May/June 2016. “The Newly Connect Santa story/2019-09-25/south-bay-cities-transportation-tax-internet. Monica.” Page 11. City of Santa Monica. https://www.smgov. Accessed July 2020. net/uploadedFiles/Departments/CMO/CommGovRel/2016/ 50. South Bay Cities Council of Governments. April 16, 2020. “Board Seascape2016MayJun.pdf. Accessed July 2020. Report.” https://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/ 66. Big Blue Bus. February 11, 2019. “FREE Wi-Fi Now Available on steering_committee/HANDOUT_2020-0290%20Fiber%20Optic%20 Select Buses.” https://www.bigbluebus.com/Newsroom/News/ Ring%20Motion.pdf. Accessed July 2020. FREE-Wi-Fi-Now-Available-on-Select-Buses.aspx?type=News 51. South Bay Cities Council of Governments. June 8, 2020. “Proposed Accessed July 2020. Budget Fiscal Year 2020-21.” https://www.southbaycities.org/sites/ 67. Eric Lampland and Christopher Mitchell, see endnote 56. default/files/board_directors/meeting/4_FY2020-21%20Budget%20 68. City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget 6-1-2020.pdf. Page 12. Accessed July 2020. and Legislative Analyst. March 15, 2016. “Policy Analysis 52. Bill Higgins, see endnote 42. Report.” Page 2. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/ 53. Aaron Baum, Program Manager of the South Bay Fiber Network, Documents/55357-FAC1.pdf. Accessed July 2020. South Bay Cities Council of Governments. November 2020. Written 69. Edwin M. Lee and Mark Farrell. April 27, 2017. “Fighting for Open communication with Commission staff. and Equal Internet.” Medium. https://medium.com/@mayoredlee/ 54. City of Santa Monica Staff. February 24, 1998. “Status Report fighting-for-open-and-equal-internet-dc27bca1485f. Accessed July on Telecommunications Master Plan, Including Preliminary 2020. Conceptual Findings, and Recommendation to Proceed with 70. City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget Finalizing the Master Plan for City Council Adoption.” https:// and Legislative Analyst. March 15, 2016. “Policy Analysis www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1998/19980224/ Report.” Page 2. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/ s1998022409-A.html. Accessed October 2020. Documents/55357-FAC1.pdf. Accessed July 2020. 55. Media Connections Group. 1998. “City of Santa Monica 71. Mark Farrell. March 15, 2016, “Supervisor Mark Farrell Releases Telecommunications Master Plan.” https://muninetworks.org/ First-Of-Its-Kind Report About Low-Cost Citywide Gigabit-Speed sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/Telecommunications%20 Internet.” San Francisco City and County Board of Supervisors. Master%20Plan%20Body.pdf. Accessed July 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20171205100109/https://sfbos.org/ 56. Eric Lampland and Christopher Mitchell. March 2014. “Santa supervisor-mark-farrell-releases-first-its-kind-report-about-low- Monica City Net An Incremental Approach to Building a Fiber Optic cost-citywide-gigabit-speed. Accessed October 2020. Network.” Institute for Local Self-Reliance. https://ilsr.org/wp- 72. Mark Farrell. March 14, 2017. “Press Release: Supervisor Mark content/uploads/2014/03/santa-monica-city-net-fiber-2014-2.pdf. Farrell Forms Municipal Fiber Blue Ribbon Panel.” Medium. https:// Accessed July 2020. medium.com/@MarkFarrellSF/press-release-supervisor-mark- 57. Media Connections Group. 1998. “City of Santa Monica farrell-forms-municipal-fiber-blue-ribbon-panel-2dccfaf74029. Telecommunications Master Plan.” Page 7. https://muninetworks. Accessed July 2020. org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/Telecommunications%20 73. San Francisco Blue Ribbon Panel on Municipal Fiber Subcommittee Master%20Plan%20Body.pdf. Accessed July 2020. on Technology & Infrastructure. June 2017. “Why Fiber? Should San 58. Masha Zager. May/June 2011. “Santa Monica City Net: How to Francisco Deploy a Fiber Broadband Network.” https://sfmunifiber. Grow a Network.” Broadband Communities Magazine. https:// files.wordpress.com/2017/06/why-fiber-report.pdf. Accessed July www.bbcmag.com/pub/doc/BBC_MayJun11_SantaMonica.pdf. 2020. Accessed July 2020. 74. Dominic Fracassa, October 18, 2017. “San Francisco moving closer 59. Ryan Singel. July 8, 2020. “Hey, Google Fiber Losers: Build It to building a city-owned Internet network.” SF Gate. https://www. Yourselves.” Wired. https://www.wired.com/2010/04/google-fiber- sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-moving-closer-to- losers/. Accessed July 2020. building-a-12285688.php. Accessed July 2020. 60. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 75. CTC Technology & Energy. October 2017. “The Potential for Administration. “Project Profile: Santa Monica City Net.” https:// ubiquitous, Open Fiber-to-the-Premises in San Francisco.” www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_santa_monica_city_net. Page 4. https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/CTC-Deliverable22- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 18 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 final-20171017.pdf. Accessed July 2020. com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/. Accessed July 2020. 76. Brian Fung. July 12, 2018. “In America’s tech capital, tens of 87. City of Los Angeles Information Technology Agency. January 20, thousands go without home Internet. Here’s how San Francisco 2009. “Feasibility Study Completed by LA WiFi Working Group.” wants to fix it.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost. https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-3263_rpt_ita_1-20-09. com/technology/2018/07/12/americas-tech-capital-tens- pdf. Accessed July 2020. thousands-go-without-home-internet-heres-how-san-francisco- 88. Office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. wants-fix-it/. Accessed July 2020. June 10, 2015. “Los Angeles Initiative to Deploy Citywide Gigabit 77. City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. January 31, Broadband Network With Free Wireless Access Crosses Major 2019.” Mayor Mark Farrell Announces Plans for Universal Fiber Milestone.” http://blumenfield.lacity.org/pressrelease_061015. Network that Mandates Net Neutrality and Privacy Protections.” Accessed July 2020. https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-mark-farrell-announces-plans- 89. City of Los Angeles Information Technology Agency. June 23, 2015. universal-fiber-network-mandates-net-neutrality-and. Accessed “Request for Participants CityLinkLA Initiative for Deployment of July 2020. Advanced Broadband Systems.” Page 14 https://clkrep.lacity.org/ 78. Brian Fung, see endnote 76. onlinedocs/2013/13-0953_misc_06-04-2015.pdf. Accessed July 79. City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. See endnote 2020. 77. 90. Bianca Barragan. June 10, 2015. “LA Is Starting to Make its Citywide 80. Joshua Sabatini. June 17, 2018. “S.F. hits brakes on Farrell’s Free Internet Plan Happen.” Curbed Los Angeles. https://la.curbed. high-speed internet plan.” San Francisco Examiner. https://www. com/2015/6/10/9951216/los-angeles-free-internet. Accessed July sfexaminer.com/news/s-f-hits-brakes-on-farrells-high-speed- 2020. internet-plan/. Accessed July 2020. 91. Jon Brodkin. November 5, 2013. “Bigger than Google Fiber: LA 81. Joshua Sabatini, see endnote 80. plans citywide gigabit for homes and businesses.” Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/ 82. City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. August bigger-than-google-fiber-la-plans-citywide-gigabit-for-homes-and- 23, 2019. “San Francisco ‘Fiber to Housing’ Program Provides businesses/. Accessed July 2020. Internet for Low-Income Families.” https://sfmayor.org/article/san- francisco-fiber-housing-program-provides-internet-low-income- 92. Elijah Chiland. January 9, 2018. “Will free internet ever become families. Accessed July 2020. a reality in Los Angeles?” Curbed Los Angeles. https://la.curbed. com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-angeles-wifi-network. 83. Alisha Green. October 2, 2019. “Can San Francisco Finally Close its Accessed July 2020. Digital Divide?” SF Weekly. https://www.sfweekly.com/news/can- san-francisco-finally-close-its-digital-divide/. Accessed July 2020. 93. Zack Quaintance. March 28, 2018. “LA Councilmember Proposes Municipal Broadband Feasability Study.” Government Technology. 84. City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor, see endnote https://www.govtech.com/network/LA-Councilmember-Proposes- 82. Municipal-Broadband-Feasibility-Study.html. Accessed July 2020. 85. CTC Technology & Energy (formerly Columbia Telecommunications 94. Motion 18-0186 (Krekorian). March 2018. Los Angeles City Council. Corporation). January 2007. “Fiber Optics for Government and https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2018/18-0186_mot_03-07- Public Broadband: A Feasibility Study.” https://www.ctcnet.us/wp- 2018.pdf. Accessed July 2020. content/uploads/2014/01/SFFiberFeasibilityReport.pdf. Accessed July 2020. 95. LACityClerk Connect. Motion 18-0186 (Krekorian). City of Los Angeles. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index. 86. Susan Crawford. October 25, 2017. “San Francisco Just Took a cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=18-0186. Accessed November Huge Step Toward Internet Utopia.” Wired. https://www.wired. 2020. Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide December 2020 (916)-445-2125 | LittleHoover@lhc.ca.gov 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sacramento, CA 95814 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 19