Subject: [pafiber] taking up FTTH again / article in Chronicle

From: Jeff Hoel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:09:58 -0800 (PST)

Marvin,

Thanks for your message to pafiber of 3-12-05, 12:23, re
"Re: [pafiber] South Korea, The most connected country ion the planet":

> Perhaps it is time to take up the issue of FTTH again since the City
> Staff appears to have dropped the ball./ Marvin

Sounds good.  What do you propose?

All city staff is supposed to be doing re FTTH, per Council directive
of 7-19-04, is waiting to see if any other California city figures
out an attractive way to finance FTTH in California.  Are you saying
staff is not doing that properly?  What else should they be doing?
I think maybe Council dropped the ball by not asking staff to do
anything more.

> See
<http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2005/03/09/news/20050309_ne06_sfdigital.txt>

Re this article:

*> S.F. closer to being digital

...

*> Palo Alto last summer indefinitely put its broadband proposal on
*> hold after deciding the capital investment to lay the cables was
*> simply too large.

I think this statement is false.  The problem is not with how much muni
FTTH would cost but with how to do the financing.  (Were the problem
of financing method to be solved, the next problem might be how much
it costs.)

*> Blake Heitsman, a manager in Palo Alto's Utilities Department, said
*> a trial project there showed that "the equipment works very well
*> but is also very expensive."

I don't think the Trial showed that, and Heitzman shouldn't have said
that it does.

Trial costs shouldn't be extrapolated to estimate citywide FTTH costs.
(For one thing, the Trial optronics were "free."  Also, the Trial was
a learning experience.  Also, the Trial didn't get large-quantity
discounts because it was small.  Also, I think it's not the
architecture we want for a citywide system.)  The Trial was never
intended as a vehicle for estimating citywide costs.

The city's FTTH Business Plan, Phase One, (BP1) has some cost
estimates, including $759 per home passed plus $918 per home connected.
(We could debate whether these BP1 estimates are right.)  Do we know
what the corresponding figures are for the Trial?  There are 66
connected homes.  How many homes are passed?

*> He said the city would have had to issue private bonds to pay for
*> the initial capital costs, and ultimately, that was too expensive
*> an option.

I don't think this is correct either, but I'm not an expert in this
area, so I don't know how to say what is correct.  Would you state
what is correct?  Thanks.

(I think the city never found what the interest rate of the bonds
would be, and never decided exactly what kind of bonds should be
used.  A number of possibilities were studied, and the choice
depended on whether "the people" got to vote, whether "the people"
were ordinary voters or parcelholders, whether the vote needed to
be 2/3 or simple majority, etc.)

*> However, studies there showed that once running, the service
*> revenues would cover all operating expenses, including equipment
*> upgrades.

Again, these "studies" were not the Trial but the FTTH Business Case
(BC), FTTH Business Plan, Phase One (BP1), and FTTH Business Plan,
Phase 2 (BP2).

Jeff

#############################################################
To get information about the [pafiber] mailing-list, 
including how to unsubscribe and how to access the message archive,
send a message to <[email-masked]> .
Send administrative queries to <[email-masked]> .

---

From: "Stanley R. Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:10:04 -0800

Marvin and Jeff;

I think the message from the Council and Staff is that nothing is going to 
be done. They haven't had much success lately.  Just reflect on the proposed 
"new" recycling center in the parkland by the bay, the "new" library system, 
the lack of any progress on San Francisquito Creek flooding, the "try again" 
storm drain bond issue......etc. All of their attention now is focused on 
cutting programs to meeting the reduced income forecast for the city. FTTH 
is not something that anyone on the Council or Staff is willing to do 
anything about in the present budget situation.

I think it is time to "throw in the towel" on FTTH for Palo Alto.

Stan

---

From: "Marvin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:52:46 -0800 (PST)

Stan, If I didn't know you better I would say that you are your usual 
pessimistic self when it comes to what is possible in our community. But 
I know that you too can once again become a solid supporter for the 
future for our community.

  As former City Council Member Emily Renzel pointed out to the City 
Council recently, our Palo Alto City Council has things backwards. They 
keep waiting for the City Manager to propose community projects that 
they then seek to implement when, in point of fact, it is they the 
Council and the community who should be deciding what the community 
should be doing and the City Manager seeking ways to implement their 
decisions.

We have a community that uses high speed access to the Internet very 
intensively professionally, commercially, socially and politically and 
we know what a rational technical and institutional system should 
provide. We know what it should provide not only for us but for everyone 
thoughout our community, our region, our State and our nation. We are 
after all a very high tech based community in a very high tech area of 
the country.

  We here in Palo Alto are the ones who over the past 10 years have been 
encouraging everyone we cam reach to create a rational FTTH system to 
help create the next major development in technologies which will not 
only be of benefit to themselves but to our entire economy. Our web site 
http://www.pa-fiber.net is a beacon and a source of inspiration for FTTH 
throughout the the country and for many other areas of the world. It is 
time for the people of Palo Alto to take the leadership once again and 
show the City Council and its City Manager that the community has a far 
better grasp of where it wants to be then those who are claiming to lead us.

  The last time the City Council and its  City Manager provided any 
leadership in the community in new technology was when the City Council 
and the community directed the City Staff to create its own web site and 
to help facilitate the locally originated Palo Alto Internet Exchange.

See http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/120897fiber.html

That was over 8 years ago! It is time for us in Palo Alto to once again 
take the leadership and direct our City Council and its City management 
to get with it and allow the comunity to come up to speed with a 
rational FTTH system throughout the community in its own technological 
and community interest./ Marvin

---

From: "Marvin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:52:09 -0800 (PST)

Stan, I would very much like to hear what you would suggest we do and 
when. /Marvin

Stanley R. Smith wrote on 3/13/05, 5:03 AM:

 > Marvin;
 >
 > You don't have to convince me that FTTH would be a desirable thing for
 > our
 > community.
 >
 > I am just waiting for any sign that you and your group have had any
 > success
 > in your goal to "once again  take the leadership and direct our City
 > Council
 > and its City management  to get with it and allow the community to
 > come up
 > to speed with a  rational FTTH system throughout the community in its own
 > technological  and community interest".
 >
 > How much longer do we have to wait for any sign of progress? It has been
 > almost a year now since the last council action. The staff and council
 > haven't been able to get much done on their own on any issue--as I
 > pointed
 > out in my previous e-mail. And your FTTH group hasn't made any recent
 > progress in organizing a "community based" political effort to provide
 > the
 > leadership and direction you obviously recognize is necessary.
 >
 > The "Palo Alto process" has turned in "Palo Alto apathy" as far as
 > providing
 > community improvements of any kind. It's one thing to recognize the
 > problem--as Emily Renzel has done.  It takes more that this to change the
 > situation. When are we going to see some "action" from the FTTH
 > supporters
 > in Palo Alto? What is "the plan" and where do we "sign up"?
 >
 > Stan
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Marvin Lee" <[email-masked]>
 > To: "Stanley R. Smith" <[email-masked]>
 > Cc: "Jeff Hoel" <[email-masked]>; "PA Fiber" <[email-masked]>
 > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:52 PM
 > Subject: Re: [pafiber] taking up FTTH again / article in Chronicle
 >
 >
 > > better grasp of where it wants to be then those who are claiming to
 > lead
 > > us.
 > >
 > > > storm drain bond issue......etc. All of their attention now is
 > focused
 > > > on