|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Mountain View should have some of the fastest and most reliable broadband internet connectivity in the region. But a recent report shows that there is a big digital divide in the city, with many lower-income neighborhoods having limited access to the internet while paying more for it.
Last year, Mountain View hired a consulting firm, Entrust Solutions, to find ways to improve the city’s broadband internet coverage. The report, which includes four technical memos, highlights the city’s assets and needs, and provides recommendations to close the digital gap.
At a high level, Mountain View meets a lot of federal and state standards, said Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews, who presented the report to the City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 25. But there are opportunities to do better, he added.
Of immediate concern, Mountain View’s broadband network is about to go obsolete. The city relies on INET, a Comcast-owned fiber network for its communications, including its emergency responses.
The system is outdated and no longer free, prompting the city to explore options like lease agreements with other providers or even the possibility of building its own municipal fiber network.
“I feel like our goal should be municipal fiber,” said Council member Pat Showalter. “We have to have a system that everybody has access to and in a reasonably affordable manner that we have important controls on.”
Council member Chris Clark pushed back on the idea, instead expressing a preference for the city to bring in more service providers to increase competition and better serve the needs of residents.
Currently, there are two primary “wireline” providers in Mountain View – Comcast (Xfinity) and AT&T. According to the report, AT&T fiber is capable of faster download and upload speeds than Comcast, which uses a hybrid fiber-coaxial cable network.
But AT&T fiber, the fastest conduit for internet access, is only available in 42% of the city’s coverage area. The majority of Mountain View, approximately 60%, is “subject to a cable monopoly with no real choice for high-speed broadband,” the report said.
The report also identifies two areas of Mountain View where the share of households without internet exceeds the national average of 12%: The eastern and western ends of the city, between Central Expressway and El Camino Real. These areas roughly align with low-income census blocks.
Households in these neighborhoods also generally do not have the option to connect to a broadband fiber network, the report said.
An online community survey conducted last year offers more insights into the city’s digital divide. About 60% of respondents said they used cable for their internet service, 16% reported a fiber connection and 15% still used legacy DSL technology, according to the report.
On average, residents reported paying $75 a month for their internet service. However, those with contracts for 100 Mbps (megabits per second) of download speed or less paid about $1.38 per Mbps, while those with higher-tiered services over 100 Mbps paid $0.26 per Mbps, the report said.
In order words, lower-income residents are being charged more for services than those who can afford higher bandwidth plans.
Several community members weighed in on the report, urging council members to move forward with a plan for better broadband connectivity in the city.
“Even I, having followed broadband so closely for years, was frankly shocked by the digital segregation that we have within our city,” said Devon Conley, a Mountain View Whisman School District trustee and co-founder and vice president of the Digital Equity Coalition.
Focusing on the future needs of the city, Conley pointed out that the city is growing, with the likelihood of more housing being put in areas that currently are lacking in broadband infrastructure.
Mountain View resident Frank McConnell, who uses legacy DSL technology, encouraged the city to make it easier for service providers to operate in the city, claiming that his ISP wanted to install fiber but was turned away.
“When I read in the market assessment that what is needed is a market disruptor, I think you had one knocking on your door and told them to go away,” McConnell said.
Council members also expressed a desire for the city to move forward with a conceptual plan to improve broadband accessibility and affordability.
“Get it done,” said Council member John McAlister. “It’s something that is long overdue.”
Laying fiber underground is so 1990s and costs a lot of money (probably another tax!). Cities should enable competitive wireless broadband through 5G small cell sites. Everyone wins. San Jose is trying it.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/information-technology/broadband-strategy-and-small-cell-deployment
I live in a tiny black “cable only” dot on that map, surrounded on all sides by blue “fiber availability”. I can’t get an answer from AT&T on why they wired fiber to the houses on the outside of Thompson Square in 2016 but not the houses in the inside. Their remote support staff told me years ago that it was coming soon. I think they had no idea how to get an answer from a local person and told me what I wanted to hear, without any idea of it was true.
I do know that a potential competitor, Sonic, said the following in a forum thread.
> Yes, unfortunately the City of Mountain View “allows” construction of fiber, but not the placement of safety bypass poles. Because there are 112 unsafe poles there today, this policy effectively stops any deployment of new fiber by Sonic.
> The City requires instead that we wait until PG&E replaces or repairs the poles, which could happen any number of years in the future. And we won’t be unformed if and when that finally does occur, PG&E doesn’t notify anyone who has been “waiting” because nobody is supposed to wait, the standard process is to set temporary safety bypass poles until PG&E fixes theirs. The irony is that setting a temporary pole starts a shot clock for resolving the safety issue, versus denying us which means there is no deadline for resolving the existing safety issues there. Wear a hard-hat when you walk your dog, I suppose! 😉
The utility pole in my back yard looks a bit suspect, so my best guess is the City has effectively vetoed my ability to get fiber. As a fully remote software engineer who works on 8K streaming video, this causes me real problems day to day.
What about using a 5G phone with USB tethering?
For those of us who need reliable, low-latency, high-bandwidth, uncapped connections, the cell network is no substitute.
Isn’t comcast a monopoly because they’re the sole franchisee for the City of Mountain View? i.e. comcast pays some fees to the city for that monopoly and those fees are passed on to customers.
That’s a niche need. For everyone else, they just need 100 up down.