[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Re: Community Broadband

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Morzel, Lisa

I agree and will add to this that I was very surprised to  read that council had no interest in pursuing a muni-owned option as I do not recall ever being asked that question since the election.   I also was surprised by the list of capital projects for which we have stated commitments and for most already have dedicated funding so am not even sure why that was included in a list other than to arrive at someone's preferred outcome.

 As I stated Tuesday, I have little to no interest in the private option despite the great interest relayed by our consultant and shown by 2 for-profit, investor-owned Canadian companies and the one by Nebraska. Of course, these companies are drooling: we have 100 miles of city-owned fiber that is a critically important asset and there is plenty of money to be made on the backs of Boulder. And who will benefit????

Again we need to ask ourselves who are we serving, what are our goals, why the hurry when we are so close to knowing whether our electrical utility will be a reality, is there an economic emergency, does Boulder have to be a Pioneer in this? . If I hear that Pioneer term again, it just reinforces the idea that wool is being pulled over our eyes. I truly think this needs to be revisited with a muni option on the table. That is what our voters voted for, not a private option.

As I also raised on Tuesday night, what will be the impact on our ever decreasing supply of housing and ever increasing supply of jobs that only exacerbates our existing challenge of too many jobs, not enough housing?

And will this now proposed approach really close the digital divide in what is one of the critically important aspects to doing city-wide community broadband?  No answers were provided by the consultant about the private option eventually returning Boulder to a non-responsive expensive monopoly which is the system in place now and not supported by the public as shown in the survey or asking anyone on the street.

This was not one of our better study sessions. I felt council was being led down a trough with a pre-determined outcome and why??? It seems to me like a drummed up emergency.

I really hope council can revisit this issue in a broader light and as I stated Tuesday night, I continue to be very concerned about how we use study sessions to get council direction when in fact these should be purely study sessions where no decisions are made. Decisions / directions should be made only at our business meetings where public input can be had. I actually think council would give better thought-out direction if there was a pause between our study session and shortly thereafter provide better direction with public input at a business meeting.

Lisa

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Young, Mary <YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov>> wrote:

Dear Colleagues, IT staff and consultants,

Having had the benefit of sleep and more time to reflect, here are some of my additional thoughts on how we move forward with broadband access.

The biggest questions should be:

-What is the highest and best use of our public asset (the 100 miles of fiber?)

-Who is best served by how we move forward?

-How does the public benefit from how we move forward?

-Does it provide equal access for all?

I am not convinced that a wholly private interest will uphold what we embarked on: community broadband. Private investment will only take care of private investment, public interest is last on their list, if at all.

Let's think about the broader impacts of a private investment move, such as what impacts will it have on small businesses? How will it impact commercial lease rates? Will it further displace the mom and pop businesses that we profess to love? Do other factors cancel out whatever benefits are created? What impact will this move have on housing? Will it further exacerbate the issue? Will they leave us high and dry when they are done milking the city?

I was not satisfied with the answer regarding the cost "savings." The expectation that what we would see is not a drop in price but only an increase in speed for the same price is unsatisfactory as it only redefines the digital divide: those with the ultra-high speed and those with the "other" cheaper service that the private company has been forced to provide. Everyone should be on an equal playing field. In the Daily Camera former Erie trustee, Jonathan Hager, who spent years managing fiber networks, was quoted as saying "Internet access has become so ubiquitous and necessary that it could be seen as just another municipally provided utility, such as water and electrical service." Longmont, with its municipal utility, provides access to its 1 gigabit service to everyone for $49.95/month.

Responding to the the whims of the market because we want to "strike while the iron is hot," may only burn us.

I understand that what staff was looking for last night was only direction on whether or not to explore the ideas of private or public/private approaches. That is fine. But, let's not forget that our priorities are to serve the community at large and to take the long view way out into the future with the big picture in mind. When the ballot measure passed by 84%, I don't think the public was envisioning being ruled by three corporations instead of only two.

Best,

Mary Dolores Young
Mayor Pro Tem
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

"All ethics . . . rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts . . ." - Aldo Leopold