broadca1-5551212

A few months ago, the idea of a municipal wireless broadband network was unknown to almost everyone. However, following the creation by the mayors of Philadelphia and Los Angeles of high-powered panels charged with investigating the development and deployment of just such networks in these cities, and even before the idea of having cities build and operate advanced telecommunications networks designed to eliminate the digital divide, spur business development, increase public safety, stimulate education, facilitate the practice of tele-medicine and reduce traffic congestion by enabling mass telecommuting had reached the public consciousness or the arena of political controversy, the powerful telecommunications giant Verizon Communications has seen to it that the creation of these networks has been outlawed, at least, so far, in Pennsylvania.

In order to pre-emptively deal with the looming threat that the existing telecommunications oligopolists (cable monopolies and telco monopolies, previously at each others' throats, now collaborating to crush municipal broadband in the cradle), it is imperative that the people of California, the Internet users of California, and the businesses of California that aren't cable companies or telecos, unite to design, build, and operate an integrated system for the delivery of Internet connectivity that uses the latest and best technology, drives the cost of Internet access as low as possible, and both uses and stimulates the creative power of California's people and institutions.

In order to do this, and to do it as expeditiously as possible, I am proposing the creation of Broadband California, an organization whose purpose it will be to do all these things, and to do it as soon as possible.

As recently pointed out in the op-ed "Broadband to burn, but who will control it?", there are now so many means of delivering broadband Internet connectivity (DSL, cable modems, Wi-Fi and WiMax wireless, and broadband over power line [BPL]) that the core issue in eliminating the "broadband divide" is no longer a technological one but rather who will be providing this essential 21st century utility service, under what terms and conditions, and at what cost to end-using businesses and individuals.

This general proposition was put to a practical test last week, when the City of Philadelphia had to face down Verizon Communications in order to preserve and protect its right to build a broadband wireless network to serve the needs of its residents for this service.

The private company, which has a "market cap" (market capitalization, derived by multiplying the number of shares outstanding with the stock's current price) of around $110 billion, argued that it would be unfair to allow the country's fifth-largest city, which at the end of November announced it will be forced to drastically curtail the hours its public libraries are open, due to an on-going budget crisis, to compete with it for commercial and individual/residential broadband Internet access business.

According to a spokesperson for Verizon, whose e-mail to Broadband Wireless Access World is quoted in "Verizon responds to claims it's trying to derail Philadelphia's municipal broadband wireless plans," an article that recently appeared on that site, Verizon needs to block a municipal foray into providing wireless broadband services because it wants "not be faced with a government competitor that stands to benefit from not paying taxes and other fees, and getting access to cheap capital."

In the event, and at the last minute, Philadelphia and Verizon signed an agreement in which the telco promised to waive the "right-of-first-refusal" contained in "House Bill 30," legislation it had sponsored in the Pennsylvania legislature, which would have given the corporation a virtual veto over any municipal wireless broadband network that the city decides to build and operate as a result of the Wireless Philadelphia Executive Committee study due to be released next week.

The private company's right to squelch such municipal wireless broadband networks in every other city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania remained intact as the bill became a law with the signature of former Philadelphia mayor, and now Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, a few minutes before the deadline for him to sign or veto it, perhaps at least in part because of the "compromise" agreed to by the hundred billion dollar corporation and the cash-strapped municipality where the U.S. Constitution, instituted, among other things, to "promote the general welfare," was written over 200 years ago.

Philadelphia announced the appointment of its "Wireless Philadelphia Executive Committee" on September 1, 2004. Less than two months later, on October 20th, Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn appointed a "Broadband Executive Panel" to similarly investigate the possibilities and parameters of unwiring LA.

In the midst of my coverage of the Verizon-Philadelphia battle, it became apparent that if it mattered so much to the telecommunications giant that the fifth-largest city in the U.S. not be allowed to build a municipal wireless system, it would probably matter even more that the second-largest one, Los Angeles, not be allowed to get away with something like that either.

Verizon is not the only big telco providing phone service in Los Angeles. There's also SBC, no slacker itself, which has recently emerged as an even more potent player in the telecom wars than it had been before, which was very. Two recent interviews on the newly-created Photopia web site chronicle SBC's initiatives in announcing the expenditure of $4 billion to build out their fiber-optic (FTTH/FTTN) network ( "Project Lightspeed") and the strengthening of their alliance with Yahoo! for the provision of integrated broadband Internet access services.

SBC also owns 60% of Cingular Wireless, which recently finalized its takeover of AT&T Wireless, creating the largest wireless carrier in the U.S. So it would be reasonable to assume that the same arguments made recently in Pennsylvania by Verizon spokespeople against the unfairness of letting cash-strapped cities compete against cash-flush telecom corporations in providing wireless broadband services to their residents will soon be heard in the corridors of power in Sacramento, California, as they had been in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

While these visible and invisible events were taking place, yet another means of providing broadband Internet connectivity was coming to the fore. "Broadband over power lines (BPL)," whereby fast Internet signals are sent through the already-in-place network of wires that now delivers electricity into almost every home and office in the country is, after some regulatory decisions and announcements by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in October, 2004, fast emerging as a viable means of providing broadband Internet access, especially in such underserved locations as sparsely-populated rural areas and densely-populated but digitally-deprived urban areas.

The roll-out of BPL is being spearheaded by the United Power Line Council (UPLC), whose members include a wide cross-section of power line and BPL technology companies, and whose mission it is to drive "the development of broadband over power line solutions for electric utilities and their partners." You can hear what Brett Kilbourne, Director of Regulatory Services and Associate Counsel at the UPLC, had to say just last week about this surging sector by clicking here.

In looking around to see was being done on behalf of cash-strapped, economically-stagnant, nearly-bankrupt, socially-divided, permanently-gridlocked and educationally-challenged cities that would allow them to pick themselves up off the ground and get going through the judicious construction and operation of municipal broadband networks, which would let them reduce the cost of delivering their own services and eliminate the digital divide, spur business development, increase public safety, stimulate education, facilitate the practice of tele-medicine, and reduce traffic congestion by enabling mass telecommuting by offering access to these networks to local businesses and residents, it seemed logical to see what was being done by those organizations whose mission it is to aggregate and fight for the needs of cities across the nation in Washington, D.C., and in the several states.

Apparently the dire need to address the coming onslaught of telecom lobbyists bent on squelching the roll-out of municipal broadband wireless deployment, even before it has a chance to appear on many people's radar screens or very many city councils' agendas had not yet reached the "alert" stage at some of these groups, although they did eager to get involved, once they had adequate information about the situation.

So, in the public interest, these organizations were recently provided with URLs leading to the latest information about broadband wireless, the unwiring of Los Angeles, and the trendy broadband over power line.

Coverage of these organizations' views and possible action in regard to this impeding threat is now scheduled to appear on the pages of Etopia Media News Network in the coming days.

In the meantime, the most pressing need is for those concerned about how they'll be getting their essential broadband connectivity, and how much it will cost them, to start thinking about and organizing themselves around how cities, power line companies, local communities, state governments, ordinary business and personal Internet users and a mobilized citizenry can envision, design, build and operate a network that will combine and synergize fiber-optic networks, Wi-Fi and WiMax clouds, power lines, and our own ingenuity to create the universal ubiquitous broadband environment that we need, want, and deserve, one that we can control ourselves and put to work on our own behalf, however we see fit.