The backstory to this achievement is that members of ArlFiber met with the County Manager Mark Schwartz a few months back to discuss the possibility of forming an authority to start building a publicly owned fiber-to-the-home network. Suffice it to say, the County Manager was open to the idea, but slightly skeptical that such a network would be successful. Ultimately he asked us to show him some examples of cities that have done this that really looked like us; e.g. urban but without a public electric utility and with two entrenched incumbent internet service providers.
Given that criteria, we were hard-pressed to produce an abundance of examples, since the bigger cities like Chattanooga that have a successful public network deployed it through their electric utility, whereas many others are much smaller or more rural than Arlington and only had one major incumbent (usually a cable company without a fiber-to-the-home network). We compiled a list, but were not entirely satisfied with it. But then, lo and behold, the closest apples-to-apples example that we have ever seen emerged on the community broadband horizon: Hillsboro, Oregon.
Hillsboro is situated just outside of Portland and has a tech heavy business environment. While its population is smaller (105K), its size (25 sq miles) and demographic make-up (tech, higher degree holders) are similar. Moreover, they have two established incumbents: Comcast and Ziply Fiber (the latter having been spun off the now defunct Frontier). Like Arlington, Hillsboro already owned fiber optic resources that it used for municipal facilities, schools, traffic signals, and other purposes. In 2018 they formed a new communications utility to establish a fund and execute a dig-once policy for installing conduit in new construction areas (something that we have been doing for almost a decade). Now, after much study and planning, Hillsboro is finally executing fiber-to-the-home/premises buildouts in two separate neighborhoods as an expansion of the local government/school network. Of particular note is that one of the two pilot communities is a low-income area, where they will set a up a “bridge” program to provide $10/month gigabit FTTH connections to these households (utilizing a network of non-profits to do the verification and digital literacy work). For regular residential customers, Hilight is charging only $55/month for symmetrical gigabit service and even offers 2 ($125/m), 3 ($200/m), and 4 ($300/m) gig service. The public network offers VOIP and internet, but not video (which is what an Arlington Broadband authority would do, since state law prohibits broadband authorities from providing video service).
We forwarded the news about Hillsboro to the County Manager, and Department of Technology Services (DTS) staff quickly set up a meeting with HiLight principals Greg Mont and Brad Nosler (ArlFiber had a separate meeting with them). We then sent our notes to County Board members Matt de Ferranti and Takis Karantonis and scheduled a meeting with them. At that meeting, Matt and Takis agreed that a feasibility study made sense, and had us go back to Hillsboro to get information on their RFP and the cost, which was $50,000 and performed by a consultant called Uptown, so that became the magic number.
To be clear, this money for a feasibility study is just the beginning and hardly guarantees that the County will move forward with forming an authority and use it to build a publicly owned fiber-to-the-home network. We need to get the RFP right so that we ask the right questions and get a good consultant with a proven track record (and this feasibility study may only be the preface to other more thorough and expensive studies). Nevertheless, it’s an essential first step and the first real indication to us that certain Board members are genuinely interested in solving the digital divide through decisive public action and long-term, strategic planning.
If the feasibility study comes back with positive results and Arlington County is able to move forward on planning and even initial deployment, we will be well poised to take advantage of any federal money that comes out of President Biden’s infrastructure plan. In case you haven’t read that, here is what is being proposed:
Revitalize America’s digital infrastructure:
The President believes we can bring affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to every American through a historic investment of $100 billion. That investment will:
Build high-speed broadband infrastructure to reach 100 percent coverage. The President’s plan prioritizes building “future proof” broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas so that we finally reach 100 percent high-speed broadband coverage. It also prioritizes support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives—providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities. Moreover, it ensures funds are set aside for infrastructure on tribal lands and that tribal nations are consulted in program administration. Along the way, it will create good-paying jobs with labor protections and the right to organize and bargain collectively.
It is not a foregone conclusion that the infrastructure bill will come out of the sausage making process entirely intact, but if a fraction of the above gets through, there is going to be a mad dash by localities to acquire personnel, equipment, etc. to start building broadband infrastructure. It would be wise to get out ahead.
The Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association (VCTA) is one of the staunchest opponents of public broadband in the state. They are a top donor to politicians like Kathy Byron, who famously tried to kill broadband authorities in the state with her 2017 Virginia Broadband Deployment Act. Moreover, in 2020, members of ArlFiber got to witness VCTA’s president Ray LaMura preside like a mafia don (flanked by a small army of telecom/cable lobbyist goons) over a meeting brokered by Del. Steve Heretick with a trio of his constituents from Portsmouth. The Portsmouth contingent had managed to cajole Del. Heretick to put in a bill that would make a small change in the VA Code that would allow Portsmouth’s city government to provide free wireless internet service at a couple of public housing units, which produced a ferocious reaction from the VA telecom industry. Shortly after that meeting, Heretick dropped the bill, and Del. Levine essentially shelved his far more extensive municipal broadband reform bill (there was a happy ending for Portsmouth – they formed a broadband authority not long after that and used CARES Act money to execute that public housing wifi project).
In light of all this, ArlFiber was quite surprised (and borderline amused) to find – via a FOIA request – a memo from Mr. La Mura informing Arlington County that VCTA’s reading of the VA Code says it’s perfectly legal for Arlington Public Schools to extend their wifi network to students in privately owned buildings:
While we are not privy to all the details, the background on this as we understand it is that Arlington County wanted to use new fixed wireless technology (CBRS) to provide free “private LTE” service to several buildings along Columbia Pike that APS and the Department of Technology Services had identified as being populated with students whose families were broadband deprived. Normally this would be impossible, since it would be a government-only network providing internet service to a private entity/subscriber, something that Article 5.1 (Provision of Certain Communications Services) of the VA Code does not allow unless the locality forms a separate entity called a “wireless service authority” or goes through the arduous process of being certificated as a municipal local exchange carrier (MLEC) (aside:we do not meet the qualifications for the latter, nor would the restrictions imposed on MLECs allow us to provide free service). Once Mr. La Mura sent the aforementioned memo blessing this, the County clearly felt reasonably comfortable moving forward with this project, which the Board approved at its November 2020 meeting.
So what does the memo say? According to the crack legal team at VCTA (who, granted, probably ghost wrote this law in the first place and thus should be considered authorities on it), Arlington County would not be in violation of the VA Code here, because this highly targeted wifi project does not quite meet the definition of “qualifying services” (as defined under the aforementioned Article 5.1):
On the face of it, this may seem like a rare instance of the telecom industry putting the public good ahead of returns for its investors; however, a close reading of the next page of the memo appears to us to reveal a different motivation: stop the County from considering a “wireless service authority” or anything else that might make this a permanent affair.
Comcast’s concern here most likely stemmed from the fact that the County had been informed in late October by the Director of the VA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) that forming a broadband authority would be the best option for most communities looking to provide service to low-income families during the pandemic. Here is an excerpt from that memo:
Unfortunately, the County took the path of least resistance and went through with the project on the strength of what essentially is a promise from Comcast not to sue. This certainly expedited execution, but now we are left in a somewhat awkward position where Comcast will decide the fate of this fixed wireless setup once the COVID-19 emergency has officially ended. It’s possible that Comcast will allow this to stand even after the pandemic, but the cable lobby’s bill this past session (championed by Sen. Boysko) that essentially gives private providers exclusive right to partner with schools on low-income service projects would suggest that they are not likely to continue to turn a blind eye to our Columbia Pike “wifi blasters”, as County Manager Mark Schwartz is fond of calling them.
The County, of course, has one option open to it: form a broadband authority. As was mentioned above, Portsmouth formed an authority to do wireless projects at its public housing complexes. We could just transfer ownership of the CBRS equipment to the authority who would continue to provide (and could potentially upgrade this to a fiber-to-the-home setup) to low-income families in these buildings (and without all the “students-only” restrictions). In fact, cities across the U.S. that do have a community network have been doing exactly that even before the pandemic.
If you think forming an authority to safeguard these investments and working toward bridging the digital divide once and for all is a good idea, please sign on to our petition to the County Board to form a broadband authority for Arlington.
TLDR Version (Update below): State Senator Jennifer Boysko has introduced a bill (SB 1225) in the 2021 session of the Virginia General Assembly that will establish new rules for local schools on partnering with an internet service provider to connect households with disadvantaged students. These rules would exclude public broadband providers by virtue of only mentioning “private” broadband providers. During the pandemic local school districts have partnered with public providers to get kids connected. For instance, Arlington Public Schools partnered with Arlington County’s public dark fiber network to extend wifi to several buildings with a high-concentration of low-income families. Boysko’s bill, if passed in current form, would at best complicate future such public-public partnerships and at worst eliminate them entirely. Update below.
The Pandemic and Public Education
Anyone scrolling through the headlines in VPAP’s VA News morning roundup since March would have noticed a goodly number of articles about schools throughout Virginia struggling to connect all of their students during the transition to online learning.
While certainly some of the most dire situations were in rural parts of Virginia where broadband internet service is completely absent, the highly wired urban parts had their own problems with home internet access for their students. A Washington Post article provided the following illustrative example back in May:
Yenifer Alvarado Portillo liked doing homework. School, the 5-year-old said, made her feel good. But ever since Arlington Public Schools shuttered, kindergarten has become a cause for tears. While other kids find their assignments online, Yenifer’s teacher has to relay them by phone. Even then, she can’t complete most of them because her family’s Northern Virginia home lacks Internet. She and her mother, Maria Silvia Portillo, huddle by the hotspot on Maria’s Galaxy cellphone. But the signal is just too weak.
The Portillos are hardly alone. A recent study commissioned by Arlington’s Department of Technology Services conservatively estimated that at least 16% of Arlington households do not have access to a fixed home broadband Internet connection. Moreover, the report found that those who are typically digitally underserved include older adults or adults with disabilities who typically have fixed incomes; lower-income households; and members of recent immigrant groups – particularly Hispanics, who are also more likely to have multiple school-age children. At the state level, a recent study by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia found that nearly 40% of all students without broadband live in or around Virginia’s cities.
This, of course, is the least talked about aspect of the digital divide: cost. While rural areas suffer from the telecoms’ neglect (despite years of public subsidies), the suburban and urban areas suffer from the telecoms’ monopoly pricing power. Now we are all paying the price for failing to treat broadband as a utility and essential infrastructure.
It is important to note, however, that, while the pandemic has turned the digital divide into a full blown catastrophe, the lack of home internet for so many was already a national crisis in need of urgent rectification. Studies on the “homework gap” have shown that students with internet at home consistently score higher in reading, math and science. According to a study conducted by the Quello Center at Michigan State University and Merit Network, which looked at the homework gap in 15 rural school districts in Michigan, students without home Internet access also had lower grades and test scores, demonstrated less digital skills competency, and were less likely to plan to attend post-secondary schooling, even after accounting for socioeconomic differences. And, this being the U.S., the digital divide and homework gap disproportionately affect children and communities of color.
Given the need to transition all schooling to online platforms, local schools and governments scrambled for solutions to get all of their students connected. These solutions ranged from public hotspots to take-home mobile Wi-Fi devices (“MiFis”) to public subsidies for private low-income service packages like Comcast’s Internet Essentials.
Here in Arlington, the County government and APS pursued all of these avenues. What is relevant for this post, however, is that in May the County Board inked a deal with Comcast to use $500,000 of its CARES Act money to subsidize the $10/month for Internet Essentials for low-income families. As part of this deal, Comcast bumped up the speed to 25/3 mbps and relaxed some other fees and restrictions that usually accompany the service. It is not clear what the take rate on this program was or how many families were unable to take advantage of it because Comcast did not service their territory or building, but, given the urgency of the problem, it was still worth doing.
In addition to the County’s deal with Comcast, Arlington Public Schools signed an MOU with the County government to use the public dark fiber network ConnectArlington to extend wifi service to several buildings with low-income families at a cost of roughly $1.2 million. The students in those buildings will be able to access the network with their APS credentials and are expected to enjoy speeds of around 45/15 mbps, which is a considerable improvement over the speeds provided by Comcast Internet Essentials. Arlington County could likely do more using ConnectArlington, but it is currently hampered by state laws that place onerous restrictions on public networks (incidentally, the network would face no restrictions if County formed a broadband authority).
All of these measures were just stopgap solutions to a problem that has been in the making for decades, but it sure was nice to have as many tools at hand as possible, right? You would think that, but sadly it appears some of our legislators think otherwise.
Despite the clear crisis we have seen with regard to internet access (and options) during the pandemic, state legislators submitted shockingly few bills on this topic this session (we count a total of five bills related directly or indirectly to broadband, not including budget amendments). Worst of all, one of those bills, SB1225, is set to decrease schools’ options for ensuring home internet for their students. This bill was submitted by Democratic Senator Jennifer Boysko, who is happens to be the chair of the state’s Broadband Advisory Council, and is patroned by a number of other prominent/senior members of the Senate.
On the face of it, SB1225 is aimed at making it easier for schools to partner with internet service providers for the purpose of getting families with disadvantaged students connected. The summary of the bill reads as follows:
Broadband services; education. Authorizes school boards to appropriate funds for the purposes of promoting, facilitating, and encouraging the expansion and operation of broadband services for educational purposes. The bill authorizes school boards to partner with private broadband service providers to promote, implement, and subsidize broadband for educational purposes to the households of students who would qualify for (i) a child nutrition program or (ii) any other program recognized or adopted by the local school board as a measuring standard to identify at-risk students.
You will notice that we bolded a particular word above: “private”. The inclusion of that word and the exclusion of the word “public” could very well complicate or even eliminate public schools’ ability to partner with public internet service providers (as we saw in the Arlington example above). Alarmed by that prospect, we took to Twitter to voice our opposition directly to Senator Boysko.
The importance of bill language in a dillon’s rule state
The problem with Senator Boysko’s argument here is at least twofold.
The first is that the VA Code also already allows private internet providers to enter into MOUs with schools (under the Virginia Public Procurement Act), so it begs the question what the purpose of this bill is (and more importantly, who asked for it…). You’ll remember from above that Comcast had no problem signing an MOU with Arlington County for this purpose.
The second is that Virginia is a Dillon’s Rule state, so authorizing language is vitally important. The portion of the law that covers public provider MOUs is very broad. This proposed legislation by contrast is very specific, which arguably sets up a new set of rules that specifies who can enter into MOUs with schools for this purpose. If this bill passes and the language specifies only private providers, that will almost certainly be used by the corporate telecoms to argue that public providers do not have the right to do this specific thing in MOUs (or at least threaten lawsuits against school districts), which, given the importance of this issue, should be avoided at all costs. So let’s adhere to the precautionary principle.
And even this is not the only potential problem with this legislation. As one public attorney mentioned to us in a personal communication:
The 600 lb. gorilla issue here is the First Amendment/Free Speech Clause of the Virginia Constitution, both of which trump this statute. If a school district allows one private speaker to send home flyers, then it has created a “limited public forum,” in which “the government may restrict access to ‘certain groups’ or to ‘discussion of certain topics,’ subject to two limitations: the government restrictions must be both reasonable and viewpoint neutral.” Child Evangelism Fellowship of Md., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Sch., 457 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2006). There is no question that the schools have to be viewpoint neutral: In other words, any internet provider in the geographic area the schools serve would be in a position to say that they should have equal access to the schools’ intramural mail system for the purposes of advertising availability in the area. You’d have a tough time arguing it isn’t covered under the First Amendment.
Ultimately, we would feel better if this law was at least amended to remove the word “private”, although given the fact that nothing is currently stopping private or public providers from entering into agreements with local governments and schools on providing internet services to unconnected students, it is probably best that this bill just be killed or withdrawn.
Thank you to everyone who sent emails. Those letters to the subcommittee members definitely helped as they were referenced by Sen. Dunnavant during the hearing and led her to suggest potentially amending the bill’s language. Unfortunately, the bill passed out of the subcommittee unaltered and was then rubber stamped by the full Senate Education and Health Committee without letting us speak on it.
Here is a video of Thursday’s hearing, which began with a presentation by Senator Boysko herself:
A few comments on Sen. Boysko’s presentation.
Sen. Boysko claims that we need this legislation to clarify that schools can partner with private broadband providers to help connect disadvantaged students at home, yet she cites several examples of schools partnering with private broadband providers without any problem (e.g. Cox with schools in Roanoke). She claims that the problem is that some schools were reluctant to partner with private broadband providers because they were not sure whether the law allows it. If that is the case, it makes sense to make sure the language is written in a way to make sure all providers are covered and enabled. If the language is changed to include all broadband providers, nothing about the intent of this bill changes.
Here is what the language should have looked like:
SB 1225 Broadband services; education. B. Any school board may: 1. Promote and publicize the availability of broadband services, including private for educational purposes to parents and students, including the availability of any affordability programs or sponsored programs;
2. Provide promotional or informational materials for broadband services, including private to parents, students, and potential sponsors including brochures, flyers, and cable, internet, broadband, or other public service announcements, in any media, regarding locally available broadband service, including private offerings, including the availability of any affordability programs or sponsored programs, to encourage student use of broadband services for educational purposes;
3. Accept compensation, or in-kind donations of materials and services, from any broadband service, including private to reimburse the school board or other public body for its actual costs incurred in providing the materials described in subsection B 2;
4. Enter into agreements with local businesses, charitable groups, or broadband service providers, including private to promote sponsored programs to provide reduced cost or free broadband services for educational purposes to households of qualifying students. Under such agreements, the school board may award grants or subsidies to broadband service providers, including private to reduce or eliminate the cost of sponsored program broadband services provided to qualifying student households;
Back in November, George Mason University held a panel discussion on the digital divide that featured Aneesh Chopra, an Arlington resident who will be Chief Technology Officer for the incoming Biden administration.
During his remarks, Chopra advised the assembled public servants, including Arlington County Board member and now Vice Chair Katie Cristol, to consider forming a broadband authority if they want to increase local options for improving broadband. (see his remarks at 00:28:00).
When Katie Cristol spoke, she praised ArlFiber for bringing this to the Board’s attention, and wondered aloud whether the community would like a public option for broadband (see her remarks at 1:13:40).
At its Recessed Meeting last night, the Arlington County Board may have taken a tiny step forward toward community broadband.
Before we dive into that, though, first some background. ArlFiber has been advocating for and exploring the implementation of community broadband in Arlington and Virginia for about the last year and half. While we were making some modest progress on a coop project, the pandemic made us realize that a bunch of amateur activists with no technical expertise or ready-access to capital was not going to make this happen on the scale and at the speed necessary to ameliorate the crisis and put us on a fundamentally different path for the future.
As such, we switched gears and began advocating for the County Board to form a broadband authority, which for all intents and purposes is a legal entity that allows local governments to provide service to private entities. Our view is that an authority could utilize the existing dark fiber network to provide service directly to underserved areas (in the short term through fixed wireless solutions and in the long term with fiber to the home), with an eye to eventually offering service to the whole community. In any event, we a saw this as a much better option than paying Comcast indefinitely for its Internet Essentials package with its woefully inadequate 25/3 mbps service and the resort to inefficient/inequitable hotspots and mifis (we are not criticizing the County government on this – they have definitely done a lot to make the best of a bad situation).
We started off this journey by launching a petition and working with the Arlington Dems’ Black Caucus to organize a forum on municipal broadband and the digital divide this past August, which was attended by a goodly number of residents, including member of the county board. In light of the positive response we got re: the forum and the jump in petition signatures, we thought it was time to take it to Board. After gathering what we felt like was sufficient information to make a strong pitch, we asked the board members for a meeting in mid September.
Suffice it to say, the two board members in attendance were more than a bit skeptical, but the reservations they expressed during the meeting prompted us to do some more digging. We were able to connect with a number of officials working at existing broadband authorities and some lawyers that advise them. They provided a lot of useful information, which we were then able to impart on the next set of board members with whom we met (fun fact: you can’t gather all the board members together to talk without making it a public meeting). Since we had our act together a bit more, the second meeting with board members was more productive and led to a sustained dialogue, whereby we were able to exchange information back and forth as we collected it.
While we were blissfully plodding along under the assumption that we might be on a path to an community-wide public option for the internet, last week we suddenly got word that the Board was moving forward on a feasibility study, which seemed to propose using a non-profit to provide free internet to committed affordable housing units. Moreover, it was a consent agenda item for Saturday’s Regular Meeting, which meant there would be no public comments and just the usual rubber stamp. This sent us scrambling to find out more information and put in calls with staff and contact some board members to ask them to pull it from the consent agenda so we would have more time to consider it. Fortunately, it was pulled, which gave us time to digest it and consider what it would mean for our more grandiose agenda of a community-wide public option.
Consent Agenda Item #34
That takes us to the matter at hand. At the Recessed Meeting this past Tuesday night (October 20), the Arlington County Board had a hearing on Consent Agenda Item #34. What was to be discussed was whether the County should spend $60,000 of Pay as You Go funds to conduct a feasibility study on using the County’s existing dark fiber to provide high-speed, reliable service to residents in two affordable housing complexes (Gates of Ballston and Arlington View Terrace). The feasibility study, to be carried out by New Urbana, is aimed at doing a deep dive into the technological aspects of providing different types of connection to residents in the building, how much the different options would cost, and how long it would take to deploy them. As part of the feasibility study, New Urbana is supposed to identify a potential third party non-profit provider to implement (and replicate elsewhere) this project based on the results of the study.
In response to this, ArlFiber sent an SOS to its burgeoning network of supporters to ask for people to sign up to make public statements. Our goal was not to torpedo the initiative, but simply to ask the Board to think bigger than providing service to committed affordable units (CAFs), since the digital divide in Arlington goes well beyond the residents of those buildings. Moreover, we believe that any strategic initiative involving extending broadband infrastructure to the community should be focused on separating infrastructure from services. Regardless, we ultimately agreed with staff that this study would provide some crucial data that could inform a larger strategic vision for building a genuine public option for the whole community.
We managed to marshal eight speakers from various backgrounds who all delivered diverse messages – without any prior coordination of those messages! You can watch a clip of the public comments here:
Synopses/key points from the speakers:
Kathy Scruggs (text here): Retired Arlington teacher who is part of a group called “Abuelitas” with other retired teachers to tutor English language learners. Students mostly only have a phone to connect. 750 families with students are still being denied the right to a free public education. This study is too little too late. Asks what will be done but what about small businesses and first-generation college students? Calls for the board to form a broadband authority.
Jeanine Brundage: Retired Arlington teacher working with “Abuelitas” to tutor elementary school English language learners, tells the board about the difficulties her students have getting online and using APS’s multi-layered onion of portals and programs for remote learning without reliable internet access. Applauds Board for steps taken, but calls for a more comprehensive, sustainable, long-term solution; i.e. a broadband authority to connect everyone.
Charles Head (text here): Arlington resident with an interest in computers. Tells the Board that the U.S. is already paying the highest prices for internet in the world, which in Arlington has produced a digital divide whereby 10-16% of households cannot afford to connect. Broadband access is no longer a luxury, but an essential utility. Our duopoly market holds us hostage and this won’t change if decisions are left to private enterprise. Other localities have shown the value of a public provider via broadband authorities. Calls on Board to get the facts on authorities and to consider them as part of this study.
Tim Dempsey (text here): Speaking on behalf of ArlFiber. Explains that pandemic inspired group to call for an authority. Approves of feasibility study as a way to provide crucial data for more strategic decisions. Calls on county board to expand the study to explore broadband authority as a possible service provider or conduct a separate study looking at whether an authority could build a county-wide, fiber-to-the-home, open access, software defined network to separate public infrastructure from private service, referencing the “Ammon model”.
Detta Kissel (text here): Arlington resident. Reminds Board that ten years ago they made a fateful decision to break from Comcast to build their own network which now provides them superior service and has saved them millions of dollars. What about the rest of us?! Tells Board we are at a crossroads in deciding our internet future, and it would make more sense to form a broadband authority and create a community-wide option rather than continue to rely on reactive, piecemeal solutions.
Jeff Elkner (text here): Arlington Mill resident and IT teacher at Career Center. Even before the pandemic, his students with less internet access were at a disadvantage. Much worse now. Inequality in general is growing and at historic heights. Relying on “the market” and “the private sector” will not solve these problems. Regrets that the Board has rolled over for the biggest tech oligarch in the country. We need to rely on ourselves as a community which means a community-owned and community-wide solution: a broadband authority.
Dan Shuhler (text here): Arlington resident. Relays his experience of living in apartment buildings in Arlington where he had no choice for internet because one ISP had a building-wide monopoly. Tells the board that he did not know just how bad he was being ripped off till he attended the ArlFiber/Arl Dems forum. Based on the prices cited by the Eastern Shore of VA Broadband Authority and the Ammon, ID municipal network, he estimates he would have saved $12,600 over that time.
Caroline Corum: Arlington resident. Tells Board that her telecom bill is her biggest monthly expense. Internet is an essential service to help people access various services and information – jobs, health care, etc. Calls on board to form an authority that treats internet as a essential utility.
Terry Bratt (letter here): Not a speaker but submitted letter. Long time educator and Arlington resident. Pandemic’s silver lining is that it shone a light on digital divide that was so bright that it could no longer be ignored. Writes that this feasibility study is a step in the right direction, but the goal needs to be much broader to include many others suffering from insufficient access or high costs. Calls for a broadband authority.
After a brief interlude to discuss a different pulled consent agenda item, the Board heard from staff on the proposed digital equity project (Item #34), after which a fairly lengthy discussion ensued.
While we provide a rough summary of the various participants’ comments below, the main point we’d like to make is that the County Manager and the Board members were forced to address and make continual reference to the broadband authority as an idea, while also acknowledging that having only two internet providers for Arlington (i.e. a “duopoly”) produces bad outcomes for consumers (and as resident Dan Shuhler pointed out above, many apartment buildings only have one choice, whereas board member Matt de Ferranti implies that even two choices is fairly meaningless). That said, some highlights and our responses in italics:
After Mr. Halewski’s presentation on the proposal, County Manager Schwartz remarks that we should not get hung up on the question of what “vehicle” (broadband authority [BBA] or non-profit) we use for executing this project and bridging the digital divide. He then calls on the county attorney Steve MacIsaac to explain what a BBA could offer and some of the “benefits and detriments of that”, which Mr. MacIsaac punts to the deputy county attorney MinhChau Corr. Ms. Corr then proceeds to explain that BBAs are a “legal construct” whose legitimacy is not in doubt, but opines that, while this study does not preclude the creation of a BBA, it is inappropriate for a small scale project like the one being proposed because there are “liability issues” and that forming an authority would not answer questions about the costs of connection and ongoing operations.
– ArlFiber in its conversations with the board has repeatedly stressed the need to form an authority to do small scale projects to test the waters toward a more comprehensive network. Forming an authority is a fairly quick and easy affair. Most are formed and approved by the SCC in three or four months (as a technical matter, authorities are different from regular corporations in that they technically come into existence upon passage of the resolution by the locality’s governing body. All the SCC does is register that it happened. The SCC registration has some important legal protections, but it isn’t the event that brings the entity into existence; that is the action of the local governing body (board of supervisors or city council)). Several localities have formed authorities and put them on the shelf for a while, or just used them off and on for occasional projects where local governments wanted to extend from a public facility to a nearby public housing area with just a few units. Middlesex County, for example, just uses its as a conduit for state grants and occasional local government public-private partnerships of various types.The Board’s current project is by no means free of “liability issues”, since the two buildings under consideration are already served by Comcast who will not take kindly to the County subsidizing a third party to provide additional service to said buildings. Lastly, throughout the proceedings, there were multiple references to the complexities of operating a public network, yet the head of ConnectArlington, Jack Belcher, was never called on to comment on this issue.
Mark Schwartz responds that he understands that there is a harmful duopoly situation in the Arlington telecom market, but he then goes on to explain that certain broadband infrastructure (“blasters”) has been put into place in areas along Columbia Pike to boost existing hotspot signals, which cost a million dollars or more; therefore, one should not assume that having a broadband authority would be cheaper or easier.
– While we do not pretend to have any technical expertise in these matters, ArlFiber has only ever asserted that having a broadband authority would allow the county to use its existing fiber assets to provide service directly to certain customers or buildings (which it currently cannot do), which is a slightly different proposition than increasing the range of general hotspot signals. The current study should actually help determinesome of the technical aspects and financial costs of that, albeit without studying possibly vehicles for implementing it (like a broadband authority).
Board member reactions:
– Matt: in support of this proposal because it does not foreclose on the possibility of a broadband authority and will help us better understand the technical and financial implications of such an approach;
– Christian: appreciates the speakers who came out to support expansion of internet access, appreciates the mention of the broader problem of internet affordability, acknowledges that there is a duopoly in the Arlington market; the question is not whether we can do “it” (community broadband), but the most “efficacious” way to do it;
– Takis: appreciates that the study will provide crucial information on how we might provide this as a utility, asks 1) why these two properties were chosen, 2) why New Urbana was chosen, 3) what the focus of the study will be in terms of connecting (wired vs wireless), and 4) what will be the next step (answers: 1 – variety of building types and distance from the county’s dark fiber, 2 – recommended by Connected DMV, 3 – will look at different types of connection like FTTH and fixed wireless and price points, 4 – study to be finished by end of November, discussion with community, speakers from tonight) ;
-Katie: appreciates that the study will give an idea of the cost of different options, emphasizes that this is not the “alpha and omega” of the County’s thinking on solutions (i.e. it is supposed to be “scalable”), credits ArlFiber for raising broader issues of affordability and accessibility, asks whether people who can afford internet on the “private market” are interested in a different option provided by an authority, this will come down to cost and the product on offer, admits that, due to her exclusive focus on lower income demographics, she would not have otherwise considered broader community, so this study may help guide that discussion, excited to expand this beyond just families with students.
-Matt: asks for clarification of how long the study will actual take given the reference to 12 months in certain parts of the agreement (deputy county attorney explains that this is pro forma, contractor asserts it will be done in 6 weeks). Matt makes reference to duopoly that served his last apartment building, makes reference to the problem of privately owned infrastructure;
– Christian: asks New Urbana president Costello about future projections of costs (Costello responds that technology is changing, possible to do fixed wireless with fiber backhaul, you will not have “end all, be all” for 15-20 years);
– Libby: we all think internet should be a utility like water and electricity. Concludes discussion and calls for a vote, which passes.
It simply is not possible for us to convey what a sea change we saw in the discussion that night. The previous skepticism that we had heard in previous conversations had morphed into a low key acceptance of the broadband authority as a legitimate path to these goals and the non-student divide as an equally pressing issue.
While the future of broadband in Arlington is still uncertain, we take pride in the fact that we have at least changed the conversation and planted some seeds in the minds of our local officials. We are excited to learn the results of this feasibility study, but ultimately want this data to inform a more strategic initiative that not only considers the entire county but adjacent “political subdivisions” that might want to be part of a regional broadband authority that builds out fiber to the home/premises to all homes and housing units, while allowing private providers compete over virtual networks to provide service.
Lastly, it is important to note that, during the current crisis, fixed wireless solutions may be the most cost efficient and expedient way to provide service, but the ultimate goal of any true community broadband project should be fiber to the home. Fiber is future-proof and is best able to deliver high-speed service.
We need your help tomorrow (Tuesday, October 20) at the Arlington County Board Recessed Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
The County Board will be considering a consent agenda item on whether to conduct a feasibility study on using the ConnectArlington network to provide free service to residents of two committed affordable housing complexes.
We support this measure, BUT we want to call on the County Board to expand the study to investigate whether a broadband authority could serve as the vehicle for executing this project (and eventually going beyond the CAFs to providing service to the entire community).
We need concerned community members to sign up to speak at the meeting and call on the board to think big and pursue a comprehensive solution for the entire community: a public internet option.
It is Item 34: “Allocation of Digital Equity Fund funds and approval of a grant agreement with the New Urbana Institute for the completion of a feasibility study for a non-profit high-speed internet service provider serving two affordable housing complexes, Gates of Ballston, 4108 4th St. N. and Arlington View Terrace, 1429 S. Rolfe St.”
The hearings on consent agenda items begin at 6:30 p.m. Item 34 is second on the list, so they could get to it as early as 6:45 p.m. (depends on how long it takes to get through the first item).
Here is the link to the Board Report (with copy of scope of work and other signature pages):
The link to sign up to speak at the Recessed Meeting is here:
You have to reference the Item number (#34) in your request to speak form and it will give you the opportunity to upload your statement. Once you have submitted a request to speak, you should receive a link to join the Microsoft Teams conference call (you can either download the app for this or open it up in Microsoft Edge browser – or Safari if you have a Mac). Check your spam folder, since many communications from county email addresses end up in for some reason (at least for me).
For consent agenda items, the time limit for speaking is 3 minutes. Be sure to be respectful and thank them for the work they have done on this already.
Before the current pandemic began, Arlington had a serious digital divide. County staff estimated that this was 10% of households and in a new report published in August it estimated this could be up to 16% based on Census data. These households are primarily low-income ($75K or less) and are disproportionately people of color (Black, Latinx, (immigrants) and English Learners. The current economic crisis has likely increased the number of people without access. Attempts by the County and School Boards to fix this (public hotspots, take home hotspots (“mifis”), subsidized subscriptions to Comcast’s Internet Essentials service) are commendable but still falling short. APS staff are acknowledging that while 97% of students are connecting, a sizable number are still having trouble. In addition to the lack of access and its disproportionate impact on low-income residents (of color and English Learners), there is insufficient competition in the internet service provider market. For instance, the County’s Broadband Advisory Committee noted in their 2017 report that 60% of commercial buildings in the County have only one choice for provider (Verizon). This de facto monopoly results in high prices and lackluster service for everyone. In a recent study of the world broadband market, researchers at The Open Technology Institute stated bluntly that the monopolized market structure of telecommunications in the U.S. is the reason Americans pay the highest costs for internet service in the world. Adding insult to injury, these telecommunication corporations use the considerable revenues derived from this monopoly pricing to lobby at the federal level against consumer protections like net neutrality.
In the early 2010s, Arlington County made the wise decision to end its relationship with Comcast and build its own public fiber optic network (ConnectArlington), which currently provides internet access to county owned buildings (e.g. county offices, schools, community centers). This network is extremely state of the art and delivers speeds of 10 gbps download and upload. Unfortunately, despite having this amazing existing asset, the part of the state law under which it was formed makes it difficult and needlessly complicated for the County to try to use its public network to provide service directly to private entities.
As a result, they are looking for ways to use the network to provide service to low-income families and bridge the digital divide as quickly as possible. Their current approach, on which they will be voting this coming Tuesday, is to pay a consultant to produce a feasibility study on how the County’s existing dark fiber could be used to connect and provide free service to residents of two committed affordable housing complexes (owned by AHC, Inc.) and how much the different options would cost, while also identifying a third party that could potentially implement it based on the results of the study.
ArlFiber’s immediate position on the proposed feasibility study is as follows:
1) expand this study to investigate whether a broadband authority can be used as a possible vehicle for executing this project; or
2) conduct a more comprehensive and strategic study that assesses the possibility of building a county-wide, fiber-to-the-premises, open access network using a broadband authority as the vehicle.
The pandemic has made it clear that the digital divide is a national emergency. Here in Arlington, as many as 10% of households have no home internet. These are primarily low-income families and people of color who cannot afford home service. With children set to return to school in an online format in the fall, this is an unacceptable state of affairs. This forum will discuss the nature of the digital divide and possible solutions, particularly a public option for broadband.
Moderators: Maya Jones (ArlDems Black Caucus), Tim Dempsey (Arlfiber)
1) Gigi Sohn, Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and a Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate. Topic:Federal Policy and the Digital Divide.
2) Francella Ochillo, Executive Director at Next Century Cities. Topic:The digital divide and racial/digital equity.
3) Holly Hartell, Assistant CIO for Strategic Initiatives at Arlington County Department of Technology. Topic:The digital divide in Arlington.
4) Robert Bridgham, Executive Director of the Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority (ESVBA). Topic:Broadband authorities in Virginia: The ESVBA experience.
5) Bruce Patterson, Technology Director, City of Ammon Fiber Optics. Topic:The Ammon model;