July 09, 2005
Council Chambers Should Not Be 'Walled Garden'
A Request Regarding Citywide Wireless Plan
Week before the one just past, the City Council authorized the Bureau of Technology Services to issue a Request for Proposals "to select a third party to design, develop, own and operate a citywide, high-speed wireless network."
While we there for that agenda item, it wasn't actually something we were following very closely, and for our purposes here we'll just give the basics in order to get to our point.
In the main, the point is to secure a private company to build and operate a citywide wireless network, for which the City itself will be the "anchor" customer in order to make various government processes more efficient and arguably cheaper.
Beyond that, there is supposed to be some sort of free-level service provided, but it's expacted that it will be to what's being called a "walled garden" -- in other words a prescribed set of information such as the sites of the City itself, social service providers, tourist information, etc.
While we invite any and all comment on the City's move towards a wireless network, what we mainly want to get at is a request: There must be free and unwalled access to the Internet via this network inside Council Chambers.
No, we don't make this request out of self-interest. We're not big on the "live blogging" thing so it's not about wanting to be able to post directly from Council sessions (although that would certainly be useful on occasion).
Rather, we're imagining people who have signed up to testify on any given agenda item being able to do research right up until the moment it's their turn to testify. For example, suppose an individual or group testifies to something a citizen knows is misleading -- or, for that matter, suppose a Council member does do. A quick jump onto the Web could allow people to gather the relevant information needed to respond specifically to the mater at hand.
Or, less dramatically, if questions are being asked during a Council hearing but no one seems to have the answers at hand, easy access from Chambers -- for City staff and the public alike -- would open up the opportunity to find those answers right then and there rather than having to direct someone to do some research and get back to Council at a later date.
Whatever the pros and cons of a privately-run citywide wireless network and "walled gardens" do the Council-going public this one favor, this is our own one request in terms of policy in the public interest.
Comments (26)
Chris Smith on 09 Jul 2005
It seems like a simple solution would be to put a Personal Telco node in City Hall. I think that Nigel Ballard and Marshall Runkel were working on this. But since they're both on to new jobs, I wonder what will happen to the idea?
Kari Chisholm on 09 Jul 2005
Well, of course, they could deploy free, unwalled, wi-fi right there in the council chambers for about fifty bucks. And they could do it in about an hour on Monday morning.
Putting a wi-fi node in the room should be pretty much unrelated to the city-wide mesh network.
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
Please excuse my utter stupidity and its need to grasp this:
I dont understand what a 'walled garden' is and why/how it interferes with getting onto the internet with a wi-fi node?
The One True b!X on 09 Jul 2005
Walled garden:
Randy Leonard on 09 Jul 2005
"Kari Chisholm Says:
July 09, 2005 at 02:49 PM
Well, of course, they could deploy free, unwalled, wi-fi right there in the council chambers for about fifty bucks. And they could do it in about an hour on Monday morning. "
That is nearly exactly the comment I made when told it was going to take some time to get the wireless up and running in city hall.
I wasn't aware of this "walled garden" concept...I was gone the day the council discussed this.
I will, however, look into it and make sure we have regular internet wireless at least within ciy hall.
Jack Bog on 09 Jul 2005
If unrestricted wi-fi goes in, it will be quite humorous to see what the audience members are looking at on their laptops while our city fathers are addressing them. It might even be worth my attending a council session, just to blog about that.
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
Yes, b!X -- I read that -- but it doesnt explain why or how it would interfere with getting onto the internet at City Hall.
Chris Smith on 09 Jul 2005
allehseya, the idea is that the City wide service would be paid, not unlike the T-Mobile service at Starbucks. So you have to log in or give a credit card #, etc.
The 'walled garden' would be a set of sites (e.g., PortlandOnline) that you would be allowed to access without logging in or paying. Essentially the agreement with the City would say that there is a certain set of content that is a public service and will be provided free of charge.
This applies to anywhere in the WiFi cloud, not just City Hall.
Which raises the question of who will decide which sites are a public service worthy of inclusion in the walled garden? Will Communique be included? Will Jack?
Jack Bog on 09 Jul 2005
the City wide service would be paid, not unlike the T-Mobile service at Starbucks. So you have to log in or give a credit card #, etc.
Sounds like another symptom of the "Portland Utilities" megalomania. "We'll have a private company run it, but the city has to own it." Sure.
Fits right in with the Soviet housing projects we're building.
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
Jack -- what (are you referring to when) / what do you mean by "soviet housing units" ?
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
disclaimer: apologies for misquote (above) .... was referencing jack (below)
"Fits right in with the Soviet housing projects we're building."
Chris Smith on 10 Jul 2005
Jack, I'm probably a little sloppy in my comparison. While the mobile user would see it as comparable to T-Mobile, it is also intended to act as a potential competitor for DSL and Cable Modem service in fixed locations, with the hope that it be more competitively priced (we'll see how competitively when the RFP responses come back). Since it combines BOTH the fixed and mobile usage, I could have one account that covers both what I pay T-Mobile $20/mo for and what I pay Comcast $48/mo for, I'm guessing for a chunk less than what I pay Comcast now.
And this is decidely NOT a City utility. The City is offering two things:
1) Access to City property to install antennas, etc.
2) Moving the City and other government business (paystations, TriMet next arrival displays, etc. - all of which use cellular connections today) to the new provider IF THE NEW PROVIDER IS CHEAPER.
Unlike the City buying up a monopoly utility, this is a case of the City attempting to introduce a third competitor into what is now effectively a duopoly. The result is better pricing and service for both citizens and government.
A very good move in my opinion.
Jack Bog on 10 Jul 2005
this is a case of the City attempting to introduce a third competitor into what is now effectively a duopoly
Sounds like a backdoor way to battle Comcast and Qwest. Will it engender a decade or so of expensive litigation, which, if the win-loss record so far is any indication, the city will lose?
Cab on 11 Jul 2005
Jack, you should have your Dopamine levels checked. The negativity is really getting out of hand.
paul gronke on 11 Jul 2005
b!x,
I think you are confusing two issues here. The local "cloud" discussed in this document only refers to the *private* wireless cloud that the City is helping get started. The City is asking the provider to make sure that "portlandonline" is available free *everywhere* the Cloud extends.
As Kari points out, this is separate from wireless w/in City Hall. There is no reason the City could not provide full free wireless within City Hall right *now* (although this would cost some money and probably slow down the bandwidth used by City employees as people hop on the net). Hell, an entrepeneurial city employee could extend the "cloud" by heading down to Best Buy and buying a wireless router (though he/she would then get canned).
===
If I understand this correctly, the aim is to let the City provide inexpensive infrastructure (see antennas above) and be a major buyer (if monthly costs are lower) in order to encourage a private vendor to extend the wireless cloud.
Jack, I really don't see why you'll oppose this.
It is nearly cost-free for the City (the only "cost" here is the value you'd place on the placement of an antenna on a city building, something they could sell to Comcast but are willing to provide for lower cost here).
The City buys the wireless service (instead of Comcast or DSL) *if* it is cheaper *for the City* thus saving further tax dollars.
And on top of all of it this provides a kickstart to market competition for Internet services.
How does this fit into your model of Soviet collectives? Sure sounds like a smart private/public partnership to me, something I'd think you would support.
allehseya on 11 Jul 2005
Thank you for the clarification, Paul and Chris.
Since I've already mentioned how daft I am -- do you mind explaining how extending wireless service via a router may or may not affect security -- such as viruses, vulnerability to hacks, etc. ? I'm just trying to understand why the city would object or delay it -- outside of the speed issue.
Marshall Runkel on 11 Jul 2005
Allehseya-
It's was frustrating, but security has been the problem with getting wireless up and running at City Hall. Free, unfettered access to the Internet is the right goal for a public forum like City Council Chambers. It does open up a host of security issues, but I believe that they have all been resolved and unfettered, free access to the Internet in City Hall should be there soon.
Just after my departure, just my luck.
The One True b!X on 11 Jul 2005
Paul, I'm aware there are two different issues at play. I was making the assumption that if they had not bothered to wifi City Hall or even just Council Chambers by now (when PTP has been wifi'ing the City for years with no massive outbreak of security threats), that it simply wasn't going to happen and therefore wasn't even going to be an option until and unless the private cloud was up and running.
I see people saying that's not going to have to be the case, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Chris Smith on 11 Jul 2005
allehseya, the 'just go out and buy a router' approach to this would mean anyone connecting from inside City Hall would be on the INSIDE of the City network, presumably with access to things that should be protected (anyone want to hack the water bureau billing system).
I setup the wireless access (i.e., I arranged the partnership with PTP) at the new City Club Commons and we actually had to add hardware to split the internet feed from our provider (Saw.net - thank you, Brian!) so that one branch went to the secure office network while another branch goes to the public WiFi cloud that covers the office, the coffee shop and O'Bryant Sq next door.
I'm sure what's going on at City Hall is the equivalent of splitting the feed, although I suspect it's considerably more complicated in the case of City Hall.
Chris Smith on 11 Jul 2005
Jack, I don't think you have thought through your objection. We have two entrenched 'wired' providers today - Comcast via coax, Qwest via copper. The City is just helping jumpstart additional access via an additional technology, leveraging City assets (i.e., buildings that are suitable antenna locations). I could make a pretty strong argument that failing to leverage those buidings (which have been paid for by your and my tax dollars) would be failing to get the best return on our taxes.
It seems to me that this is very analagous to the research the started the Internet. DARPA funded research into packet network technologies (the basis of the Internet) at a time when AT&T said packet networks could never work. By your argument DARPA should have kept hands off, and we'd all still be dialing up at 56K to AOL.
The City is spurring innovation at no additional cost to taxpayers, and probably providing a savings. How can that possibly be bad?
And by the way, NOTHING prevents Comcast or Qwest from responding to the RFP with their own plan to do this.
allehseya on 11 Jul 2005
Marshall,
Thanks for the explanation and all of the dedication (such as Chris') to the work involved in geting it trouble-shot. Just one more question? Where did you "depart" to?
paul gronke on 11 Jul 2005
Allehseya,
I'll give you another example. If you sit within about 100 feet of the Red and the Black Cafe on SE Division (even, ironically, in the most eastern table of the Starbucks), you can pick up their Telco signal.
This node is likely a antenna and a wireless router connected to the owner's DSL or CableModem connection. However, Personal Telco helps you implement a security system that only allows you a "pass through" to the web, and does not allow any access to an internal wireless network (if they even have one).
The problem at City Hall is that there are three levels of computers. First, there are the machine themselves. That is actually relatively easy to protect via personal firewalls. However, there is probably an internal City Hall network itself, consisting of servers with things like your tax bill or housing appraisals. These have to be easily accessible within the City Hall network, but *must* be closed to the outside. Then there is the "outside" world wide web.
Protecting level 2 is what City Hall is probably most concerned with. These internal networks are what get hacked at all the time at the Pentagon, IRS, major corporations, etc. That's where you are vulnerable (not to viruses, but to hacks).
All that being said, it is probably pretty easy for the City to set up one wireless node on its network that is firewalled off from everything else and has a clear channel to the web. Given what Randy has written here, I wouldn't be surprised to see that appear within weeks. In fact, I bet some folks will be "war driving" it soon...
allehseya on 11 Jul 2005
heh.
Now Paul, in light of Jack's recent state of mind, did you really have to go reference the Red and Black cafe, war driving here in Little Beirut, and Pentagon vulnerability all in the same post? ; ]
paul gronke on 12 Jul 2005
allehseya,
heh heh. i'll be outside your house soon with my pringles can!
Say, folks can browse over to
http://personaltelco.net/map
and
http://oregon.metrofreefi.com/city/Portland.htm
to get a feel for the current cloud.
Marshall Runkel on 12 Jul 2005
Allehseya-
I've jumped the ship of the city for a national non-profit dedicated to connecting people with low incomes to the Internet, www.one-economy.com.
allehseya on 13 Jul 2005
Marshall,
As the Jiffy Lube sutra promises: "Change is Good."
BTW -- who do I contact in your organization here in Portland regarding Youth Leadership programs (such as the following from your listed website:)
"Digital Connectors are young people between the ages of 14 and 19 who help accelerate the use of technology in our Digital Communities. They provide technology training and support to community residents who have home access to computers and the Internet through the efforts of One Economy and our corporate and non-profit partners."
?
(feel free to e-mail me at PDXArts@aol.com)