Big Broadband consultant floats idea of closed meetings
A Maryland consultant hired to advise Champaign and Urbana on building the Big Broadband network has suggested they could meet behind closed doors.
But Deborah Frank Feinen, a Champaign City Council member and the chair of the Big Broadband policy committee, says "no way."
"The committee has never endorsed that, has never talked about it," Feinen said.
The committee that will oversee the high-speed Internet network is in the beginning stages of figuring out what kind of business model would be best for Big Broadband. Some kind of agency will need to function as an Internet service provider, similar to AT&T or Comcast.
The major difference is that the network infrastructure is being funded by public money from local and federal agencies – $22.5 million of which came from a federal grant last year. It would be overseen by government agencies. And it advises and answers to public bodies like the Champaign and Urbana city councils and the University of Illinois Board of Trustees.
But Feinen said the committee making these decisions knows its role as a public entity, and "this is a committee that's committed to openness."
The memo from the Maryland consultant circulated this week – the same week as Sunshine Week, an effort spearheaded by the American Society of News Editors to spread awareness of open government.
Under the current structure, the Big Broadband committee cannot legally close meetings to the public under the Illinois Open Meetings Act, which defines what a public body is and how it must conduct business in the open, said Champaign city attorney Fred Stavins. But keep in mind, he said, that sometime down the road, the group may choose to sell the whole network to a private business.
Those talks are still in their infancy – the committee has yet to predict the fate of the Big Broadband network, and those involved hesitate to even speculate on what the business model might look like. But Stavins said the suggestion that meetings may be closed to the public under a different type of organizational structure is something you would expect to hear from a business consultant.
"They're not near there in their discussions," Stavins said. "But if they ask a private consultant about one of the issues, one of the issues is competition."
And that business consultant – like Doug Dawson, whom the cities of Urbana and Champaign paid $7,500 each to advise them as they organize the network – would be likely to suggest that a business should not announce its strategies to the public and consequently its competitors, like AT&T and Comcast, Stavins added. Dawson did not return phone messages seeking comment.
"Sometimes revealing a business strategy could hurt the organization," Stavins said.
Peter Folk, the CEO of Volo Broadband, will be a competitor but has also been involved with the talks on Big Broadband. He said it was troubling just to hear that the recommendation that the group's doors could be closed, depending on what business model is adopted.
"It's sort of the whole point," Folk said. "To me, the one defining feature of UC2B is that it's a public entity."
The mission of the group is different, too, he said. Private Internet providers are driven by profits, while the government-owned Big Broadband is not.
"The goal of UC2B, it seems, should be to further the goal of everyone having a great connection," Folk said.
MoreEXACTLY...what a tremendous waste. It's evident the so called public broadband is going to be a competitor to private business internet. Another example of government control and takeover of free enterprise. There carrot in all of this seems to be offering free internet to link card areas of CU., at the public's expense.
I agree with both of you. And really, I bet the whole thing never even happens, so it will have been an even BIGGER waste of money. By the time they get this all straightened out there will be free wireless broadband from cellular towers or some such thing that will make this whole underground loop around C-U pointless. Yet the consultants, and the people that dredged up this whole idea, will have all sucked in hundreds of thousands of salary dollars that they can pocket and then just slip away into the darkness. Must be nice.
It is happening with construction planned to begin this fall and be completed within two years as I recall. WiFi anywhere close to this speed is still a long ways off in this area and will never be free. Rather, it will likely be around $40 as cellular data and cable modem rates have been for quite some time. Although I would have preferred it to come about through private activity or at least come entirely from local funds, sometimes public money is used to grow infrastructure such as happened as city water, gas, and electric services made their way to our homes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sometimes those utilities remain public such as Rantoul's water service and sometimes they get sold off to a private business. If the city can make this investment and recoup the entire or a large portion of the cost back at some point in the future (including their share of the grant money), what a wise investment that will have been!
It's not free. It's $20/month for residential service even in the so called underserved areas. That is hoped to be a sustainable rate which means no further public subsidy will be needed. And that means that at least those areas will get much better speeds for half the cost of cable modem. Considering cable modem was able to piggyback on existing copper in the ground for their video service, that shows that they're making about a 100% profit on their Internet business. This overpricing and near monopoly is one of the reasons this project even came about.
As I recall, the city was already planning to spend twice the amount they're spending here and it was going to take two or three times as long to get done. While timing and use of federal and state funds for something of such localized benefit may be debatable, from the city's perspective they're getting a great deal for their money. I don't connect UC2B to closing fire stations any more than salting the roads closes fire stations. It's a matter of prioritizing to get the highest level of service for the money available. Cutting the city's long term communications costs and improving communications capacity (think firefighters learning new technologies and strategies with immersive and interactive content while sitting idle at a station or downloading best route guides to factor in street closings, sporting events, etc when responding to a fire) is certainly worthy of at least consideration among a number of city expense decisions. It's not the ideal way I would have liked to see it happen but I am excited for it and don't think it will be viewed as a white elephant 10 or more years from now at all.
Private telecom companies have been very slow about providing fiber to the home, and why shouldn't they be? Making money off their existing copper is much more profitable than building out last-mile fiber. Verizon's starting to provide that service, but only in dense urban areas. If UC2B can get the last mile buildout and internet service provision right, Champaign-Urbana will be way ahead of comparable cities. People & businesses will start clamoring for the increased bandwidth within the next 5 to 10 years.
I'm curious about whether a cooperative similar to the New Deal area electric cooperatives might be a good model to take up the commercialization of the service. They do sometimes have a hard time raising capital, but the company belongs to the customers and they let a lot of useful economic activity be done that either wouldn't be done or would be done at a greater premium to consumers (maybe not so much at food co-ops, but definitely agricultural co-ops).
Two points: Fred Stavins' comments notwithstanding, it might be appropriate for the city to retain a different consultant who is not prone to suggest dealing behind closed doors when public tax monies are involved. Second--the plans for the broadband still do not contain any funding for helping the targeted low-income population to be able to afford the computers and any pertinent software to take advantage of the high-speed connect plus, even at $20/month, payment for continuous service. I have brought up this aspect from the first time the concept was floated before the grant was written. The response continues to be that there is a hope to find more grant funding to be able to provide support for the purchase of computers and payment for the monthly fee. Without such, the low-income population will not be able to take advantage of this huge expenditure.
I would hope that this is an idea that spreads to other areas. Cable internet is outrageously expensive and slow. The profit margin on it is huge. A public owned service only has to recoup it's operating expenses through fees. When a public option is around, private businesses have to get their house in order. they have to offer better service at lower cost to compete. Once built, the network should never be sold to a private corporation. That would negate all of the benefits of building it in the first place. The U.S. is way down on the list of countries when it comes to speed, reliability and price. Corporations only provide the minimum necessary to make a huge profit. I would love to have 100 times the speed for a fraction of the cost.
I believe the cost to the City of Champaign was to be $688,000.00. The city is reducing it's police protection, and firefighter service plus other services due to budget constraints. The question to the public is "do you want to keep police, firefighters, teachers, etc....; or do you want broadband?" Well, that is somewhat misleading. The decision is really not the public's.
I believe that's close to the cost of salt this year. So the question is do you want to keep police, firefighters, teachers, etc or do you want salted roads? Or do you want those things or do you want the top 10 or so administrators? There are always competing interests and alternatives for every dollar brought in and spent and it's not fair to say broadband, a much higher cost for which the city was already anticipating in the coming years, is the only source of cuts to prevent a cut in emergency services. From the city's perspective, a 300%+ return on their investment doesn't sound like a bad idea to them and will allow them to put more dollars into emergency services within a few years from the savings over having to pay for their broadband entirely themselves. Can't say that for salt or administrators.
The administrators are always the last to be laid off. Maybe, they will "put more dollars into emergency services within a few years from the savings over having to pay for their broadband entirely themselves". In the mean time; better be careful on the roads during the winters, and form neighborhood watch committees. Seems like a family who has holes in their house roof; but buy new furniture instead of fixing the roof because the furniture is on sale.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.