Censorship in Charles City?

Sometimes, Editors Have To Censor The Public

My local editor sends the following:
Tom,

Your recent letter to the editor submission — Charles City takes a big step — makes a number of strong points, but it is just too long to be run on our opinion page as is. I couldn't even fit it down one-half of the page. Run out on letter-size paper it is 2-1/2 pages long. I encourage you to try and summarize a little more and cut it down considerably. I try to accommodate our readers who write in, but we recommend keeping it within 300 words if possible. I am willing to go longer, but this is simply too long for us to use as is.

The Charles City Press couldn't cut my submission down, even with all their journalistic expertise, without losing the content to the point of nonsensical content. So, I've been silenced . . . unless I want to approach the subject in another way. I could do that, I suppose. Here's the letter to the editor that was censored:

Charles City Takes a Big Step
Tom Poe
1315 Cleveland Avenue
Charles City, Iowa 60616-1423
Ph: 228-3271
email: tompoe@fngi.net

The big step incorporates a couple of interesting points as follows:

1] Fiber to the home (FTTH) is a good long term goal. Japan has FTTH in place, today. There are some very remote rural areas that will be served by satellite solutions, but the large majority of Japan now enjoys the FTTH that is considered by the experts to be the amount of bandwidth needed by Charles City in 2020. Problem: Our population is stagnant, declining, and policies focused on residential and commercial building requirements will not carry a big impact. Priority might better be focused on city policies surrounding wireless buildout.

2] The need for a telecommunications infrastructure in Charles City cannot wait until 2020. This has already been accepted by the city officials, who have acted to bring public safety wireless infrastructure into play, today.

3] Al Hastings, IT director the city, has done a lot of work to distill the information about where our country is, and where we need to go. His presentation about broadband infrastructure, findings, vision, calls for the elected officials to take the next step to act on his vision, create a committee to flesh out a strategy, and execute that strategy.

The following information is offered in full support for Al Hastings' vision. I encourage each of our elected officials to listen to him, and to support his efforts, completely.

When we talk about infrastructure, we tend to think about what we know, that infrastructure is a facilities thingy. Phones require facilities to house all the infrastructure needed to run lines around the town, county, state, nation, world, in order to bring the ability of each of us to call anyone anywhere in the world.

We think about water, roads, power infrastructure as facilities. Expensive stuff. That is not what telecommunications infrastructure is, today. You have the ability to build your own infrastructure to meet your telecommunications needs. It is not expensive, and it is not reliant on a facilities thingy.

There are two types of telecommunications infrastructure approaches, today. They are the same as the computer types. Proprietary and nonproprietary. Microsoft is following the proprietary approach to computers. Linux is a name given to the nonproprietary approach. In telecommunications infrastructure, we have what is called, the incumbents, or proprietary approach. The nonproprietary approach is represented by technology based on open source. Al Hastings presented only the proprietary approach. I'd like to present only the nonproprietary approach. Why? Because it allows Charles City to choose one approach, or the other approach, or best of all, combine the two to have the most beneficial approach to meet its unique needs.

Al Hastings made the point that municipal broadband infrastructure based on wifi fails when a community attempts to use boxes that connect one house to another, and also to the Internet. He cited a posting about ISPs not permitting residents to share Internet connections from house to house. I believe he intended to convince the audience that such activity is illegal. That is not correct.

We own the airwaves that our television, radio, and phone calls travel on. The ISPs do not own the airwaves. We can establish a local broadband infrastructure that does not include Internet access provided by an ISP, whether Omnitel, or Qwest, or Mediacom. It is our choice. Once we have a local broadband infrastructure in place, we can offer a request for proposal (RFP), and the ISPs, or Qwest, or Omnitel, or Mediacom, or any other company can bid to gain access to our local broadband infrastructure. That is not an issue up for discussion. A local broadband infrastructure is possibly the most dramatic legacy any city council/mayor can contribute to their community. It will give every resident, present and future, free local broadband access for generations to come.

I think it's important to understand that Charles City needs high speed broadband infrastructure. Specifically, Charles City needs a local broadband infrastructure, because neither the ISPs, Qwest, Omnitel, Mediacom, nor anyone else has provided our kids with a "last mile solution". Al Hastings pointed out, using slides from at least one other city presentation, that kids in our country are not getting a true 21st century education. They are not getting a true 21st century education, because noone is offering an affordable connection between the kids' homes and their school network. That connection is called "last mile solution".

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, sees:
". . . interactive tablet PCs replacing textbooks and notebooks in schools. Students will call up everything they need on their tablet PCs and write everything directly on the screen to be stored there. His daughter’s school, he said, is already using this technology."
Bill Gates’ Vision for the Future
From Washington Post, March 13, 2008
By Kim Hart

The slides Al Hastings used regarding this point, used the term, Intranet, as opposed to Internet. An affordable "last mile solution" is but a local broadband infrastructure that does not rely on Internet access. The city of Charles City does not need to rely on anyone to give their approval for such a solution, especially a corporation that collects money from residents, and takes that money out of the community to line the pockets of corporate CEOs.

If the committee wants to address the issue of a local broadband infrastructure, one that does not rely on access to the global Internet, it is a short drive for the bus driver to get to this destination. It also will be a nifty way to set up the foundation Al Hastings impressed upon all who attended the presentation, without spending a nickel of the city budget. Here's a general outline for the committee's consideration.

The present situation, as I understand it, is there is a fiber optic cable that reaches the local high school. This cable is a termination point on the Iowa Communication Network (ICN). There are antennas on each of the schools in Charles City. These antennas allow communications between the schools and the ICN, wirelessly (think Wifi).

Move the antennas so that the schools, and the city is covered, just as the public safety network is covering the city, and the kids would then be able to connect from their homes. Examination of the costs for this additional bandwidth requirement (kids getting their true 21st century education) could be projected, and decisions could be made based on the information gathered by the committee.

If the cost is too great, there is an option. The kids do not necessarily have to connect directly to the ICN. The city could use a nonproprietary approach. One option would be to place antennas for a separate wifi network over unlicensed frequencies that allow the kids to connect to the schools' networks to access their multimedia assignments in the computer labs from their homes. This allows them to start their assignments at school, and to work on them in the evenings and on weekends from their homes. Al Hastings illustrated this approach during his presentation. We know there are radios/antennas/units/stations that have a range of several kilometers up to 15 kilometers that cost $80. That means, for less than $500, the city would be covered.

The cost would then need to include a survey, and projections as to what each student would have to spend to take advantage of the network. Student computers in their homes would have to have a wireless piece of hardware. The cost could be as little as $30, or more. We know that corporations, and Iowa's universities recycle computers on a regular basis. Today, contracts are written with quotas for companies to purchase and replace their computers/inventories on a regular basis. There are, then, abundant resources for obtaining suitable computer equipment to keep costs as low as possible for students. For those students who cannot afford computers in their homes, arrangements could be made for them, just as schools now make arrangements for school supplies.

The options offered above, represent options for establishing a local broadband infrastructure that does not necessarily rely on global Internet access. They both offer free local high speed broadband for all residents in the community. But not all residents would necessarily gain access to the "last mile solution" for the kids to access their school network from home. The local broadband infrastructure does cover the community, though. As Al Hastings pointed out, multiple networks can exist within the single local broadband infrastructure. The city departments would be able to set up their own network, as well as the hospital establishing their own telemedicine programs network, and even the police, fire and rescue might utilize a distinct network over this local broadband infrastructure for meeting some needs, such as a community alert network.

This brings me to the topic of revenue generation. Keeping in mind, that the community residents paid out less than $500, and received a small number of $80 antennas/radios/units/stations, resulting in a local broadband infrastructure for the residents, that local broadband infrastructure can now be put to work generating revenues. A contract with all city departments that operate on a work-order basis would reallocate savings from using the local broadband infrastructure that the city budget could use elsewhere. If the city wanted to spend the money on equipment that would enable town hall meetings to be broadcast across the city, residents that invested in a webcam and software for their computers, could actually participate from their homes. In times of emergency, the local broadband infrastructure would be able to be accessed by those with wireless connection, as long as their computers could "see" one or more of the antennas/radios/units/stations.

I mentioned telemedicine programs provided by our hospital. A contract would enable the hospital to gain access to the local broadband infrastructure to implement such programs. Residents, as one of the benefits of having a local broadband infrastructure, would be able to coordinate patient monitoring, or participate in virtual house calls with their physicians. This would be a significant savings for the hospital and the residents, and these savings would be reallocated to other uses that enhance the health and well-being of the community-at-large.

A local broadband infrastructure will be exciting for businesses. A contract to gain access to the local broadband infrastructure would enable HyVee or Fareway to offer all kinds of added value to the infrastructure. A refrigerator will contain a network connection that sends a monitoring signal for needed groceries, and deliveries to the home to replenish inventories. Weekly specials on the network's home page, makes it convenient for the residents to check without waiting for mailings to arrive in the mailbox. Each category of business will have their own value-added approach to utilizing the potential of a local broadband infrastructure. The movie house will be a most interested candidate, as well as every nonprofit organization that wants to reach every resident in the community.

Today, Charles City has a public, education, government (PEG) channel. The cable company has provided a studio in the local high school. City budget concerns have restricted access to this studio by residents. In April of last year, the state took over franchise contract negotiations from the city. It is anticipated that PEG channels may disappear in the future, as there will be no longer, an obligation to work with the city directly to provide continued studio facilities. In February, 2009, all television transmissions will switch to digital mode. We've seen the national "make sure every American can watch digital tv" policy in action. Each time you see the public service announcement, you are reminded that this national policy is at work.

Interestingly, the federal government is making sure everyone has a digital converter box for tvs that use an indoor/outdoor antenna. These converter boxes are actually a highly restricted version of an antenna/radio/unit/station, just like the antennas/radios/units/stations we've been talking about for local broadband infrastructure. Had we had a federal government administration with any common sense, we could have had federal dollars to the tune of $40 per house to establish our local broadband infrastructure as well as for watching digital tv. But, I digress.

The connection between the PEG channel situation, and the digital tv converter boxes that I want to make, is this. By this time next year, anyone with a computer and the audio and video software needed, will be able to produce the same tv and radio shows that are now dependent on the PEG channel studio at our local high school. A computer can be located anywhere. A digital recording studio will be able to do everything the PEG channel does now. In other words, Charles City will be able to use its local broadband infrastructure to broadcast local television and radio content produced with a digital camera and a computer, and viewers will not be able to tell the difference. A live, interactive tv telethon could be run from all over town. Another "channel" would broadcast an ongoing garage sale tour for those of us who would like to visit all the garage sales without leaving our homes. Someone with a digital camera and the right software will be able to create their own live, interactive tv show, filming our mayor as he moves about during the day, from location to location. Now, that's worth the $500 alone, eh?

The city budget does not need to approve money at this level of local broadband infrastructure. A local broadband infrastructure requires community support. The more, the better. When the mayor, and the city council, and the telecommunications committee all agree that their role will be little more than "champions" of the initiative, the completion of a local broadband infrastructure can be measured in days, if not a handful of weeks. FTTH will take years. Will be expensive. Will be a tremendous contribution. Both levels of infrastructure are needed. The FTTH level does not preclude a local broadband infrastructure. Whether the local broadband infrastructure is comprised of www.open-mesh.com antennas/radios/units/stations, or Wimax-like antennas/radios/units/stations like the Nanostation2 boxes that reach up to 15 kilometers, the city budget does not have to suffer a direct hit. All that's needed, is for the city officials to embrace, support, and actively "champion" the initiative, and in a few weeks, attend a ceremony to accept the accolades of the community for giving them free local broadband access for generations to come.