April 7, 2010 By Bill Schrier
For people who work hard to make government work, we live in frightening, uncertain times. Even small messages and signals to the people who do the day-to-day work are important.
Recently we had an employee in my department (Department of Information Technology - DoIT, City of Seattle) whose card key was shut off to get to a certain floor after hours. It was inadvertent and an oversight - we were just trying to remove after hours access for anyone who really didn't need it. "Enhancing physical security".
But this employee immediately became frightened for his job - "are they planning to lay me off?" was the first thought he had.
Even small signals are important.
I try to smile and greet each employee as I see them walking through the hallways or in work spaces. I am very intentional about this.
First, I have a genuine respect and admiration for the people in DoIT - and around the City of Seattle - who make government run. But also I just enjoy talking to people and hearing their stories. I know the first name of every employee in DoIT, and many other IT employees throughout City government, and I'm genuinely concerned about them, their families and their work.
Sometimes I forget, however, and I'm lost in thought, and I walk down the hallway scowling and forgetting to say hello. Employees can interpret that as "the boss is mad at me", when, really, I'm just thinking about an especially difficult meeting I recent had, or a thorny problem I have to solve.
These are frightening times.
City government revenues are down, positions are being cut, and employees are being laid off. We have more difficulties coming down the road, and there is a significant amount of FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt in the air. All you have to do is read Publicola, the local scandal sheet (now known as a "blog") to see the facts and hear the rumors about this.
Yes, I know that I and other department directors will be faced with more cuts and more difficult decisions in the coming months. I am really hoping that the next budget process will be the last time we are cutting and we can stabilize the government after that. I'm a "glass half full" guy.
Nevertheless I lose a lot of sleep and spend a lot of time worrying about these issues and the effects of cuts on employees and their families. And, even more importantly, on the health and well-being of the 600,000 people who live in Seattle and depend upon their government for safety, utilities and quality of life.
My lost sleep is irrelevant, of course - if I'm not here, the facts of the budget situation are still the same, and the cuts will still come, but it will just be someone else making the decision.
So if I scowl at you as I walk down the hallway, please don't take it personally. I'm just puzzling over that next difficult decision.
March 16, 2010 By Bill Schrier
So the FCC has published its national broadband plan. This plan has many implications for cities and counties and local government. It has implications for public safety and general government, for consumers, for business, for wired and wireless networks.
Here's my take on it:
Q: Is this plan really radical or different?
A: The FCC has charted a brave new vision for the United States with this plan. For example, in this plan the FCC has set a goal of "one hundred squared", that is, connecting 100 million households with 100 megabits per second. This is radical because it cannot be accomplished with existing copper wire networks such as the telephone networks or cable TV networks. Such speeds require fiber optic cable to every home and business, a radical change. The speeds copper can carry are quite limited. But fiber cable lightwave signals theoretically, have no upper limit on speed. Incidentally, there are about 114 million households in the U.S.
Q: A 100 megabits per second - a 100 million bits per second - is "geekspeak" . What does it really mean for consumers at home or small business?
A: Let me give you one specific example. Many homes and businesses are buying and installing flat screen TVs, and most of those are HDTV - high definition. That's cool, and the quality of the image is very detailed. But the signal is one way - you "watch the TV" - you don't really "interact" with it or use it for communications like you use a phone. At the same time, you can buy a video camcorder - even a cheap one like a Flip phone - that takes HDTV video. Now, let's suppose you could put the video camcorder next to the HDTV and connect them - all of a sudden you would have a video telephone or a video conferencing setup. You could make video phone calls. You could attend meetings with video. You could attend class at a high school or community college or a university, and actually interact with the teacher or professor - ask questions and participate. You could visit your doctor to talk about a health problem, or work from home. You could visit your local appliance store or clothing store and talk to the owner and have the owner demonstrate what you want to buy. You could play really cool interactive video games. And think of the implications for quality of life - with this sort of video, grandparents could have dinner with their kids and grandchildren every night via a video phone. They could see their grandchildren from hundreds or thousands of miles away, or from an assisted living or nursing home. But all of this requires super fast networks for both high quality and almost zero latency - no delay, just like the voice phone network. And this requires fiber with 100 million bits per second or more. To each home or business.
Q: What are the implications for large cities like Seattle?
A: Seattle has been a leader in thinking about these networks. We've already installed fiber cable connecting every public school, all our college campuses, every fire station, police precinct and every major government building. We have done extensive planning for a fiber optic cable network to every one of the 300,000 homes and businesses in Seattle. We are a high tech community and we value education. We need such a fiber network for jobs, education and quality of life. Mayor Michael McGinn is very committed to the idea, and a number of departments are working together on a business plan to make it happen. The visionary goals set by the FCC's broadband plan - 100 million bits per second to 100 million homes - validate that we're following the right path, and we need to move rapidly to stay ahead of other cities in the United States and around the world.
Q: How can we learn more about this Seattle plan?
A: To stay abreast of it or support it, go to http://www.seattle.gov/broadband .
Q: What are the implications of the FCC plan for suburban and rural communities?
A: Suburban communities can be wired with fiber, just like the FCC's plan envisions and Seattle intends to do. Some Seattle area communities such as Kirkland and Woodinville already have fiber networks installed by Verizon. In rural communities installing fiber to farms and small towns may not always make economic sense, although in some visionary places like Chelan County, the local PUD is doing it anyway. But the FCC has envisioned an alternative for rural communities - high speed wireless broadband. Today's wireless networks are usually called "3G" or 3rd Generation. Fourth Generation - 4G - wireless networks will be available in a few places by the end of 2010. These faster networks require a lot of spectrum. You may recall that, in June, 2009, all TV broadcast signals became digital - every TV in the nation had to have a wired cable connection or a digital antenna. The FCC mandated this digital transition to take spectrum away from UHF TV use and give it to telecommunications companies to build 3G and 4G networks. The FCC's broadband plan calls for adding another 500 megahertz of spectrum to be dedicated to new, faster, wireless networks. The FCC will try to convince TV broadcasters to give up even more of the 300 MHz of spectrum now used for TV. And the government itself controls another 600 MHz of spectrum, some of which could be used for wireless broadband.
Q: The nation faces a number of threats - terrorism, disasters (like earthquakes and hurricanes like Katrina) and even local disasters like the shooting of four Lakewood, Washington, police officers in 2009. Will the FCC's national broadband plan help with this problem?
A: Public safety communications were problematical on September 11th in New York City, in the Katrina Hurricane and in other disasters. The public cell phone networks won't reliably operate in such disasters or, sometimes, even in daily emergencies like power outages. The FCC has allocated 10 Mhz of spectrum in the 700 Mhz band for a nationwide public safety broadband network. In the national broadband plan, the FCC proposes putting money where its mouth has been - the FCC is proposing $6.5 billion in grants to create the public safety network. The City of Seattle is one of only 17 communities nationwide who have asked the FCC for permission to use this spectrum and build such a network. In their plan, the FCC includes a method for setting standards and operating procedures which will allow cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York and Boston to build. And these municipal or regional public safety wireless broadband networks will interoperate with others nationwide. In fact, under the FCC's plan, the public safety networks will also interoperate with networks being constructed by AT&T and Verizon and T-Mobile. So if a police officer or firefighter can't get a strong signal from the public safety network the officer could get signals from a commercial network instead.
Furthermore, Seattle has proposed that other government agencies - our electric utility, Seattle City Light, our water utility, Seattle Public Utilities, our transportation department, and others, also be allowed to use this network. In both daily emergencies and major disasters such "second responders" are vital to public safety and must interoperate with police and fire to keep the public safe. The national broadband plan recognizes this need as well.
Q: Practically, why do we need a public safety wireless broadband network?
A: I'll give one specific example - video. On October 31, 2009, a Seattle police officer was brutally murdered by an unknown assailant - Christopher Montfort was ultimately charged with the crime. How did the police find Montfort? I've discussed this in more detail in this blog entry, but essentially, every Seattle police patrol vehicle has a video camera which records video of traffic stops. The recording goes to a computer in the police vehicle. It took several days for the police to review all the video footage of traffic stops from Seattle police cars. They noticed, in the background of several such stops, a uniquely shaped vehicle cruising by, which was traced back to Montfort. With a wireless broadband network, such video could immediately, in real time, be transmitted to dispatch centers and other police officers. Furthermore, police and firefighters could receive mugshots, building plans, hazardous material data, and video from a variety of sources to improve their response to both daily incidents and larger disasters.
Q: Are there other implications of the plan?
A: Several are worth mentioning and there is a bit more detail in an analysis here.
In summary, the FCC's plan is visionary. Certainly it was carefully crafted with many competing interests interests in mind. And it doesn't really provide any good mechanism to encourage competition between private providers. Such competition would reduce costs to users. Nevertheless, if it is followed, will materially improve the economy, safety, and quality of life for the people of the United States.
March 2, 2010 By Bill Schrier
Seattle just became the latest City to start posting its government data on the Internet in an open format. Open Data publishing may very well transform not just government, but Democracy, as well.
Data.seattle.gov has been live for a couple of months but was just officially announced this past Thursday, February 25th.
An interesting initiative, but what implication does it have for governing and government?
Making government transparent is not new - it has actually been going on since the first government websites went live in the mid-1990s. Most governments have a wide variety of data posted online. But in many cases it is hard to find or get in bulk. Constituents can search for individual building permits or maps or police reports. But only in the past 18 months have they been able to download whole datasets of such information in a usable format from online sites.
By "whole datasets" I mean, for example, perhaps almost every 911 call which occurred in San Francisco during the month of December, 2009, or every restaurant inspection in the entire City of Chicago, or all the building permits issued anywhere in the District of Columbia.
Government openness and transparency really found its legs with President Obama's declaration, on his first day as President, that he would run an open and transparent government. Many large cities now have open data websites. San Francisco's datasf.org is one of the most comprehensive and best, but Chicago, New York and Washington DC have similar sites in operation. Cook County Illinois and the State of Utah among many others put their "checkbooks" online.
The open data trend hasn't really reached a lot of smaller counties, cities and states just yet, but it will. For one thing, commercial services such as Socrata ( www.socrata.com) which powers the City of Seattle's data.seattle.gov and many federal websites, make it relatively cheap and easy for governments to post their data. (Socrata famously hosts the White House visitor log, which has received 400,000 views.)
But is putting data in bulk, online, anything more than a fad?
I believe it is the tip of a very serious explosion of a new version of democracy. Until now, governments use of the Internet has paralleled use in the private sector, although generally lagging two to three years. The private sector is driven by competition and is less risk adverse than those of us who work with taxpayer dollars.
Perhaps the first iteration of government presence on the Internet/web was simply putting information on line. For example, how to apply for a building permit, or explanations of how to report problems with streets.
The second version of online government is transactions, that is, actually doing some business online such as paying a utility bill or parking ticket.
Then the third wave of online work is expanding information to include this bulk download or easy, machine-readable, querying of data, such as data.seattle.gov and similar sites listed above. This makes fascinating applications available such as stumble safely or Cleanscores, listing the health inspection results for restaurants in San Francisco. An explosion of privately developed applications is starting to occur based on this open data. And also, in this wave of innovation, government diverges significantly from the private sector. Few private businesses will want to place large amounts of data collected at their own expense in the public domain for anyone to see and use.
A fourth wave of online interaction is now starting to appear, typified by the site " see click fix" where constituents can not only report issues online (using a map-based interface in the case of see-click-fix) but also see what others have reported and even rank the importance of the issues which have been reporrted.
A fifth wave is bound to occur, as governments expose their internal processes to public scrutiny, in the same fashion Fedex has done for package shipments or banks have done for loan processing. In this iteration, governments will not only accept a report of a problem or a need, but will actually allow citizens to track the problem resolution online. The citizen can report a broken streetlight, see when it is acknowledged or logged, see when it is scheduled for work, know when the crew is dispatched, see when the problem is fixed, and then provide feedback on the timeliness and quality of work. This will really make government accountable, as we'll have to streamline our business processes and expose them to scrutiny, along with the data about how government operates.
But yet another wave of citizen-to-government interaction is occurring as well. In this iteration, data will be posted online, and people will write applications and analyze it, and then use it to create and inform public policy options for elected officials to consider.
For example, a City might acquire a building such as a school which is no longer needed. How should the government use it? Should it be torn down and sold to commercial developers? Should it be torn down and used for a park (and what kind of park - swimming pool, grassy knoll, childrens' playground)? Should it be converted into a community center or housing or offices for non-profit organizations?
Answering these questions requires a lot of data and analysis. How many kids live nearby and what is the neighborhood crime rate? Are there already lots of parks and playgrounds and pools nearby? Are there a lot of seniors or immigrants or people with special needs? In the past, government employees would collect the data and crunch it and present the analyses and drive the solution. And then the government would have a public meeting to discuss and debate the options.
But eventually, community activists and the neighborhood can do a lot of that, especially if they have access to all the same data and statistics as the government.
Furthermore, they can collect a LOT more and varied inputs. They can poll the neighborhood and canvas door-to-door and collect information from the "man on the street". They can take photos of neighborhood conditions and gather unique statistics about the health and quality of life in that community. They can then combine these sorts of input with census data to produce an entirely new look at the options. And public meetings about potential uses of this school building can be much more informed, with mashups and maps and interactivity using tools like twitter and blogs. Online polls using tools such as Ideasforseattle or Ideascale can allow the neighborhood to debate and rank choices, and be engaged in deeper and more meaningful ways than ever before.
Ultimately, such interactive government should result in better decisions, informed by the communities affected.
Does this mean the end of representative democracy as we know it? Could we do away with elected officials entirely and have true governing by the people?
Hardly. There will continue to be very hard decisions which individual neighborhoods and communities will fight tooth-and-nail, but decisions that have to be made for the good of society as a whole. No one wants a jail or a garbage transfer station or housing for sex offenders or a nuclear waste dump in their neighborhood. But we need all those things for society to function, and elected leaders will need to make those hard decisions.
February 16, 2010 By Bill Schrier
The nation's e-mail and blogging and twitter engines worked overtime on Wednesday February 10th when Google announced its intent to fund ultra-high-speed Internet access for 50,000 to 500,000 people nationwide.
This ain't your grandma's "broadband" connection. And it ain't the 100-squared broadband envisioned by FCC Chair Julius Genachowski in a speech on Tuesday February 15th - 100-squared is 100 megabits per second to 100 million people by 2020 - a pretty bold vision in and of itself. Google wants to provide one gigabit (one billion bits or about 120 million bytes) per second to homes via fiber optic cable.
At a gigabit per second, a very high quality movie would download in 8 seconds flat, compared to an hour or more with a fast cable modem or DSL connection. Google published an RFI and is seeking responses from cities who want Google to come and build. The City of Seattle announced very quickly its intention to apply and jump on the bandwagon. Of course we have a visionary Mayor, Mike McGinn, who is publicly seeking, as a priority for his administration, to build a fiber network to every home and business in Seattle.
So what is Google trying to do here?
Is it being a altruistic corporation, hoping to better the lives of average citizens while fulfilling its pledge to "make money without doing evil"?
Some of Google's motives are clear. They want to offer a competitive service and these networks are clearly "experimental". This is all about Internet, not about offering phone or cable TV service, although, at a gigabit a second, you can watch HDTV video from websites and use video conferencing and telephone service until you are blind and hoarse.
They explicitly want to "see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it's creating new bandwidth-intensive "killer apps" and services, or other uses we can't yet imagine". That implies to me that they want to connect high-tech businesses to other high-tech businesses and to their own employees in their homes as well as connecting other very tech-savvy users, students, and others who will push the envelope. This is probably NOT a network for serving low-income neighborhoods, bridging the digital divide, or connecting mom-and-pop businesses in neighborhoods.
Furthermore, Google would build networks to serve 50,000 to 500,000 "people" (not households or businesses). They want to serve multiple cities, so the chances any individual City would get service are pretty low (1 in 600 or maybe 1 in 6000). And in any given City, not many households would be served. If they do networks to serve 100,000 people, that's probably about 30,000 households, and if they do this in five cities, it is about 6,000 households in any given place.
Google makes money selling targeted ads. They also like consumers to use their products, e.g. if you want to use Buzz you need a Gmail account and it undoubtedly will gather information about how people use these networks as a part of the "experiment".
Finally, I am certain Google is sending a message to the cable companies and telecommunications carriers here. Those companies thrive on making broadband scarce. As a scarce commodity and a duopoly service (as it is in many communities), the telcomms and cable folks can charge more and keep hiking up rates. They put limits on how much broadband any given consumer can use. They undoubtedly would like to charge "content providers" - companies like Microsoft and Amazon and ... yes ... Google - money to make sure the content of those companies has priority and guaranteed delivery in an allegedly scarce and constrained bandwidth network. This is what the "net neutrality" debate is all about.
But Google (and lots of other people) know better. With fiber-to-the-home, speed is unlimited, the bandwidth is no longer scarce and the fat profits of the incumbents evaporate.
I'm certainly excited about the Google challenge. They are challenging the developers, the carriers, the cable companies and the FCC, to push the limits in its national broadband plan, due out March 17th.
Are there strings attached? No doubt. But this is a revolutionary proposal. Its about the economic future of our cities, region and nation.
And it is cool.
January 27, 2010 By Bill Schrier
On January 26th Admiral Jamie Barnett of the FCC spoke about the National Broadband Plan, which is now due out on March 17th (and I understand New York City, Boston and other cities with large Irish-American populations plan to have parades in honor of the plan that day, too!)
As a CTO, I'm so immersed in technology that I'm not sure "broadband" means anything to the average American (if an "average" American exists).
Certainly most Americans are now at least aware of the Internet and use technology in their lives, even if that tech is nothing more than a cell phone or ATM. But all you have to do is watch the security lines at any airport and see all the laptops and luggables and cell phones and DVD players and other associated smart lumps of plastic dumped on the scanner lines to know that tech is ubiquitous in most people's lives.
A significant fraction of people know about broadband and what it means. In Seattle, some 84% of homes have an Internet connection, 75% have something faster than dial-up and 88% have a computer at home. Of course Seattle's got a reputation as a city of high tech folks (an image Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and I work hard to polish). But even nationwide 79% of homes have an Internet connection and 63% are faster than dial-up. The source for these stats is here.
These are numbers are hard to fathom when one considers the web didn't exist 20 years ago, and most people probably thought "Internet" had something to do with basketball, volleyball, tennis or another "net-centric" sport.
Admiral Barnett heads the Homeland Security and Public Safety Bureau at the FCC. He's charged with making wireless spectrum available to government in general and specifically to the law enforcement, firefighting and emergency medical agencies who keep the public safe. He spoke at the Winter Summit of Association of Public Safety Communications Officials on January 26th, and gave us a glimpse of what the National Broadband Plan will contain.
Admiral Barnett's remarks centered on wireless spectrum for use by first responders. About 10 Megahertz is available nationwide for public safety, but the license for that is held by a single nationwide organization. Yet most police, fire and emergency medical agencies are operated by cities and counties. Given this paradoxical situation, 17 states and cities have requested waivers from the FCC to use that spectrum in their local areas to immediately create networks for their use.
And why is the spectrum required? These new wireless networks hold promise that cops in police vehicles can see videos of crimes in progress as they race to crime scenes, or rapidly access building plans, images and video. Have a peek at a report prepared by PTI and APCO here for more uses.
According to Admiral Barnett, those waivers may be granted later this year so we can get started building the network.
The FCC is very interested in public-private partnerships to build the networks because many jurisdictions don't have funds to construct such networks for themselves. Luckily, commercial cell phone carriers like Verizon and AT&T, and companies like Motorola and Alcatel-Lucent have signed on in support of this plan, and are developing new networks including LTE (long term evolution) for not only their own networks but also for public safety use. This means public safety agencies could use a network built and funded by taxpayers (more resilient, better priority, less costly) for most of their work, but could roam only the commercial carriers' networks when necessary. This is in stark contrast to today's networks, where police/fire radios are incompatible with the cell phone networks. The best of both worlds!
It looks like the FCC will encourage these partnerships in its plan.
The FCC also knows that funding will be required to construct these networks. Admiral Barnett understands funding is required not just to build the networks, but to operate them. Besides public-private partnerships, the FCC is floating the idea of an Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC) to pushing forward on a national public safety wireless network. We'll hear more about this on February 10th .
Finally, Barnett said "next generation 911" will also be recognized in the national broadband plan. Right now, the only way to get information to a 911 center is to ... well ... telephone 911!
But many citizens' cell phones have the capability to do text messages, take photos and video. Yet 911 centers have little or no capability to accept such media, which can be critical to rapidly apprehending perpetrators and rendering aid to victims. We higher-speed land line fiber optic networking between 911 centers and other public safety and government facilities too, and I hope that will be in the Plan.
Twenty years ago, very few people knew of the Internet or Web. Now it is an indispensible part of most people's lives and a vital component of our HomeCity security and public safety. But we need more network SPEED, both wired and wireless. The National Broadband Plan could be, with a bit of vision by the FCC (and I've given them my vision here), a roadmap to the future of the nation.
This Digital Communities white paper highlights discussions with IT officials in four counties that have adopted shared services models. Our aim was to learn about the obstacles these governments have faced when it comes to shared services and what it takes to overcome those roadblocks. We also spoke with several members of the IT industry who have thought long and hard about these issues. The paper offers some best practices for shared government-to-government services, but also points out challenges that government and industry still must overcome before this model gains widespread adoption.