Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 7a, Hermann and Erquiaga - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: April 4, 2023 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Josh Erquiaga, Network Services Supervisor VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 7a – STUDY SESSION ON THE BROADBAND PLAN UPDATE The following memorandum provides City staff responses to questions received from a Council Member regarding the Broadband Plan Update. Staff determined that providing this memo to all Council Members and the public would be helpful, as the responses offer clarification regarding the update. Staff’s response is provided in italics. 1. What exactly is the Embedded Speed Test and where were they conducted? Homes, businesses, different parts of the city? The embedded speed tests were a tool embedded in the online survey. The survey respondents could run the tool from the survey web page to test their internet upload and download speeds. The tool ran a speed test from the internet connection a respondent used to respond to the survey questions (e.g., a respondent using their home computer or cell phone connected to their home wireless would be running the speed test from their home). Respondents were asked at the beginning of the survey to identify if they were responding as a home or business and asked to provide their address for mapping upload and download speeds across the city. Initial results indicate that both homes and businesses from throughout the City completed the survey, but the final broadband plan will include a complete map and analysis. It should also be noted that additional surveys have been completed since the publication of the report and will be included in the final plan. 2. How is the Public Private Partnership Model recommended by Magellan different than the Open-Access Provider model? The key difference between a Public Private Partnership Model and Open -Access Provider model is that in an Open-Access Provider model, the City would own and operate not only the backbone fiber-optic ring, but also last-mile fiber connections to each subscriber (i.e., a home or business) and the electronic equipment needed to provide that subscriber connection. The City would then connect those subscribers to retail Internet providers competing for subscribers’ business. Item 7A – Broadband Plan Update Page 2 In the Public Private Partnership M odel, the City would own the backbone fiber- optic ring, and the private partner would be responsible for building the last mile fiber connections from the backbone fiber-optic ring to each subscriber and would be responsible for the electronics to provide the subscriber connection. A Public Private Partnership requires substantially less investment from the City for initial construction and ongoing maintenance and operation of the network. 3. Looking at the new proposed map, showing areas where the backbone should be extended, it looks like there are still areas where there is a pretty big distance between some parts of some neighborhoods and the closest fiber optic cable location (in particular, some areas around the Laguna Lake area and where Froom Ranch Specific Plan is located, some parts around Bullock Lane and Orcutt Area, and lastly, out toward Edna Road, past the airport). How would we ensure coverage in those areas? The conceptual network design outlines the design for the fiber -optic backbone ring that the City would own. The private partner selected (if the City is to pursue the Public Private Partner model) would then be responsible for building out the last-mile connections to subscribers from the backbone ring. Staff has included an additional map (see Figure 1) that shows all address points that fall within a 750 - foot buffer of the fiber-optic backbone ring conceptual network design. The 750 - foot buffer is a generally accepted estimate of subscribers that could be connected by a private partner at a cost that is economically feasible for the private partner. This does not mean that neighborhoods outside of the buffer would not be connected by a private partner, but they may be co nnected later as the private partner can grow their subscriber base. Realistically, the City cannot ensure that every residence or business in the City can be connected to the network without pursuing a different model than a Public Private Partnership with significantly higher costs. The City can encourage an additional provider to enter the broadband market within the City and provide additional competition, which should have a downward impact on market rates for broadband within the City and encourage g reater adoption and access for City residents as a whole. Item 7A – Broadband Plan Update Page 3 Figure 1: Address points within 750 feet of the fiber-optic backbone conceptual network design.