Since the Federal Communications Commission issued its first report on broadband, defining it without regard to any transmission media as “broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics and video telecommunications using any technology,” hardly a day goes by without hearing the call for the speedy development of municipal broadband networks to bridge the “Digital Divide,” a so-called divide that prevents all Americans from accessing broadband services.1 Before you reach for the panic button, however, it’s worth noting that recent Commission data shows that over 90 percent of U.S. zip codes and all 50 states reported broadband availability as of June 2004, and those numbers have increased by the day.2 Nonetheless, it’s probably no coincidence that, because the United States recently ranked 13th in the deployment of broadband worldwide, the construction of wireless networking infrastructure is seen by many in municipal government as the solution to the “lack” of broadband access in America.3
As broadband continues to proliferate, scores of municipalities are joining the debate over the wisdom of constructing municipally-owned and operated wireless broadband networks, as well as providing municipal services over those networks. Before committing precious municipal investment and maintenance dollars to chasing the broadband dream, municipal leaders should understand that the overwhelming majority of Internet users already have numerous broadband access options at public locations—often for free or by subscription at competitive prices. And, while the broadband future looks brighter (and increasingly cheaper) for prospective users, the same may not be true for municipal governments who choose to construct their own Wi-Fi wireless networks. Competitive technologies and newer products may make prospective municipal Wi-Fi networks expensive to upgrade, or worse, technologically obsolete.
Wi-Fi Technology: Hot Spots, Hot Zones and Mixed-Used Networks
In the United States, small operators and municipalities almost always opt to use the unlicensed portion of the spectrum band because obtaining a license to use the protected portion of the spectrum involves entering into disaggregation, partitioning or leasing arrangements under Commission rules and procedures. Private operators and municipalities operating equipment compliant with Commission rules may commence operation at any time subject to rules for resolution of wireless congestion.4 All persons, including municipalities, are permitted to establish wireless broadband networks and systems to meet their internal requirements or to provide commercial service.
Private operators and municipalities who opt to build unlicensed wireless broadband networks most often use broadband technology developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IIEE”) called “Wireless Fidelity” or “Wi-Fi.” First developed in 1997, Wi-Fi is also referred to by its engineering standards term 802.11, with the current commercial version, 802.11g, reaching speeds of up to 54 Mb/s. Wi-Fi enables users to access wireless broadband service through a wireless network card in a computer (typically a card added to a laptop) or other device such as a PDA. Wi-Fi shares bandwidth among users on the same local area network, allowing users access to the Internet in the same fashion as DSL or cable modem service. Due to its short range and its ability to operate in the unlicensed 2.4-5 GHz frequency band, Wi-Fi is ideally suited for locations like airports, parks, coffee shops, offices, libraries, bars, hotels, restaurants and office buildings. Individuals purchase Wi-Fi base stations and routers for their homes, and small businesses purchase similar equipment for their business and pay a monthly fee for a business class DSL, or a cable line digital service, such as ISDN or a T1 line.
Small businesses and municipalities often choose to deploy Wi-Fi in “hot spot” and “hot zone” Web configurations with very few deployments having the same objectives and requirements. A typical “hot spot” Web configuration features a “captive portal” that forces users on a network to see a special Web page (usually for authentication purposes) before surfing the Internet normally. This is done by intercepting all http traffic until the user is allowed to exit the captive portal. Most Web hot spots have captive portals that control wired access as well as payment options using credit cards, Paypal or iPass. An interconnected area of hot spots and network access points is known as a “hot zone,” which is typified by universities, hospitals and other large organizations.
The statistics and trends are clear. According to Intel’s Web site, as of December 1, there were over 30,000 hot spots using Wi-Fi technology in the United States.5 With over 400 hot spots, Chicago has the second highest number in the country. Analyst firm InStat/MDR predicts that Wi-Fi hot spots worldwide will grow to over 200,000 by the end of 2008.6 While some private operators deploy Wi-Fi simply to enable basic Internet access, most private operators deploy Wi-Fi for mixed-use commercial applications such as inventory management, VoIP, wireless gaming, meter reading and content management. In mixed-use environments, customization is widespread with user groups ranging from small environments such as local coffee shops to large deployment like universities and hospital settings. Municipal Wi-Fi networks often deploy commercial and public safety applications on the public wireless infrastructure.
Municipal Wi-Fi
The City of Chicago is one of approximately 200 communities in the country in the process of considering, testing and building a municipal broadband wireless network.7 In late July, the Chicago City Council’s Wireless Task Force met for the first time to begin soliciting public input on a proposed $18 million plan to construct a wireless broadband network. The Task Force has held several public meetings to date to consider technical, cost and public policy issues. Whether Chicago’s wireless broadband network will end up serving the entire City or whether it will supplement the City’s existing Wi-Fi network already serving 79 Chicago Public Library locations are open questions at the moment.8
In light of an initial willingness by the City to consider committing public monies to constructing a City-wide wireless broadband network, key public policy issues should be thoroughly discussed before committing scarce resources:
Citizens should note that constructing a municipal Wi-Fi network presents significant technical hurdles depending on the geographic size and technical sophistication of a given municipality. Wi-Fi coverage in Chicago potentially involves constructing hundreds or thousands of “access points,” or stations that will transmit and receive data. Besides issues of cost, this introduces significant technical challenges taking several forms, including all-weather reliability. In contrast with more limited indoor deployments, many, if not most, of these access points will be located on outdoor light posts or City buildings. This means that access points will need to be weatherproofed for water, inclement weather and lightning. Obviously these present no small challenges for Chicago. Municipal planners must also address the problem of “backhaul,” or the ability to transmit Wi-Fi signals back from access points to users at local area network points. Chicago’s municipal planners should not overlook these technical challenges as they present difficult problems that may require the long-term assistance of outside vendors.
Municipal planners in Chicago and elsewhere considering Wi-Fi networks should also consider that viable commercial alternatives to Wi-Fi already exist. Competing directly with proposed municipal Wi-Fi networks are cellular broadband networks offered by mobile phone operators like Verizon, Cingular and Sprint Nextel. Unlike Wi-Fi, where users are required to find (often unsecured) Wi-Fi hot spots and hot zones, cellular broadband users can securely hook into the Internet wherever they find a cellular signal on their mobile phone. Verizon Wireless was first to market with EV-DO, or “evolution-data optimized,” technology, which technology provides broadband speed of between 300-600 Mbps, or 10 times the speed of dial-up. Since 2003, Verizon Wireless has made EV-DO widely available throughout the country and recently has reduced the monthly price for its subscribers. Cingular Wireless has a similar wireless broadband service called EDGE, or “enhanced datarate for global evolution.” Sprint Nextel recently entered the market with its first mobile phone using EV-DO technology.
As mobile phone companies continue to enhance and upgrade their networks, they are also making it easier for consumers to purchase computers loaded with EV-DO technology. Under a recently announced partnership, Dell Computer has agreed to embed Verizon’s EV-DO network adapters into the motherboards of new Dell notebook computers. Lenovo also announced that its ThinkPad Z-Series notebook will be integrated with Verizon’s wireless broadband network. And, Hewlett-Packard and Verizon also plan to market cellular broadband connectivity.9 Sony has announced that it will market a line of notebooks with integrated adaptors for Cingular’s EDGE cellular broadband network.10
WiMAX, UWB and Broadband Over Power Lines (“BPL”)
Another reason to pause before rushing to construct municipal Wi-Fi networks is that the pace of technological change could require significant upgrades to public Wi-Fi wireless networks or, worse, make them obsolete in short order. Looking beyond the competition between municipal Wi-Fi and commercial cellular broadband networks, there is at least one other type of wireless service currently under development: WiMAX, or “Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access.” Developed as IEEE engineering standard 802.16, WiMAX is intended for wide-area broadband networking. WiMAX proponents suggest broadband connectivity that could reach access speeds of 75 Mb/s over larger areas (Intel suggests 3-5 miles on average).11 While WiMAX is regularly compared to Wi-Fi and the two engineering standards share a few technical characteristics they are designed for two different applications: Wi-Fi is local network technology designed to add mobility to local area networks while WiMAX is designed to deliver metro area broadband wireless access service. Thoughtful municipal planners may want to consider that WiMAX—not Wi-Fi—technology has the potential to bridge the so-called Digital Divide on a cost-effective basis. WiMAX products first became available in early 2005, and products offering mobile capability are expected to appear by late 2006, although WiMAX is not expected to be widely commercially available for a couple of years.
Beyond Wi-Fi and WiMAX lie other commercially unproven technologies. Ultra-wideband (“UWB”) technology has the potential to revolutionize wireless networking with the potential to transmit huge amounts of data quickly over short distances. It employs short bursts of energy that results in wide transmission bandwidths, often exceeding one gigahertz. UWB products offer data ranges that are five to 10 times faster than Wi-Fi, but these high rates are achievable at the moment at a limited range of a few feet.12 While the development of UWB has been controversial, there are two competing UWB standards, each supported by the IEEE. To date, the Commission has declined to enter the debate over setting standards for UWB operation. If this changes, municipalities should expect further wireless technology innovation and corresponding technical upgrades to their Wi-Fi networks.
In February 2004, the Commission initiated rulemaking proceedings to consider what rules would facilitate deployment of broadband over power lines (“BPL”) systems, which systems have the potential of delivering high-speed communications services over electric power lines.13 The Commission has received over 5,000 comments and reply comments in response to its initial inquiry, including notes that BPL could extend broadband service to rural and underserved areas where the power grid already exists. Municipal planners considering Wi-Fi should take note of BPL’s potential to address whether constituent need for broadband service is best addressed by this technology in rural areas.
Despite difficult public policy questions, expensive technical limitations, and competition from the mobile phone industry, municipalities are widely expected to continue to consider Wi-Fi projects. Indeed, anticipating the continuing need for spectrum space, the FCC made available at the end of 2003 an additional 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.470-5.725 GHZ band for Wi-Fi and other wireless broadband devices.14 There is no question that the consideration and development of municipal Wi-Fi networks will continue into the foreseeable future. The real question is whether municipal leaders will carefully evaluate public policy issues, technical limitations and competing technologies before deciding to commit public funds to building and maintaining new public infrastructure.
Although Wi-Fi municipal networks have become ubiquitous, they face long term challenges and a fierce competitive response from the communications industry. In particular, the ability of mobile phone providers to embed laptops with proprietary wireless technology means that consumers will soon have relatively inexpensive and universal alternatives to existing and proposed Wi-Fi networks. Moreover, newer technologies such as UWB and BPL could pose an equal and potentially even greater threat to municipal Wi-Fi networks in the long run.
The growth of wireless broadband is a part of a large and long predicted convergence of telecommunications networks, content delivery, portability and entertainment. In the meantime, mobile phone providers, content and communications providers and new market entrants will undoubtedly continue to formulate strong competitive responses to municipal Wi-Fi networks. As we continue to evolve towards complete convergence of technologies, industry players can be expected to exploit their commercial and technical advantages to prevent municipalities from creating duplicative networks. When weighing the benefits of creating municipal Wi-Fi networks, planners should be cognizant of these factors, as well as their need to be accountable to taxpayers for the systems that are being built.
__________
Jeffrey C. Torres, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Ste. 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Direct Line (312) 641-2712
Direct Fax (312) 641-3022
Home: (312) 415-9744
jctorres@mcguirewoods.com
Mr. Torres counsels clients on cable television, right-of-way and telecommunications matters throughout the nation. He is admitted to practice in Illinois, Texas and the District of Columbia.
1. See Report, Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 14 FCC Rcd. 2398 (1999) (“First Broadband Report”).
2. <ftp://www.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd1204.pdf>.
3. See 2004 Strategy Report, International Telecommunications Union Strategy and Policy Unit.
4. See Public Notice, Commission Staff Clarifies FCC’s Role Regarding Radio Interference Matters and Its Rules Governing Customer Antennas and Other Unlicensed Equipment, DA 04-1844 (June 24, 2004). For spectrum at 3.65 GHz, the Commission has obligated operators to conduct voluntary coordination among themselves. See 3650 MHz Order ¶30.
5. <www.intel.com>.
6. “Hot spot Market Maintaining its Heat” In-Stat/MDR Press Release, October 12, 2004.
7. David P. McClure, “Not In The Public Interest - The Myths of Municipal Wi-Fi Wireless Networks, Why Municipal Schemes To Provide Wi-Fi BroadBand Services Are Ill-Advised, ” New Millennium Research Council, Wash. D.C. (February 2005)
8. “Chicago Public Library Announces Major Technology Initiatives,” Chicago Public Library Press Release, Dec. 4, 2004, as posted at <http://www.chipublib.org/003cpl/computer/splash/splash.html>.
9. redherring.com (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)
10. id.
11. “WiMAX—Broadband Wireless Access Technology,” Intel Corp., <http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/>.
12. Cheryl A. Tritt, Telecommunications Future, 22nd Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation, December 2004 , II.B
13. See Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power Line Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 3335 (2004).
14. Tritt, at II.A
On August 22, 2005, Governor Blagojevich signed House Bill 1968 into law, making several immediate changes to the Election Code. This article provides a brief overview of the legislation and highlights some of the significant changes.
Nearly all areas of the Election Code were impacted by the legislation. For example, there are new signature requirements for some candidates, an expansion or reporting requirements for non-profit organizations, and new voting procedures at the ballot box.
The legislation exceeds 200 pages and this article highlights only a few of the major changes to the Election Code. The primary areas discussed include: (1) the options of a member of a city council that becomes the acting mayor; (2) new voting procedures; (3) new provisions for private sector employees; (4) campaign disclosure; (5) voter registration, and; (6) new signature requirements.
Powers of Acting Mayor Clarified
To help eliminate confusion regarding the powers of acting mayors, the legislation helps clarify what happens when a trustee or councilmember serves as acting mayor. Under the new law, there are essentially two options. The first option involves the person resigning his or her councilmember or trustee position. If a resignation occurs, the person obtains and exercises the powers of the mayor, including voting and exercising any veto powers. The second option is for the person not to resign as councilmember or trustee. In this case, the person obtains and exercises the powers of mayor, but is entitled to vote only in the manner of a councilmember or trustee. Also, once a mayor is elected and qualified, the person who is acting mayor has the right to return to his or her original position as councilmember or trustee. This provision is effective on and after January 1, 2006, and applies only to municipalities with a population under 500,000.
New Voting Procedures
Illinois is joining several other states in allowing “early voting.” Under the new law, registered voters can vote between 22 and five days before an election in person at an election authority office (or its designated office) on weekdays and weekends.
Voters will find many of the same safeguards at early voting that they find on Election Day. For example, candidates may have pollwatchers at all early voting cites. There are also notice and posting requirements that the election authorities must comply with to inform voters when and where early voting will take place.
In addition to early voting, Illinois voters may also continue to vote “absentee.” However, if a voter is issued an absentee or early ballot, the person is not permitted to vote in the precinct on Election Day. As a new safeguard, the law requires that absentee voters, and their addresses, be posted on the State Board of Elections Web site. However, only state and local political committees will be able to view the above-referenced list, allowing these organizations to help protect against dual voting.
There is also a new safeguard for first-time voters. If a person registers to vote by mail, he or she must vote for the first time in person (not absentee). However, a person may vote by absentee ballot at the office of the appropriate election authority if the person provides sufficient identification.
Voters Get Time Off Work & Information on the Election
Although State of Illinois employees do not work on Election Day, the same does not hold true for the private sector. Under the new law, private sector employees are given some protection if they choose to participate. With 20 days notice, an employer must allow an employee time off work (non-paid) for the purpose of service as an election judge. Some employees will also receive paid time off to vote based on the hours they work and the size of the company.
Illinois voters will also be provided with a voting guide for the first time. Under the new law, the State Board of Elections must create an “Internet Voting Guide” 45 days before the general election. This guide will contain the dates and times of the election, voting requirements, registration deadlines, a description of some offices (i.e., federal offices, Illinois state-wide offices, appellate and supreme court offices), and the name and party of the qualified candidates for those offices. Candidates will also have an option of having their photo and a personal statement published in the guide at the candidate’s expense of $600.
Campaign Disclosure
The revisions to the Election Code contain a variety of changes to campaign disclosure. Perhaps to address third-parties and organizations who appear to campaign in concert with candidates, “electioneering communications” are now included in the definition of “contributions.” This is regardless of whether the communication is made in concert with or at the request, suggestion, or knowledge of a candidate or his or her committee.
An electioneering communication is defined as a communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate or political party, who will appear on the ballot, and is made within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. Now, these communications are considered contributions and must be reported accordingly. However, an exclusion was added providing that communications between a labor organization and its members is not considered an electioneering communication. The same exemption applies for communications by a 501(c)(6) organization.
Telephone communications were also added as a type of communication that requires disclosure of the name of the political committee paying for them. Accordingly, campaign calls are now treated with the same disclosure requirements of mailings, radio, and television advertising. A new safeguard related to these disclosure requires vendors that provide services for political communications (exceptions for telephone surveys using random samples) to keep records, including who requested the service and how much was paid, for at least one year.
Voter Registration
Enrolling new voters is a large part of the new legislation. Under the new law, downloadable voter registration forms must be available on a variety of state agency Web sites, including the sites of the Secretary of State, Human Services, Public Aid, and Employment Security.
There are also special rules for all institutions of higher education (public universities, colleges and community colleges). In addition to maintaining registration forms on their Web sites, the institutions must also include voter registration information and forms in any mailing to new students who have an Illinois address.
General Assembly members and their staff may make registration forms available and may undertake “voter registration activities” at their district offices during regular business hours or otherwise as determined by the member. Accordingly, constituents will now be able to register to vote when meeting with their legislator.
The new law also permits a registered voter who has changed his/her name to vote by completing an affidavit attesting that he/she is the same person who is registered to vote under the former name.
New Signature Requirements For Candidates
The legislation increases the signatures candidates must acquire to run for certain offices. Under the new law, political party candidates for state senate must have their petitions signed by the greater of 1 percent or 1,000 (previously 600) of the qualified primary electors of the candidate’s party in his or her legislative district.
House political party candidates face a similar increase. Now, all petitions for state representative must be signed by the greater of 1 percent or 500 (previously 300) of the qualified primary electors of the candidate’s party in his or her legislative district.
The requirements for some judicial candidates were also changed.
District judicial candidates must obtain signatures equal to 0.4% of the total votes cast for the gubernatorial candidate of their party in their district at the last general election in which a governor was elected, but in no event less than 500 signatures.
Judicial candidates for circuit and subcircuit positions remain unchanged at .25 percent of the votes cast in the last general election for the last judicial candidate of his or her party, but in no event less than 500.
In conclusion, the changes to the Election Code, when taken in aggregate, are expansive and will impact elections for years to come. Although many safeguards were added to the process, voters may not know the true impact of House Bill 1968 until after the first election cycle.