The document discusses the digital divide, highlighting the disparity between those with and without access to internet services, particularly in urban America. It examines case studies, including Google's Kansas City fiber project and various municipal internet initiatives, suggesting a combination of fiber optics and wireless mesh networks as solutions to enhance internet accessibility. The paper advocates for municipal internet as a means to bridge the access gap and support underserved communities through public, private, and non-profit partnerships.

1. Municipal Internet and the
Digital Divide
Taylor Olmstead

2. What is the Digital Divide?
A review of basic concepts.

3. The Digital Divide
• The gap between those with access to information technologies and
those who do not.
• May be the result of:
• Poverty
• Disconnected/Rural Location
• Lack of Knowledge or Technical Skills
• All of the above depending up on the individual and region

4. The Digital Divide
• Has been referred to as “The Digital haves and have nots”
(“Resolving”)
• Has been researched since the late 1990s by governments and
technologists alike
• Composed of two related phenomena known as ‘The Two Gaps’

5. The Two Gaps
The Access Gap
“…those situations where a gap
between…areas continues to exist
even under efficient market
conditions because a proportion
of the population cannot afford to
pay market prices” (Marsical).
The Market Efficiency Gap
“…the difference between the
levels of service penetration that
can be reached under current
plans and conditions, and the
level one would expect under
optimal market conditions”
(Marsical).

6. The Digital Divide in Urban
America
How urban poverty and the Digital Divide overlap in American cities.

7. An Access Gap
• Urban America has fairly effective internet connectivity based on
market rates.
• However, large percentages of urban Americans do not have access to
the internet due to inability to pay market prices or lack of
knowledge.

8. Google’s Kansas City Case Study
• Released in 2012, surveyed 3,219 Kansas Citians on their internet
awareness, connectivity, and usage habits.
• Compared results to national surveys conducted by the Pew Center
• Google chose Kansas City as the first city for it’s fiber optic internet
project Google Fiber
• And then restricted access to Fiber connections, but more on that later.
• Kansas, being a mid-level American city with a fairly high poverty rate
makes it an ideal case study for this topic

9. The Disadvantages of the Divide in KC
• The majority of the population agreed that lack of internet access is a
major disadvantage
• A higher percentage of KC residents agreed with this statement than
respondents to the national Pew survey
• Job searching was cited as the activity most affected by lack of
internet access in both surveys
(Google)

10. Internet Connectivity in KC according to
Google
• 17% say they do not get online
at all
• And of that group 28% cite lack
of access as the reason
• This can be attributed to lack of a
computer or lack of connection
(Google)

11. Broadband Connectivity in KC according to
Google
• People with broadband or faster
internet connections were shown
to be more aware of the resources
the internet has to offer
• People with broadband were also
shown to spend approximately 10%
more time on job or school related
work online.
(Google)

12. Internet Connectivity at Home for Students
• Kansas City, KS School District has a high rate of poverty, with around
90% of students on subsidized lunch programs (Liimata)
• Students in the Kansas City, KS School District all receive laptops for school-
related work.
• Only 40% of those laptops are ever connected to the internet at the students’
homes. (Liimata)
• “In the Kansas City Missouri Public Schools, it is estimated that 70% of
students do not have Internet access at home.” (“Internet”)

13. “In our digital society, the unconnected are a growing
underclass…Simply stated, they are shut out of the benefits of
connectivity that most of us take for granted. This is tragic in
light of all the resources that are available on the Internet that
have the potential to help an under resourced family move
toward a healthier, happier and more secure future.”
(“About”)

14. Why Municipal Internet?
Why the implementation of Municipal Internet access systems will benefit
individuals, economies and society as a whole.

15. “Rethink Market Approaches”?
The 1999 “Resolving the Digital Divide” Conference stated in a report to the
President of the United States:
“While the market approach is important to this Nation it is
necessary to realize that the market often fails to address
issues of information inequality.” (“Resolving”)

16. 15 Years Later…
The market solution (or lack thereof) has failed at addressing The
Digital Divide in American cities, let alone in rural areas.

17. What is Municipal Internet?
• Internet provided at low or no cost to neighborhoods, cities or
municipalities
• May be wireless or wired
• Cities/Municipalities with existing Municipal Internet (out of approx. 110):
• West Hollywood, CA
• Hermosa Beach, CA
• Lexington, KY
• Minneapolis, MN
• Monticello, MN
• Gahanna, OH
• Dublin, OH
• Philadelphia, PA
• Dallas, TX
(Vos)

18. What can Municipal Internet Do?
• Provide access to those who can’t afford it otherwise
• Create new infrastructure, and with it new job opportunities
• Drive business and commercial growth in connected areas

19. What Can Municipal Internet Do?
• “This [municipal wifi network] is fantastic news for Glasgow on so
many levels. It will benefit residents, businesses and visitors to the
city alike - especially as the aim is to have it in place for the 2014
Commonwealth Games and to cover the city centre, athlete's village
and the Clyde Gateway areas. "It will promote economic growth and
make a major contribution to the council's ambition to make Glasgow
a digitally connected and truly Future City.” (“Free”)
• Councilor Gordon Matheson, Glasgow Executive Council

20. Technical Solutions
Fiber Optics and Wireless Mesh Networks

21. What is Fiber Optic Internet?
• “Fiber optics (optical fibers) are
long, thin strands of very pure
glass about the diameter of a
human hair. They are arranged in
bundles called optical
cables and used to
transmit light signals over long
distances.” (Freudenrich)

22. What is Fiber Optic Internet?
• “A single copper pair conductor can carry six phone calls. A single fiber pair can
carry more than 2.5 million phone calls simultaneously” (Crosby).
• Fiber has virtually unlimited bandwidth and a longer reach than copper wiring,
making it essentially future-proof.
• Fiber Optic Internet “connections already are a reality for more than 1 million
consumers in the United States, while more than 6 million in Japan and 10 million
worldwide” (Crosby).

23. Why Fiber Optic Internet?
• Less expensive
• Less signal degradation
• Light signals - “Unlike electrical signals in copper wires, light signals from one
fiber do not interfere with those of other fibers in the same cable.”
• Low power
• Digital signals - “Optical fibers are ideally suited for carrying digital information,
which is especially useful in computer networks.”
• Non-flammable
• Lightweight
• Flexible
(Freudenrich)

25. 7%
15%
78%
Fiber-to-the-Home Recipients in North America (as of May 2013)
Homes With Fiber
Homes Offered Fiber
Homes Total
Data Courtesy of: Fiber-to-the-Home Council (FTTH)

26. What are Wireless Mesh Networks?
• Networks built upon a series of
wireless nodes
• “Mesh nodes are small radio
transmitters that function in the
same way as a wireless router.”
• Information is passed from a
central connection point from
node-to-node until it reaches the
client computer. This process is
called Dynamic Routing.
(Roos)
(KC)

27. What Are Wireless Mesh Networks?
• Connection is dependent upon
proximity to a node.
• A computer near multiple nodes pulls
signal from all of them, increasing its
connection’s strength.
• Proximity is required, but line-of-sight
is not.
• Can also be used to connect wired
devices through wireless
receivers/routers and can provide
Power over Ethernet (PoE) in some
circumstances.
(Roos)

28. Diagram, produced by KC Freedom Network, showing how Wireless Mesh operates. (KC)

29. Why Wireless Mesh Networks?
• Fewer wires means less infrastructure and maintenance costs
• Network grows stronger and faster with the incremental introduction
of nodes
• Allows use of the internet where no Ethernet connection is available
• Public transport, outdoor venues, etc.
• Nodes install and uninstall without requiring action by an IT
professional
(Roos)

30. Financial Solutions
Public, Private and Non-Profit funded Municipal Internet

31. Three Financial Solutions
• Publicly Funded/Owned (Monticello, MN)
• Publicly Subsidized, Privately Installed & Operated (Seattle)
• Non-Profit (Kansas City)

32. Case Study: Monticello Fiber Net
(Publicly Owned and Funded)
• In 2009, the city of Monticello,
MN won a series of lawsuits
against telecom companies
allowing them to create a
publicly owned and funded Fiber
Optic Internet Service Provider
(ISP).
• Monticello Fiber Net became the
subject of considerable media
hype for a brief period.
Headlines from: Community Broadband News, Ars Technica, DSL Reports

33. Where is Monticello Fiber Net Now?
• Installed in the community, still in operation, but not doing very well
financially.
• Fighting a price war with rival provider Charter Communications. (Keene)
• Facing a class action suit from initial investors.
• “The lawsuit alleges that the city “failed to disclose material facts” that indicated the
project would be unable to generate enough revenue to make it feasible…”
(Anderson).
• Without a management company
• “The press release cited numerous factors dogging the publicly-owned fiber
network, many related to moves by its private competitors, including “a crippling
lawsuit and subsequent appeals brought by telephone provider TDS…accumulation
of interest debt due to lawsuit delays, inadequate recovery of legal damages, and a
series of predatory pricing practices by cable and telephone incumbents” (Vogel).

34. Case Study: Seattle, WA &Gigabit Squared
(Publicly Subsidized, Privately Installed & Operated)
• The mayor of Seattle attempted to
have municipal wifi installed
through contractor Gigabit Squared
• In the next election Comcast
backed his opponent, who won the
election
• The new mayor claimed he’d honor
the commitments made to Gigabit
Squared, but would not expand the
network beyond the original size.
(Soper)

35. Where is Seattle’s Municipal Fiber?
• In December, 2013 outgoing Mayor McGinn addressed delays due to
Gigabit Squared’s financial troubles:
• “He says that he hasn't exactly given up on the private sector, but he'd campaign for the
government to build its own network if he could” (Moon).
• On January 7, 2014 the new mayor, Ed Murray announced the end of
the project before ground had even been broken:
• “Mayor Ed Murray has declared the city’s deal with startup broadband company Gigabit
Squared dead” (Parkhurst).

36. Hope for the future in Seattle….
• “Mayor Murray has stated he’s
seeking other companies with a
“more realistic financing
mechanism” to lease the fiber and
move forward with the program”
(Parkhurst).
• “It’s a utility, in my mind,” Murray
said. “The city has done a very
good job of providing affordable
electric rates because we have a
public utility. So I think there are a
variety of models, including a
hybrid model that might get that
affordability” (Parkhurst).
Photo Credit: “Office of the Mayor of Seattle”

37. Case Study: Kansas City’s Connecting for Good
(Non-Profit)
• When Kansas City was selected as
the first pilot city for Google Fiber
Michael Liimata had an idea.
• He co-founded a non-profit called
Connecting for Good rented some
office space in the new KC Startup
Village
• Google announced they would not
be providing to multi-family homes
(ie: housing projects and
apartment buildings) in the first
round of Fiber.
(Liimata)
Photo Credit: Connecting For Good (connectingforgood.org)
Aside: KC Startup Village is a residential neighborhood
that was selected to get Fiber early, and so a number
of start-ups moved in and began renting houses as live-
in office spaces.

38. Case Study: Kansas City’s Connecting for Good
(Non-Profit)
• Connecting For Good began
collecting used computers to
repair and provide for low-
income families
• They began the KC Freedom
Network, a wireless mesh
network designed to provide
internet to low-income
communities and housing
projects
(Liimata)
“Juniper Gardens mesh network brings free in-home
Internet to 300 families” (“Connecting”).

39. Where is Connecting For Good now?
• Still expanding their network, currently providing internet to about
500 households for free.
• Prepping their Urban Neighborhoods Initiative
• CFG will be providing technicians and equipment to install neighborhood-
wide mesh networks in underserved areas
• Conducted a feasibility study of the project for the Kansas City school systems
• Awaiting recognition/support from the Kansas City government…
• “A lot of times people make policies who don't understand the technology,
but here we are working with the technology and not being heard…” (Liimata)

40. The Ideal Solution
A combination of technical and financial approaches aimed at bringing municipal
internet to the unconnected in American cities.

41. Technological:
Fiber Powered Wireless Mesh
• Kansas City’s Connecting For
Good and the KC Freedom
Network implement Wireless
Mesh technology to connect
low-income neighborhoods and
housing developments.
• Under the current system, it
costs them $7-9 per month to
provide wireless internet to an
entire housing project.
(Liimata)
(KC)

42. If this network were
powered by a Fiber
connection, the
network could provide
competitive speeds to
unconnected areas at
little to no cost.
(Google)

43. Financial:
Subsidized Private Installation, Non-Profit Operation
Subsidized Private Installation:
• Similar to Seattle
• Local government choses a private partner to install the Fiber
network
• Should be an established entity, not a start-up
• Avoids the risk of financial set-backs
• Private partner hands over the network upon installation

44. Non-Profit Operation:
• Similar to Connecting For Good
• A non-profit, or coalition thereof, acts as a donor funded ISP for low-
income areas
• Higher income areas could be served by a more traditional ISP with a set
pricing limit to avoid a situation like Monticello
• Speed could also vary between free service provided by the non-profit ISP
and paid service provided by the traditional ISP
• The low-maintenance fiber infrastructure and the low-cost wireless
mesh network would situate this solution easily in a non-profit’s
realm of capabilities (provided proper donor support)
Financial:
Subsidized Private Installation, Non-Profit Operation

45. In Conclusion
• “Internet access is like the fifth utility” (Liimata).
• It is necessary for modern life and pivotal in decreasing poverty and
unemployment.
• A Fiber Powered Mesh Network would allow cities to provide faster
internet to low-income neighborhood at minimal cost.
• Fiber Optics are the fastest, cheapest and most future-proof infrastructure
solution.
• Mesh networks allow for widespread coverage at minimal costs.
• Financing such a network will require the co-operation of
governments, industry, and the non-profit sector for the greater good
of entire communities.

46. Works Cited
• "About Us." Connecting for Good. Connecting for Good, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
• Anderson, Jake. "Lawsuit Filed Against MN City Over Troubled Telecom Project." Twin Cities Business. MSP Communications, 13
Feb. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• "Connecting for Good | Bridging the Digital Divide." Connecting for Good. Connecting for Good, 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• Crosby, Tim. "How Fiber-to-the-home Broadband Works" 28 March 2008. HowStuffWorks.com.
<http://computer.howstuffworks.com/fiber-to-the-home.htm> 31 March 2014.
• Fibre-to-the-Home Council. G20 Economies with the Highest Penetrations of Fibre-to-the-Home + LAN. Digital image. Fibre-to-the-
Home Council. Fibre-to-the-Home Council, Feb. 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2012.
• "Free Open Air WiFi for Glasgow." Glasgow City Council. City of Glasgow, June 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
• Freudenrich, Ph.D., Craig. "How Fiber Optics Work" 06 March 2001. HowStuffWorks.com.
<http://computer.howstuffworks.com/fiber-optic.htm> 31 March 2014.
• FTTH Council. Fiber to the Home: Some Quick Facts. FTTH Council. Fibre-to-the-Home Council, 6 June 2013. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
• Google, Kansas City Mayor's Bi-City Innovation Team. "The State of Internet Connectivity in KC." Google Fiber. Google Fiber Blog. 22
June 2012. Published Presentation.
• "Internet Access for Low Income Families." Connecting for Good. Connecting for Good, 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
• KC Freedom Network. Kansas City Freedom Network, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

47. Works Cited (Cont’d)
• Keene, Jamie. "Is Charter Fighting Dirty with Minnesota's Monticello Fibernet?" The Verge. Vox Media, Inc., 9 Mar. 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• Liimata, Michael. Telephone interview. 12 Mar. 2014.
• Mariscal, Judith. "Digital Divide in a Developing Country." Telecommunications Policy 29.5-6 (2005): 409-28. Articles Plus. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.
• Moon, Mariella. "Seattle's High-speed Internet Project Delayed Due to Money Problems." Engadget. AOL, Inc., 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• "Office of the Mayor of Seattle." Mayor Ed Murray. City of Seattle, 2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
• Parkhurst, Emily. "Seattle's Fiber-network Deal with Gigabit Squared Is Dead." Puget Sound Business Journal. American City Business Journals, 8 Jan.
2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• Resolving the Digital Divide: Information, Access, and Opportunity, Conference Report. Arlington, VA: National Coordination Office for Computing,
Information, and Communications, 2000. 2-24. ERIC. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.
• Roos, Dave. "How Wireless Mesh Networks Work" 20 June 2007. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://computer.howstuffworks.com/how-wireless-mesh-
networks-work.htm> 31 March 2014.
• Soper, Taylor. "Mayor McGinn: Seattle Should Create a Public Fiber Internet Utility If Gigabit Squared Fails." GeekWire. Geekwire, LLC, 12 Nov. 2013.
Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
• Vogel, Jennifer. "Management Company Pulls out of Monticello’s Fiber Network." Ground Level. Minnesota Public Radio, 30 May 2012. Web. 01 Apr.
2014.
• Vos, Esme. "Updated List of US Cities and Counties with Large Scale WiFi Networks." US Cities and Counties with Municipal WiFi Networks. Muni
Wireless, 7 June 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.