Madam Chair, I know my time is done. I just need to ask Ms. Neff, does your business plan show the City generating positive revenue from this?
Again, our business plan does not have the City as the controlling entity.
The Mayor is reviewing the business proposal right now and the creation of an entity that would manage and run the enterprise.
A 133 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 non-profit or a for-profit?
So are you showing a positive cash flow in your projections?
-- be used to -- in year five? Approximately $5 million, maybe $4 million. And those are to do the digital divide programs.
I mean, if this is the City's idea, you work for the government, how much time do you spend working on this? 134 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
So for all of us within the rail, you're on the government payroll?
You're spending your time working on this idea. You're trying to bridge the divide and go into people's houses and out in the parks and all of that. I got that. And you're obviously diligent in your work, but after all of that and the fees generated and the bond deal or the borrowing from the bank and the like, the City would not be the financial beneficiary?
The City is the financial beneficiary in the reduction of the cost of telecommunications by being a user of this network. We would reduce the cost for field inspectors --
I 135 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 appreciate the cost reductions of us participating in it. I don't understand why we're not getting the money. I like money, and we don't have that. I mean, I don't know anyone that goes into a business and doesn't get the money.
Right. The Wireless Executive Committee took a look at everything from free access to totally private access and multiple business models, different structures that could be set up. You could have a public utility. You could have a non-profit. You could have a cooperative wholesale. There's probably a dozen different models that are out there. We, working with Drexel University and Temple University, did an analysis across the United States and in a couple of cases, what Taipei was doing, because of the world interest in doing wireless access. And we then created a set of criteria by which we said, Okay, how do each of these models work. What are the best fit for Philadelphia based on looking at economic development in our 136 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 neighborhoods, looking at reducing the cost of service delivery to the government, overcoming the digital divide and the impact of tourism and Philadelphia being recognized as a 21st century City committed to innovation. That was an important group. Looking at the healthcare industry, we had cardiac doctors that were one of our focus group, that they wanted to be a part of this because telemedicine is a critical component for them and they didn't have that outreach that they felt would be available through having a City-wide affordable access that their low-income patients could have access to as well. So we had a number of different focus groups that looked at all of those issues, made a recommendation, looked at the different business models and submitted a proposal to the Administration.
137 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Following up on this discussion, I read in the paper today that once the network is built, the City's private partners will be responsible for billing and blah, blah, blah. And these private partners would be a non-profit organization?
No. They would be private sector. It could be service providers that are using the network to provide a service over the infrastructure, but they would be overseen by an entity that we've recommended, but we haven't had the final approval on yet.
Would this be current providers, maybe Comcast or Verizon or some other?
Absolutely. I mean, if you think about it, Comcast and Verizon today don't have the nomadic capability outdoor wireless. They could bundle that with 138 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 their offerings and use this infrastructure as a part of it. So that, yes, they could be a provider over this network.
So the $10 million is for building the infrastructure?
So, therefore, this may be a nice way for the City to provide the infrastructure for a company that already exists but doesn't want to provide the infrastructure, right?
So we will provide the infrastructure, right. So, again, who pays?
There has been a recommendation as a part of the plan. If that is accepted, then the entity that is created, the non-profit, would actually float that. The City would be a subscriber, what they call an anchor tenant, on there as a user. For example, Drexel is interested in being a service provider. They provide wireless to 14,000 student and faculty on 139 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 their campus, but they want to have their students have access to wireless anywhere in the City. They would then be a subscriber on that network and they would manage the billing, the service, the care of the subscriptions for their group of people. And multiple universities could do that. They could be a service provider over the network. A non-profit may have a defined group of people which they want to provide a service to. They could be a subscriber on the network and be that service provider.
I don't know too much about this myself. I'm asking this question. It may not apply. What about security issues with so many people having access?
Right. Well, that is an area that we looked at, and as we create the request for proposal to go out to select a vendor with the technology, part of the requirements will be security. And we're working with the federal government guidelines on secured access, and that will be a 140 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 requirement that we will have of the vendor that builds the network, to build that security.
So how does the City make money to pay the bond covenants?
Not necessarily. There are ways that could be done to structure it. We would be a user of that, and in that essence, by agreeing to use the infrastructure, you become a guarantor, but the liability would be with the entity that is created.
Well, at this point in time, it's a recommendation. I don't have the final --
So do you have any idea when we will know what all of this means? What is the role of Council in all of this?
This was a Mayor-directed task force. We were asked to create a business plan, which we have done, and submit it to the Mayor's office.
Councilwoman, can I interject for just a minute, please?
With this non-profit group that would be the partner, so to speak, if they do not generate profits and there are only losses, would the City be liable for the losses?
That is one of the issues that the Administration is looking into at this time. We believe it can be structured 142 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 such that, no, the City would not be, but it depends on how financable the project is.
I have questions on other parts of her testimony. If someone else has a question about this wireless, I will yield and come back.
Councilman O'Neill, I believe you're next. Do you have questions on this wireless?
In your testimony, which I think is really very encouraging, the fact that you are working on trying to identify and coordinate a list of all the vacant properties in the City, it's 143 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 the most frustrating thing to try and identify who owns a property. Sometimes you can't get an address for a property. But for an old reverse directory in my office and because I have some history of the name of a former business, could identify the address. I think the idea of having this master list -- because we got a call the other day about a list of vacant properties in the City, but someone raised the issue about -- one of the answers given about why they haven't had a list is because somebody took a list a long time ago and sold it and people were out buying properties. So I'm sure there's probably some security issues around this list. But I'm very pleased with that. When do you think this will take place? Oh, I know what I want to ask you. How can you help the City with -- you don't have to answer this, but we do need addresses on these properties. Okay? So I don't know how you work with L&I, the Streets Department, whatever. These properties have to be given addresses and somehow the property owners are 144 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 required to list their addresses on the property. Because there's no address listed. So if you go by, you don't know. You just see a building on a corner and there's no address. So until we can have an address, you're not going to know where it is either. And so there's some vacant lots with no 9 addresses.
Right, but they do have unique identifiers, and that's what's been created in the system, is to be able -- whether it's a parcel or an address, and there are multiple systems that have different addresses and how do you bring that and addresses change. That's part of the program that we've been working on in the creation of this system. So it is being looked at.
You're welcome. If Councilman O'Neill is in the room, he would be next. (Councilman O'Neill not in the 145 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 room.) Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. I have a follow-up question to the Vacant Property Management Information System. Will our Council staff be able to access that?
David? I'm going to have the program manager -- I believe the answer is yes, but let me just validate that. He's going to be coming up right now to answer your question.
Yes. David Baldinger. The answer to that is yes. We want to develop a system that is essentially going to make this information available to the broadest number of people, you know, the public developers, City staff. The more we let people understand what property is available, the better off the whole marketing and redevelopment effort is going to be. So understanding who owns a property and what the status of that property is in the 146 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 redevelopment process, making that whole process much more transparent is one of the real goals of this effort.
That will be really good, because it's been very frustrating dealing with that whole issue of the status of properties, particularly working under NTI with the demolitions, acquisitions and et cetera. Many times people come in and you just can't really answer their question. So I look forward to this system being implemented. I have one other question. Is there some way that when someone applies for a building permit -- I don't know whether there's anything on their form or on the application that identifies the Council district? One thing that would be very helpful to Council offices is that we get information on those individuals applying for building permits. Many times things are going on. We've asked L&I this before and they said there was -- I don't think they asked the 147 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 question. I'm not really sure. But we'd like to get information on who is applying for building permits.
I really think that's an issue that you have to deal with in terms of L&I.
One of the things that we do at MOIS is really just provide the capability for the technology. The actual business process, business decisions and business content is really left up to the departments. So we provide the capability for them to have a website and we provide the capability for them to collect credit cards. However, how that site acts or what their rules are, business process, that's really a question for L&I.
So who does the design? Because isn't that some type of software design? I'm not super computer literate, but I think someone has to design something.
L&I is working with 148 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 an application called Hanson, which is a licensing and permitting system, and, again, they would be the ones to talk to you about the design of that application.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to press it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question about our e-mail. For quite some time now, at least in my office, I don't know whether it's widespread within the government, I've been getting a lot of these e-mails that are intercepted by the anti-virus applications and they come up with all kinds of crazy names on 149 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 the e-mail address and when you click on them, this little box comes up and said "delete." So I'm assuming that anything dangerous that may have infected the system has already been deleted. Have we been able to determine the sources of these crazy e-mails? Because it really does screw up my e-mail system. I'm constantly deleting -- either I get so much of it that I delete it automatically, with the chance of missing something I should have read, or I have to individually click in to every e-mail to see it's that intercepted message and then delete it. Sometimes you don't even feel like opening up the e-mail. And now with the smoke-free stuff, with people who are advocating for the smoking ban, what they're doing is that they're -- and this happened with the tax people, too. They would click on a message and then hit their "send" thing 23 times. It's just overwhelming. 24 Is there any way to keep it from 25 getting to our machine in the first place? 150 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
Technically, yes. I think what we run into is a policy decision. And I'll back up for a moment and say Spam is an ever-growing problem. It's a problem that frustrates me as a user and many of the other thousands of e-mail users out there. Fundamentally the problem that we run into is, if we don't deliver that e-mail with the deleted.TXT, people really question our ability to deliver e-mail. They say, Oh, we didn't get particular e-mails or I was expecting an e-mail from someone. And whether it had a virus attached maliciously or not, they assume that it should have got there.
So why would anybody complain about that not being delivered?
Because if a certain individual gets an e-mail that has an attachment that's virus-infected, if we were 151 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 to not deliver it, they would question the integrity of our entire e-mail system.
Users. This is actually a policy decision. That was our first policy decision, that when we had virus-infected e-mails, we didn't deliver them, and then people started complaining that they weren't getting e-mails and questioned whether we really knew how to deliver e-mails to the City.
I don't mean to be rude. Who are they that questioned that? Individual people or people in general? I would have never questioned it. I mean, I would be happy not to get it.
We get the feedback primarily through IT managers and directors that really get the feedback from the users within the departments.
I get an e-mail that might say mtasco and I get some sometimes with everybody's name, actually. 152 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 That e-mail wasn't sent by her. It's some fictitious person that's using her name. I have some in my Blackberry and my computer now. We get them all the time. I agree with Councilman Kenney. We get these all the time. But they're coming from a fictitious source.
Is it a person or is it a computer that's been programmed to continually send this stuff out? I can't believe that every one of those delete.TXT's I get comes from a separate individual. It seems that someone has either hacked in or is outside manipulating. There must be a way to track that manipulation to the source or sources of it.
Spam and what we're also talking about is a technical term called fishing. Like I said, it's an ever-growing problem, to the point where there's legislation coming at a national level to address this. I mean, you're right. This is not an individual sitting there hitting send $25,000 times. 153 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
Maybe in unique cases in Philadelphia they're hitting the button times, but in the larger sense, what 8 happens is, people are hacking into computers 9 at corporations and at universities. They're 10 taking control of them and then having those 11 machines send thousands of Spam messages out 12 to folks like yourself. 13
It was 14 interesting, and I guess it's part of the 15 programming, that some of them that I get are 16 intriguing enough to open because they have 17 either a name or a person or something 18 associated that I'm familiar with personally 19 that may not go to Councilwoman Miller or 20 Councilman Ramos's office but comes to mine. 21 I mean, I don't know what it is 22 that -- I guess what the program does is 23 select words that would lead you to want to 24 open it. I just find it very, very 25 frustrating and I find it cumbersome in trying 154 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 to deal with my normal e-mail, because, again, either I have to make a decision to delete the entire 74 items or sit there and go through each one, trying to figure out what I didn't miss. So it really is very inefficient for me. Anything you guys can do to help eliminate that would be -- and I, for one, would not care if you selected e-mail and not delivered it to me. The other thing I've seen in the private sector is the Postini e-mail program that you can click into and check your intercepted e-mails when you wanted to check them. They never get to your main computer. You have to go into a service, click on a password and user name and then check and see what it is that didn't get delivered to you that got segregated because potentially it was a virus, and you went in yourself and choose what you want to open or not. Is that a possibility?
It is. I don't know the specifics of the service you're referring 155 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 to, but I'd be happy to get the detail --
It's P-O-S-T-I-N-I. I'm sure there's probably more than just one of these. There's a Postini icon on my computer and I can go on there and check what was segregated before it even gets to my main computer.
We have looked at softwares that are out there. None of them are infallible, but for an organization the size of Philadelphia with the 17,000 e-mail users we have, it is quite expensive. It is several hundred thousand dollars. That has also been a gating issue. We have submitted for funding on those, but it wasn't a top priority.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I have two questions. Could you 156 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 talk a little bit about the project OSAN and how this affects or benefits Water Fund?
Again, we're providing the infrastructure and working and helping on project management, but that is a Water Revenue application, but it was designed to replace a 20-plus-year-old system that didn't have an automated collections process. It is a billing system that works with our water clients. But it would probably be best to ask the Water Revenue Department about the specific -- if they're specific application questions. We're creating the environment. We'll house the equipment. We'll provide the capability for the multiple departments to use the system, but the application is owned by the department, which in this case it was Revenue, Water Revenue Bureau and Water.
You indicated a $388,000 Class 2 reduction from last year because of one-time recurring contracts. What kinds of contracts were they?
I don't have the 157 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 detail. I will need to get back to you on the detail on the non-reoccurring contracts.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Neff, you indicated that the two major providers, maybe more, I don't know -- there's something making me think back about something I sat through here where this Council authorized a vendor to attach devices to all of our street lights, and I'm forgetting now what the technology was. Do you have a recollection, where they attached these little white boxes on certain street lights throughout the City? What was that project?
It was prior to my coming, but I believe the product was called 158 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 Ricochet, but it was Metrocall, I think was the name of the company, and it was multiple years ago.
It was a slow-speed wireless proprietary network. You had to have a $300 to $400 card in your device to make it work.
There is a precedent where the private sector did make arrangements with government to utilize space on City-owned facilities?
Okay. All right. I'd like to ask you again. I don't want to give up on this concept, but I really think there's a better place for it to be than in a non-profit, or even the amount of time that we're spending. And I can imagine how much time would be spent by your people. The hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars would probably never be recovered as a result 159 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 of all the work that would take place to get this thing launched. I would like to make an offer that -- I just can't imagine that Comcast or Verizon or others, wireless, would not get back to you with an opportunity to partner with their government in a concept that would bring wireless access to all of Philadelphia and maybe beyond Philadelphia. So I'd like to facilitate, since I have knowledge of some of the people there, to make that meeting happen.
The Wireless Committee set out a number of objectives that would have to be addressed rather than just the private sector. I mean, it was one of the models we looked at, just selling the rights to the poles.
Well, no. 20 I'm talking about -- forget that. I was just trying to remember what that was. No. What I'm saying is that you indicated that you made an effort to communicate with Comcast and Verizon and they did not respond or show up at meetings that you had scheduled. 160 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
You said the network people were interested because they'd have to help build an infrastructure, but let's go now to the wireless arm of both of those companies.
I have met with the president of the on-line wireless with Comcast. So, again --
They were interested in hearing about our project. They have not come forth with any proposal.
I'm going to check with both of those companies to see why a company like Verizon Wireless or -- especially when we do so much with those. Our data in our police cars are Verizon Wireless. My point is that I don't think the private sector has been drug into this because I don't think we want them in here, to tell you the truth. I think that this is 161 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 somebody's idea for the government to -- it would be great -- we should really have our own City cell phone system. I think that that would probably be a good idea, too, but let me -- I did some research. This is interesting about Asia. And I found it on the Internet. Listen to this: I have an article 10 from a website about telecommunications in Asia. It tells me that Mobile One, a leading wireless company in the nation of Singapore -- which is one of the most technologically knowledgeable, advanced in the world. As you know, the highest quality technology that you can find in the world. Mobile One has rejected Wi-Fi as too costly to deploy and is deeply skeptical about other wireless broadband technologies and whether they are competitive with wire line. You want Philadelphia to be the first major City in America to do this. One of the smartest countries in the world has said no to this. Why aren't we learning by other people's mistakes, Dianah Neff? 162 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
Well, I will say to you that there are as equally as many countries in the world, Taipei, that has less land mass but a million more people that we do have committed to putting a high-density wireless infrastructure in their country. So for every one that you can identify, I can identify on the other side of this. It really is cost-point interest. For example, Verizon is asking out until year 2015 to put a fiber network throughout the state. So if you want to stay wired, you're talking about 2015. I'm saying within a year, we can have a network that is supported by the industry that says that they will be supporting Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, the wireless technologies for the next 15 years, up and running at a tenth of the cost that it takes to put in and at a cost that is affordable for every single user in the City of Philadelphia versus only those that can afford to pay $80 to $100 a month.
I think it's unfair to spin this as free when it's not 163 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 free. All you see --
Well, a lot of people have spun this as being free access. You never heard free?
Yes, I have heard free. I have not. One of our goals was it to be cost neutral. Therefore, it wasn't free. The Mayor has said he wants free access in certain places, public spaces, like our parks, major parks and squares. So the system has been designed to allow for free access to be covered by the costs of the fees.
Well, I have a feeling you'll be getting a call from Verizon and from Comcast and I would appreciate --
Or anybody. I'm not locked into any particular company, but I don't think government does as well as they could do. 164 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
Again, neither of those companies provides broadband nomadic, the roaming capability, the ability for our inspectors, our assessors, our health workers to have access, to not have to log off as you move from one cell to another or from indoors to outdoors.
Didn't Verizon just launch -- I understand they just launched a new very high speed data terminals in our police cars, I believe.
It's EBDO. It's $80 a month and they've only launched it in the higher fluent neighborhoods to date in Philadelphia.
Well, again, good luck, but I think that you have a long road to go here. Thanks.
The Chair at this time recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Ms. Neff, in last year's budget, a proposal was approved to send the Mayor's 165 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 Commission on Technology, transfer it from the Managing Director's office to MOIS. Why didn't this transfer occur?
The Mayor's Commission on Technology last year was proposed to be sent -- to be transferred and placed under your department?
No. It was a ball that was dropped. It was cut out of the Managing Director's budget. It was never put in mine. We have looked to find funding, and I believe it was covered in MOCS's budget for FY05. I have asked for FY06 to find out where the funding is. It was not transferred into MOIS's budget for FY06.
It has not been. It doesn't mean that it isn't in FY06. It may 166 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 still be in MOCS. The Finance Department as checking on that.
So there's no proposal to transfer it to your office for 2006?
No, although -- I mean, I do the coordination with MCOT, the Mayor's Commission on Technology, and work with Carol Smith, who is the Executive Director, on the different projects, but at this time, it is not in my budget.
Is there any discussion about how that's going to be funded?
I have asked the same question. I'm waiting for a response on '06. 167 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd simply like to go on record underscoring Councilman Jim Kenney's request with regards to a smarter way of us being able to handle the junk e-mail and the volumes of e-mails we get around issues facing City Council. It takes an enormous amount of time just to delete them one by one. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Are there any City-owned buildings in Philadelphia that are either partially or fully wireless capable? Any City office, any 168 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 City offices or Municipal Services Building, City Hall or any portions thereof of those buildings?
For City buildings or City-occupied buildings that leverage our internal network, CityNet, there are a couple of pilots running. One of them is at 1234 Market Street. We're running a pilot internally for wireless connections.
MOIS. That's our department. So with some of our folks, some of our technicians. And as well as we have a pilot running with the Streets Department at one of their large vehicle shops so that some of their vehicles can come in, download data wirelessly and then sort of pull out of the shop. We know that there is an ongoing demand or an increasing demand for this wireless connectivity internal to CityNet. So we're just working out a standard, a secure standard, so that we can roll it out to all 169 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 departments.
Would that include City Hall and the MSB and other offices outside of the Center City area, like police stations or fire stations?
It could, if there was a request from any one of those entities for a wireless connection, sure.
Is there a rolling budget of what the cost would be considering how far you would go out from either City Hall, MSB and then other buildings that the City occupies and then out into neighborhood City-owned facilities? Have we been able to determine just a ballpark?
We don't have a plan to roll out in sort of continuous fashion internal wireless connectivity across the buildings. We respond where we get individual requests. So if a particular police station wanted to have wireless connectivity, we'd respond to that request and be able to put wireless connectivity there. 170 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
What is your opinion as to the increase or whether it affects it all on efficiency and workability and work product? I mean, do you think that something -- in the best of worlds, is it a good thing to have across the City government or would it be negligible as far as impact on productivity?
I think it's a wonderful thing. I think more devices that we -- as we progress along, the maturity of devices and wireless devices and PDAs and even cell phones, they're all becoming wirelessly enabled or Wi-Fi enabled.
Would it be as important from a productivity standpoint? I understand that the outdoor Wi-Fi issue is something that you want to be able to market to a potential resident or business, but from a productivity standpoint, would the outdoor Wi-Fi equal or be more important than the indoor productivity issue?
Which, the 171 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 indoor or the outdoor?
Right. Today at least you have your wired environment in our buildings and facilities. The core buildings downtown are connected by fiber, but it's our field operations where we get the best connectivity. If we have a high-speed wireless outdoor network, we can also reduce some of our least cost lines that we have to pay for that. So by far, the payback first comes in demonstrable productivity savings with the outdoor. Then the other, the indoor, makes it easier to do business and has a benefit, and that's where the industry is going, but, in fact, the real first payback comes with your outdoor wireless.
Would the outdoor use by private citizens, say, in Rittenhouse Square or Jefferson Square or wherever else you're going to do these, is 172 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 there a charge for the individual user to be using the Internet? Because I know if you have AOL, for example, you pay a monthly charge, whatever it is. If you have any other service provider, you pay monthly. How would charges be assessed? Since it's going to be free for the public, who would pay for it? Nothing is really free.
Again, the free are in limited locations, and that is by the nature of the technology in the cell that you're in. You can specify in there that when you log on, if you're in the cell, there's no 15 fee. But if you want to use it anywhere you go in the City, you would then pay a fee and then be authenticated as a user on that network.
But in the proposed free areas, who would pay the charges? Is there a charge by someone? I 173 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 mean, it would be free to the public, but is it free to the City? Does the City have to pay for an individual's logging on to a certain site?
Currently in the Love Park and the Ben Franklin Parkway, which are free accesses, the City pays for that. That was the fee that we discussed earlier.
We have a contract with a company that maintains it separate from the City's network and provides the Internet connection, and then they contract and I believe Verizon has the circuit connection to the Internet for that. We are also working in other square-mile areas as pilots with vendors that 174 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 are supporting the cost at no cost to the City.
Is there any restriction when it comes to what sites are able to be accessed either by individual people or by children? I know there's an major issue within appropriate sites that are accessed by people. Is there any issue -- or even not inappropriate sites, but any types of sites that could be construed as being dangerous. Is there any filtering at all?
You're required to register. There's no fee in the free spaces today in the hot spots. And we do that so that if there is reported illegal activities or misuse, we can investigate it, but we do not filter.
So you can track, but you can't filter? You don't filter, but you can track in the event that there's a child molestation issue or some type of chat room problem that arises?
I'm curious. You have an annual contract. I look out the window occasionally in October, nice time of the year. October, November, December, January, February, I can't imagine too much activity in Love Park during that period of time. Did some member ask you to provide some data on what we're getting for the $30,000? I'd like to see some information on what kind of activity we were getting this month in Love Park.
Sure. Well, it will vary, obviously, by weather, but on the average we get about 30 users a day.
Again, it's an average. If you want to see it by month, we can provide that. 176 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003
That's what I'd like to see, because $30,000 just to spend that and maybe 30 users in -- I can't imagine 30 users. Is that a day in January, February?
Remember, we went live in June 15th of 2004. The average is approximately 30 users per day. Now, I can do on a monthly basis. I can't tell you on a daily basis.
It would be nice to see on a monthly basis, but I can tell you this, there are some people that work in surrounding sites here that use Love Park from their offices. Is that what that was intended for?
No. There is a way to secure it, but this was not the -- was to put it up as a pilot to see if there was interest by the community depending on where you're located near the cell. Now, when you build out a City-wide network, you put in the security and the parameters around that and you don't get the bleedover. There will always be, if you're 177 Whole - 3/2/05 - No. 050003 near the cell, you're going to be able to pick up a signal.
But it was not intended for someone working in Liberty Place to jump on Love Park's --
Well, it was free access, so if they can do that from there -- it was never restricted to just people sitting in the park.
I thought the concept was to come have lunch, bring your laptop and do some work in the park. Not that that's a big deal, but you are aware that that's occurring?