COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA JOINT COMMITTEES ON TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:40 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 060160 - An ordinance for the purpose of creating a citywide wireless broadband Internet access system, to bridge the digital divide, to increase the efficiency and reduce costs of government... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon. This is a continuation of the recessed public hearing of the joint Committees on Technology and Public Property, and we all know what the subject matter is, dealing with Wireless Philadelphia and EarthLink and our hopes and dreams for the future of Philadelphia. I just want to make it clear to everyone, we're trying to move this process forward in as much a public way as possible. It is very complicated. We've been doing this four or five weeks now, and often times -- I've been in Council a long time. Four or five months, we haven't covered this kind of material in this fast a way and kept it out front, not just doing private meetings. We're bringing the parties in, we're talking and we're bringing public in. And I want to congratulate my Vice-Chair, Blondell Reynolds Brown, on the sessions she had, separate and apart 3 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 from the original hearing, for just public testimony, which is very unusual and unique in Council hearings on a matter like this. I have a couple of questions. I'm sure other members do. I know the Vice-Chair does. But I just want to -- one of the reasons we won't be reporting this out today -- it's not the only reason, but because we've mentioned it at other hearings, if our City Solicitor, Romy Diaz, could just put on the record that the discussions with PECO are still ongoing, I would just appreciate that. I know they're not finalized.
Councilman, thank you. Thank you. As I had indicated to you and other members of the Committee yesterday, we continue to have conversations with PECO, with at least a hope on my part that we will have a successful conclusion, which will allow us to address the electricity charges in a way that works for PECO and does not 4 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 create difficulties in terms of its PEC responsibilities. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Pew, if you could explain from Wireless Philadelphia's standpoint something we also discussed yesterday and I'm very comfortable with. I just think we should establish a real clear record. At our first hearing and I think in another hearing, we discussed, but didn't quite get our arms around, the financial side, both income and expenses, just from the EarthLink monies and how that fits in to the larger plan, which is really the hopes and dreams plan of getting outside money in here. If you could walk through EarthLink on a good day with their being successful, whether it's with their $17, $18 million range or your hopefully $20 million range, but in that area, you got a pretty good idea of what monies would come to your organization as a part of 5 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 the agreement, and then what the real costs are, expenses are before we get to do the hopes and dreams part, the wireless inclusion, the digital divide policies that will be computers and training, that will really set us apart from, I believe, every other municipality in government in the country and will become the envy of the world if we do it right. Could you put that on the record? Because I think we'll all be real comfortable with it, but particularly comfortable just understanding it and how the private foundations fit in as the next layer or the private fundraising. I just shouldn't limit it to foundations, but the outside fundraising.
Could you introduce members for everyone and I'll introduce members of the Committee. Thank you, Councilwoman. 6 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Could you introduce yourselves for everyone? Because we have more people in the audience than we've had for some other hearings.
Sure. I am Derek Pew and I am the Interim Chief Executive Officer of Wireless Philadelphia.
My name is Donald Berryman. I'm the President of EarthLink's Municipal Networks Division.
Thank you. And up here at the table, Councilman Frank Rizzo to my left, Councilwoman Joan Krajewski, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, Councilwoman Marian Tasco, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and Councilman Frank DiCicco. Mr. Pew.
First, I think I'd like to say that the entirety of operational expenses that are related to personnel at Wireless Philadelphia are 7 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 all there for the charitable purposes of Wireless Philadelphia. The intention is that the new Chief Executive Officer that will replace me will essentially be an oversight program manager interface for the City, someone who is looking to achieve all the four goals of Wireless Philadelphia and the staff. Remember, the digital inclusion program, half of it, relates to access and computers, training, education, motivation, responsible use of computers, but another aspect of it is the processing of applications through the digital inclusion rate. So when we talk about the cost of running Wireless Philadelphia, I don't think it's fair to actually separate that from the cost of the digital inclusion program itself, because you can't do the one without the other. As we talked about yesterday, I think you need to look at the budget for Wireless Philadelphia in sort of two 8 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 pieces. What we tried to do in the contract with EarthLink was give Wireless Philadelphia a two-year jump start to get itself up and running. And if you notice the way the agreement works, the electricity expenses are covered by EarthLink in the first two years, and we guaranteed the payments in the first two years. That was significant. And the reason for doing that was not only to give Wireless Philadelphia some breathing room in the first two years, but also to help with the charitable mission of Wireless Philadelphia, which is go after private foundations, federal grants, state grants, local grants, individual donors to raise revenue for Wireless Philadelphia. And in general, the goal that we've talked about at the board level has been to get that revenue number up to about $4 million, if we can, by year three. So let's put that into context of the money that's coming from 9 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 EarthLink, which I think is really the crux of the question. In the first two years, particularly in year one, most of the revenue of Wireless Philadelphia probably will be the revenue from EarthLink. We have deferred the paying back of the PIDC loan for that purpose and we have deferred the electricity --
What was that? Could you go through those a little more slowly?
I'm sorry. The repayment of the PIDC loan doesn't start until after year one. So that's been deferred. And the electricity payments are being covered by EarthLink for the first two years. So in the first year, I think you're going to see that the EarthLink contribution is going to be significant to all aspects of Wireless Philadelphia's mission. In year two, that will reduce somewhat, in that you will be raising money presumably from charitable 10 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 foundations. And hopefully you're doing that in year one, too, but I'm just trying to be realistic as to the cycle of raising that money in the context of the network that's still being built. By year three, the contribution from EarthLink, let's say that EarthLink is doing $17 to $18 million a year in revenue or $15, $18 million. I forget what Don testified to the other week. But in broad terms, I think you're looking at a revenue stream somewhere between $750,000 and if they hit the 15 million, $1 million per year from 16 EarthLink. A significant portion of 17 that -- in fact, I would say nearly all 18 of it, if not all of it -- will go not 19 only to just operating expenses of 20 Wireless Philadelphia, but they will also go to paying back the PIDC loan, and because what we've done is capped electricity costs at 50 percent of the stream that comes from EarthLink, a very significant portion of that will be going 11 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 back to repay electricity if we have not been successful in three years at getting the PECO rates down to a range that we actually believe is the reasonable range for that electricity. So if that's the case, I think you're going to find that while the EarthLink money will be being used to support the operations that support digital inclusion, including the processing of digital inclusion applications for the rate, the money that's being used for computers and to help the school system, to help the elderly, for training, education purposes and to work with the community groups, is significantly going to be coming from other sources, like public charities. Was that sufficient?
Yes. There may be some questions on your response, but I was satisfied generally with what your response was and what I thought we had discussed and you had 12 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 said. The only question I have, and I wasn't clear when we were talking yesterday, in the first two years where EarthLink pays the electricity bill, the whole electricity bill, and gives you the opportunity to really get jump started and get started at Wireless Philadelphia, is there a provision that that has to be repaid over a period of years, those two years, your half, in other words?
I'm sorry. The way it works is, EarthLink is not responsible for the cost of electricity. EarthLink is responsible to cover the cost of electricity in the first two years. Our cap that relates to the remaining years, three through ten, is a combination of the current year's electricity costs, plus the repayment of whatever amount 13 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 that EarthLink had paid in the first two years. So without a reduction from PECO, it is relatively certain that we will be pressing up against the ceiling for at least a couple years following at year three. Then again, I think Wireless Philadelphia will not have been a successful project by year three if it's not raising $3 to $4 million revenue from outside sources.
And you didn't go through specifically, but it's somewhat obvious, but I think for the record, you have the PECO bill that has to be paid, either each year or deferred amounts you have to pay later. You have the PIDC loan that has to be repaid over a period of time, other than the first year. You have an Executive Director who is going to be the one responsible for trying to really go out and raise that money that you have to pay and support staff, however limited the support staff will be. You have to have office space. 14 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 You have to have the overhead costs of running an operation. And I just want the record to be clear so people understand how this all builds and that there's a significant amount of money coming from EarthLink, but there's a significant plan that that is really the foundation of, that is the real goal, is to get -- that separates us hopefully from other places that may want to do municipal broadband, but it doesn't have the digital inclusion components, may have the lower rates, sometimes as we've heard has dial-up at the lower rates or for free, but doesn't have real speed that people are looking for and will want the first time they try it, will want it to be theirs. So are there any questions, particularly from Committee members, for Mr. Pew dealing with this particular issue of -- and this is the budget that -- and this is how this has progressed so quickly, I think, in just 15 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 four to five weeks. It's very hard to understand. I think you're understanding more of it. You're understanding our concerns more, that having budget approval from Council over only the monies from EarthLink -- and we never wanted to talk, even discuss anything more than that -- really wouldn't be really talking about the true computer training part of the digital inclusion. And I think we've come a long way just getting this on the table and for Councilmembers to evaluate whether they think this is an agreement with this in it that we should approve. I think the risk-reward factor is -- the reward factor is very high compared to the risk. The risk is, we fail. So what? Nobody else is trying it. EarthLink has the risk. If they succeed, they sell this program in other cities and keep their business very viable. But if they fail, they lose that opportunity. So we're in a good spot, and 16 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 from a lot of strategic standpoints, Philadelphia is poised to make sure we get EarthLink's best shot. It's not like some other contracts that will go unnamed, and they aren't just the ones from recently that, Well, where was the provision that if it didn't work, they didn't get paid? Well, it's kind of like that here. They know it doesn't have to be in a contract. They need this to establish the marketing to other jurisdictions, both in and around Philadelphia and all across the country and possibly beyond our borders. So I am very comfortable with it. I'm not worried about technology issues, because EarthLink has to be worried about technology issues and they're the technology company. When Google is in San Francisco, they don't do the technology. They bring in EarthLink to do it. I'm very confident that they're the people making the judgments and will be making the judgments. And no 17 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 matter what we may come up with that changes any language in the agreements, we will not be fiddling with technology judgments ever, and to the extent that we can write that into some language, as we're talking about possible amendments, I'm very comfortable with that. No one in this Council wants to pretend that we can make judgments on technology issues that affect your success or failure more than you do or have anything close to what you have at risk if you make the wrong decision, if there's not enough strength in a signal.
On the subject of technology, though, because I just keep hearing it and I don't think it's on the record and it keeps getting asked to me by different people, if someone becomes a customer under this program, whether they're $20 or $10 a month, they have access to a signal. Do they have it if their computer is wirelessly enabled, like a computer you would buy today? They all 18 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 have wireless enabling. I mean, if your house has broadband, you can get it anywhere in the house. Or is there another device that costs X number of dollars that will have to be attached to the person's computer to get this signal? Because there's a lot of questions and different information floating around on that and it's never really come up at the hearings.
I'll try to answer that as easily as I can. We're using an unlicensed spectrum called 80211. It's called WiFi. So it's out there today. Any computer that has a WiFi card, a wireless card -- most laptops are sold with them today. They're built in to almost every -- when you hear the word "Centrino," those are built into the computer, so you can open the computer and get a wireless signal. Some home computers today don't have those cards yet. So you would have to buy a card to hook into your computer to 19 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 get the signal, but they're at Best Buy or Circuit City for $40.
And that's true even if I had Comcast or Verizon coming into my house today and I wanted to have another computer in the house access that signal wirelessly, if my computer doesn't have it, I got to go buy that card if it's an older model, but the newer models pretty much have it.
Most of them today. Last year, there were 120 million WiFi devices sold in the world. So almost every computer has them. Now, what you're hearing is that in some instances, either for security or for an improved signal, there's something called a -- it's a router or it's called CPE, customer premise equipment. It's something that for our customers we'll be giving to them, that it's sort of like a DSL router or modem that you would get if you signed up for DSL or cable. And you would then 20 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 key in your user name and password, and it would then encrypt the communication between your computer and our devices. So not everybody will need that. Some people can connect without that device, but we're going to give it to all of our subscribers, people who sign up on a monthly basis, because we want them to have that extra security and we want them to have that stronger, better signal in their home.
Any questions about either of those issues from the Committee? Because I think they're very important that they're on the record, because I'm telling you, I've heard this and that, unsecured. I mean, I have an unsecured signal in my house right now when I pick up the DSL that's coming in or the Comcast, whatever it is, and -- I'm not giving that away today, but it is 14.59 at Verizon today. And when it was explained to me that I would need something if I wanted my own 21 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Internet connection, if I weren't sitting right where the signal is coming in hard to the house, that I could be more secure with what you're talking about giving me if I become a customer than I have right now, because I'm not necessarily getting that unless I go out and purchase it.
That's correct. There are software supplicants you can download or you can purchase. With all of the people that log on to our network for the occasional use, the hour, the day, the week, we'll be suggesting before they actually get to the Internet that they download this supplicant for security from us for free on the network. So it will encrypt their -- because there are users that are using their computers today at the airport or in the park, at Love Park, that don't have that security today, but we think that improved security is very important.
Okay. Councilwoman Miller. 22 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160
Hi. Thank you. Will this router help with weak signals? What will you do with the weak signals? This kind of reminds me of the satellite dish that people have with cable, and when it rains or when it snows, you're not able to get your TV station and it sort of goes blank. Will we have those type of technical problems with this WiFi connection?
Sure. That's a great question. It's our intent with our design to build the network, the wireless network, strong enough so that you'll be able to get the signal wherever you are in the City. We are stipulating at first that it's the third floor of a building down, because this is sort of an umbrella over the City. Right now we're not planning on beaming it up into the high areas of buildings, but that will be a second phase. But if you're anywhere in 23 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 the third floor of a building down, you should be able to get a very good signal from EarthLink. The device that we're going to give to our subscribers will enhance the signal and strengthen it, and it will have the extra security in it as well.
So, therefore, items like trees because it's wired along the wires, things like that, trees or whatnot, shouldn't really interfere with the ability to get the signal?
Almost everything interferes with radiowaves. It really does, and that's why we've designed our network to be strong enough where we're going to put in between 30 and 36 radios per square mile. So the signals will overlap. So all possibilities, your computer will be able to see at least two of our devices, if not more, and it will take the signal from the strongest device. And that's 24 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 one of the reasons why Wireless Philadelphia selected our proposal, is because they thought it had the best commercial application possible. But everything does interfere with it. Radiowaves are very strange things. We were testing Anaheim, California recently where we're bringing up that network. I was on top of City Hall, which is a 14-story building. The closest node was a mile and a half away, and with just my regular laptop and a little wireless card, I got a great signal, downloaded to the Internet and sent my first e-mail across the Internet.
So if people live in a high-rise apartment building above the third floor, then they're really not going to be able to use this wireless network; is that what you're saying?
Not from the beginning. It's going to be a phase two. Once we implement -- the technology is 25 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 changing so dramatically. There's many ways that we think we can do that through either what was called BPL, broadband over power lines, into the building. There are new radios that are being built with directional antennas that actually sit at the bottom of the building and beam up, and we've seen signals that are strong enough up to 30 floors. So we're testing all kinds of technology, and whatever we think is the best that will fit into our current design, we'll end up using and then adding to the network once we deploy.
I have a 30-second question. Would we ever get to the point 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 where you would solicit businesses to bring a signal inside their environments? Like if a person wanted to have a WiFi coffee place or a restaurant, would you eventually bring the signal indoors?
Well, the signal will be reached indoors and that's how we'll sell subscribers.
But isn't that marginal? I'm talking about a business that may be embedded into a building or something like that that the signal would obviously not get to.
There's something when we build out the network and this overlapping, sort of like PECO-style technology that we'll be using, should get inside the building. If it doesn't and there's a demand inside the buildings, we'll put in our own indoor radios to strengthen the signal that we have.
There's an alternative to that, to just add on to 27 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 you, Don, is that they are going to be looking at T-1 data replacement access to businesses, in which case the businesses would be able to build its own network off of the data T-1 that you bought from this network and then you build your own wireless internally.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. This is for City Solicitor, Mr. Diaz. Romy, at the first hearing on this matter, I had asked about the no-bid contract rule set forth in Chapter 18 17-1400 of the Code. These are the ones that went to the voters, and Council spent a lot of time deliberating last year. Finally got past overwhelmingly. I noted that the City/PAID agreement included provisions requiring PAID to abide by these new rules, and I asked why similar provisions were not 28 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 included in the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement. Your response was as follows, and I quote: "My recollection, subject to check -- and I will provide you with a written response for the record -- is that in all the agreements that I looked at last night, but I will confirm with regard to the management and service agreement between the City and Wireless Philadelphia, there is a provision related to compliance with 17-1400. As a matter of policy, we wanted" -- and I assume the Administration -- "to ensure that in all of these transactional documents, that we were inserting standard City conditions, especially as to the most important ones that we have talked about today, only one example of which was the MBEC-related requirements." That was the end of the quote. That response suggested that you believe that the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement did include a 29 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 provision requiring compliance with Chapter 17-1400. However, as you know, the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement does not contain such an provision. Your March 30th written response to this Committee simply states, "The provisions of Chapter 17-1400 do not apply to the management and services agreement, because the agreement negotiation process pre-dates the February 1, 2006 effective date of Chapter 17-1400." I must repeat my question from the earlier hearing. If it was decided as a matter of policy to include the new no-bid contract rules in the City/PAID agreement and, for that matter, to include those rules in the PAID/EarthLink agreement as well, why as a matter of policy were similar provisions not included in the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement?
Well, obviously the first statements that I made, subject to check, were corrected, because the 30 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 provisions in 17-1400 were not in the management agreement as put before Council. But as to the policy, we're looking at PAID as a City-related agency. I have written several memoranda to City-related agencies like PAID to indicate that they will be subject to 17-1400 as new contracts or amended contracts are entered into with the City pursuant to the contract reform legislation. Now, with regard to Wireless Philadelphia, the non-profit, it was a judgment call, I was reminded about subsequent to my previous testimony, that we're dealing here with a small non-profit. You've heard about the budget associated with the non-profit expectations. The fact that City Council would authorize the use of the City light poles, there would be no financial risk to the City as a consequence of these agreements, and in that context, given the desire I think to give as much 31 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 flexibility to non-profits as possible under 17-1400, as we were trying to finalize the agreements, I was reminded that I had agreed to the recommendation that we not make this applicable directly to Wireless Philadelphia. So I think it was in the spirit of 17-1400, given the type of liberal approach that we were trying to take to social service non-profits, the amount of monies involved and the fact that this is not a City-related agency, as PAID would be under the contract reform legislation, that led to the agreement as it's currently constructed.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I would note for the record that Chapter 17-1400 includes an exception for contracts with not-for-profit corporations. Those exceptions apply to the City/PAID and the PAID/EarthLink agreements, and they could also apply to the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement as well. Under 32 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 those exceptions, Wireless Philadelphia could enter into a no-bid contract with a not-for-profit corporation without following the detailed process set forth in Chapter 17-1400. Only after signing a contract would a not-for-profit corporation be required to make certain disclosures, and the contract would also obligate the not-for-profit corporation to continue making those disclosures during the term of the contract. Is the not-for-profit exception not sufficient to address any concern about including no-bid contract rules in the City/Wireless Philadelphia agreement?
Again, I think I tried to clarify that it was a judgment call in light of what Wireless Philadelphia's budget and operations would look like. I, frankly, don't see that you're going to have a lot of contracting opportunities with Wireless Philadelphia as you would have, for example, with EarthLink, which will be 33 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 having a significant subcontracting effort, and we've talked about the minority and women and disabled business issues that that contracting activity would entail. But with regard to Wireless Philadelphia, the non-profit itself, I believe the expectation is that most of their procurement activities, for example, would be in connection with purchase of rehabilitated laptops for distribution to meet its digital inclusion program, not the kind of large-scale procurement activities that we would either anticipate from PAID or another City-related agency, and I think it was in that context, in terms of the practicalities associated with the use of the Wireless Philadelphia budget, that a judgment call was made not to incorporate that into the management agreement applicable to Wireless Philadelphia.
I'm hoping we can all reconsider that judgment call, 34 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 weighing the burdensome aspect of the disclosure requirements, even as limited as they are for a non-profit like Wireless Philadelphia, versus all the reform elements that come out, and I'll just give you a few of the disclosure requirements that I hope enter into that rethinking. The required disclosures include the names of consultants used to obtain the contract. You could have an innocent-looking -- and Wireless Philadelphia could think it's innocent-looking as well -- contract. And I'll just use a number, a half a million dollars for, I'll use your term, rebuilt computers, but a consultant -- this happens all over the place. It happens on operation at Project Ocean. It happens every time there's a big contract anywhere anymore. Somebody is a consultant that is looking for a finder's fee from the vendor. They're getting business for that. That's just the way 35 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 the world is operating. The names of consultants used to obtain the contracts has to be disclosed by that vendor. If they didn't use a consultant, they don't have to disclose anything. And if they did, everyone should know who those consultants are. Next, campaign contributions to Pennsylvania candidates. Note that the rules attributing the contribution of directors and officers do not apply to the not-for-profit. They don't apply to Wireless Philadelphia. They don't apply to the non-profit that would be getting the information. Subcontractors intended to be used. These are just areas that the reforms are so important for, because they're things that aren't even visible often times to the people doing the transaction on the one side; for instance, Wireless Philadelphia. I think it's very important to know who the 36 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 subcontractors are. I don't think that's a lot to ask. Any solicitation of gifts or donations by City employees to that non-profit. I think it's very important that these were put in there, and I think they serve a very compelling purpose. Lastly -- and these are just certain of the disclosures, but I think they're more the important ones -- any advice by City employees as to particular companies that could be used to satisfy any goals for the participation of anything. We want to know if, on all our contracts, if somebody has been sort of moving business here or there. It just tells us whether anybody has been doing it. There may be a very good reason for it, but we want to know. Knowledge is good in these cases. So I hope we can rethink that. I don't think it's a major issue, but I think we'll all be better off if in the end all of the agreements include the 37 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 contract reform petitions. That's all. And we're going to keep talking about this, and I appreciate your frankness and I understand your position. I just hope we can come to some compromise on it.
I obviously have taken on board your comments and we will consider them, but I think just to recapitulate very quickly in connection with the efforts by Wireless Philadelphia, we're talking about an entity that has already committed to filing reports on its activities, including certainly its contracting activities. I think in previous testimony, there has been an agreement to share that information with Council. That is not an issue. There will also be at least a plan in terms of its next-year projects filed as well, and that will be shared with Council and others. 38 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 There are certain requirements in terms of contract reform even as to non-profits that would impose a cost and a burden, if you will. I'm not saying an unreasonable burden, but a burden and a cost on non-profits. Let me just give you one example. Wireless Philadelphia, I think we've seen, is going to be very lean in terms of its staffing. Probably an Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, perhaps clerical staff. The contract reform legislation would require certain certifications from, in the absence of the City and a Finance Director or a City Solicitor, that there have to be certifications by a Chief Financial Officer and a General Counsel. That's not going to be the case for Wireless Philadelphia. They will have to procure that certification and pay for it as a lean-staffed machine. And so all I'm suggesting is, subject to this continuing conversation -- because the desire here is not to be transparent. 39 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Far from it. The desire is to recognize that we have given an important responsibility to Wireless Philadelphia. It has a sufficient responsibility and limited financial revenues, that we've been trying to give it as much flexibility as we thought it needed to get the job done. But having said that, of course, you've asked, we will consider your proposal, and I'm sure we'll come back to you as part of this ongoing conversation.
One last question, and I hope it helps crystallize things. If instead of being just before the effective date, was just after the effective date of the requirements for 17-1400, would you be here asking for a waiver for Wireless Philadelphia if they didn't come before the effective date but instead came after and were required to do it?
Let me respond this 40 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 way: We've had a competitive solicitation that preceded by a significant amount of time the February 1 implementation date of contract reform. We've been transparent, competitive, gotten what we believe is a good deal for the City and for Wireless Philadelphia. Had all of that occurred subsequent to the implementation date of contract reform, I think I would still be concerned about the application and the costs and burdens associated with contract reform, but I'm not going to speculate in that circumstance how I would come before you either seeking a waiver or addressing it otherwise. But I understand the point, and I think that a reasonable judgment call was made. There's, as you have suggested, my differ, and we will obviously consider your suggestion and come back to the committees in that regard.
I 41 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 appreciate your testimony. Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.
Thank you. Thank you very much. To Romy Diaz or your designee, could you please provide us, if you will, simply an update on where we are with the discussions with the Minority Business Enterprise Council.
It's my understanding, Councilwoman, that this morning, as we had committed yesterday, there was a meeting held with representatives of MBEC and the Mayor's office, that we understood the importance of having a strong monitoring and enforcement effort associated with Wireless Philadelphia. As a consequence of that meeting this morning with EarthLink and the representatives of the Administration that I mentioned, it was concluded that there should be a five-member oversight board that would include two from the Administration, one 42 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 from MBEC, one from the Mayor's office, one from City Council, one from EarthLink and one from Wireless Philadelphia. And in the context of, if I know your continuing concern, and others have this concern as well about MBEC participation, the participation rate, I think we've discussed previously, is well over 10 percent with regard to the entire 11 contract, and that includes both the 12 equipment component, which is not easily 13 handled by others because of its 14 technical requirements, and so those two 15 companies that have been awarded or 16 anticipate getting awarded that work are 17 majority firms, but 5.5 million of the 18 $11 million worth of service contracts 19 will be awarded pursuant to the 20 commitments made by EarthLink to 21 minority, women and disabled business 22 enterprises. 23 We anticipate that there will 24 be a strong local participation in terms 25 of Philadelphia-based business. We 43 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 believe that they've complied with the spirit and requirements of the contracts associated with Wireless Philadelphia, and I think given the agreements reached today, if these are pursued with regard to the oversight board, I think we're creating a mechanism to make sure that the legal commitments of the contracts are in fact realized as we all want and anticipate they will be.
Thank you for that update. Please, if you would, discuss briefly or restate the depth and the breadth of the relationship with Motorola.
I'm going to ask EarthLink, if I may, Don Berryman, to respond to that issue.
Motorola is a subcontractor of EarthLink's. We've retained Motorola in a contract to provide equipment and services in our first five markets, because of Motorola's 44 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 experience in both implementation and the equipment that we'll be purchasing from them. They're the largest deployment of radio equipment in the world, so we felt comfortable using them. So we will be purchasing from them all of the hardware for the network in Philadelphia, as well as the services to build out and implement the network here in Philadelphia.
With that, should one assume then that you have a level of confidence in Motorola's commitment or at least Motorola shares EarthLink's commitment with regard to MBE/WBE participation and, more specifically, around minority suppliers?
We're confident that Motorola shares those views with us. They're one of the largest contributors to minority business corporations in the world. They also have a commitment or have a pass-through from our commitment to the City to hire a certain percentage, 45 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 which we committed to the 5.5 million out of million in the City of Philadelphia 4 for that build-out. So as we've 5 committed to that, that passes through to 6 our subcontract to Motorola. 7
So with 8 that impressive track record then, there 9 is a list, if you will, of minority 10 suppliers that Motorola has dealt with in 11 the past available to EarthLink?
I'm not sure about available -- oh, in relationship to our agreement with you?
There's a hardness that you've seen with real names of minority suppliers?
Sure. We've provided that, I think, in our follow-up from our first.
I should thank you for the tangible follow-up that you've provided with regards to 46 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Councilwoman Tasco's questions that have been shared with members of the Committee. So then thank you for your testimony on that issue.
Yes. Let's go back to Motorola first. How do they report to you? How do they communicate to you their involvement of minority participation? Do they report back to you at all?
Yes. Actually, we're working very aggressively with them on the list. We're providing -- we got the list from MBEC. We then gave them, Motorola, the list of companies that we would prefer to do business with off that list. And so far, they've only contracted with MBEC companies. And so each month, we're going to be reviewing with them anybody that they contract with to make sure they meet our commitment to the City. 47 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160
How much is the value of the contract with the minority business companies?
As we've said just a moment ago, it's about -- we estimate that it will be about 5.5 million over the course of the ten years.
But thus far, they've only contracted with one or none?
We've actually contracted with two, but we've actually not done any work yet. And so we won't do any work until we get the approval from the City Council to actually start hanging radios and doing the work.
Romy, you have this oversight board. Who is going to staff that?
It's my understanding -- I was not at the meeting this morning, Councilwoman, but it's my understanding that the board has been at least proposed. I'm not aware of the 48 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 details related to staffing, but we can provide that for the record.
Well, I know the gentleman from Atlanta is going to be the monitor for the MBEC participation, but that's in Atlanta. I think your answer to my question before is who is going to be on the local level doing monitoring, and so the idea now has come up with a board, that you're going to have this oversight board?
Well, no. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse those two subjects. I'll defer to Mr. Berryman in connection with how EarthLink is going to monitor on an ongoing basis performance related to MBEC goals. What I was talking about was, an issue had been raised, Councilwoman, in the last few days about would the stadium deals be a model in terms of the monitoring and enforcement by the City of the performance of EarthLink and the results that are obtained, do they 49 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 actually align with the legal commitments that have been made under the contracts, and it was in that context seeking to create a vehicle for ensuring that we understand, "we" being the City, the Administration, Council and our partners, Wireless Philadelphia and EarthLink, that the monitoring committee that I was responding to earlier was proposed this morning to respond to questions that had been raised earlier. As to the day-to-day monitoring, which is an important element and there are procedures that will be in place for that, let me defer to Mr. Berryman.
I'd just like to add, Councilwoman, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear earlier, that the entire review committee will be made up of local people from Philadelphia. The representative from EarthLink will be Clifton Roscoe, who is our local General Manager. And then in that meeting this morning with 50 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Michael Williams in deciding on who all of the other participants would be, they would be one from City Council, one from the Mayor's office and others, but they would all be local.
Let me introduce Clifton Roscoe, our General Manager from EarthLink.
The agreement we made this morning was, we would meet once a month. Probably someone from Michael Williams' office will facilitate to actual calling the meeting, but it will be ongoing monthly meetings, and we will review progress month to month for the foreseeable future. So there shouldn't be any --
That will come from EarthLink. So it will be my responsibility to make sure it gets done. 51 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 So, in other words, when we work with the subcontractor, the billing goes through our billing systems in Atlanta to our procurement group. So we will have access to all of the dollars that got spent on the contract, and I'll have that data in my hands every time we meet.
So every time a dollar is spent, we will be able to track where it went to and which groups worked with us. Our procurement systems are set up such as each vendor is categorized, along with a number of criteria, including whether or not they are MBE-certified vendors. So every time a dollar is spent, we will know exactly who it went to and what characteristic that subcontractor has. So when we meet every month, we'll be able to say X amount of 52 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 dollars went to this type of vendor, Y amount went to another type of vendor and so forth down the line. So it should be pretty transparent where we were every month.
Councilwoman, can I just interject? And if I'm wrong, I hope EarthLink will correct me, but it's my understanding that there will be a presence here of EarthLink, and we anticipate that Clifton will be establishing a residence here, I believe. There will be ongoing local monitoring by EarthLink of its performance, as well as that of its subcontractors. This information will not be monitored exclusively from Atlanta, which I think was part of the question. So we're going to have both a local review process day to day by EarthLink. Certainly they will be getting reports in Atlanta, but there will be a local presence. And in addition to that, there will be an oversight board, such as I described 53 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 earlier, that will meet on a monthly basis so that we all have a sense of confidence that we're getting the right information and that in fact the commitments under the contracts have been met.
Yes. Thank you. Can you name again the five agencies or entities that will participate in the monitoring, the oversight committee?
It's my understanding that it would be MBEC, a representative from the Mayor's office possibly and likely from External Affairs. There would be a representative of Council. There would be a representative of EarthLink and a representative of Wireless Philadelphia, the non-profit. 54 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160
Sometimes when we're doing contracts and procurement opportunities through City for some of our capital building projects, contractors are able to get a waiver as it relates to inclusion. Is there any anticipated -- I guess what I'm really asking here is that, will EarthLink or anyone else be able to get a waiver and not abide with inclusion of suppliers or vendors in this particular contract?
What we have tried to construct, Councilwoman, is a set of legal obligations that would carry out the expectation that was included in the requests for proposals. We have been very clear, "we" being the City, about our expectation that minority, women and disabled business enterprises will be included in this effort, and not only will they be included, they will be included at significant levels. And we've always assumed that we would be 55 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 able to review performance. We spent a great deal of time on that. We have spent a great deal of time in follow-on conversations involving the City, EarthLink and Wireless Philadelphia, because it was important to the City and we knew it was important to City Council that these issues be addressed in a transparent and effective way. So it is not my anticipation that the theoretical possibility for waivers would be approved, because we hear you loud and clear and we were making that message known well before we heard it from you as clearly as we have in the last few hearings.
Very good. And I just use the example of suppliers and vendors, but really we're talking about any opportunity, including customer support employees, including everybody. We have many people that come in front of Council and talk about minority participation and, oh, well, you 56 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 know, they're really going to do the right thing, and they don't. And I think that I know for me and I know the other members here are very serious about putting a stop to that. We're really serious about it. Public means everybody, and participation, as we see it, means the same thing.
If I may, Councilwoman, just to show you our commitment and how much we are committed to this, on his own volition, our first contracted subcontractor is here, John Kiertan, who is the leader of Urban Harvest over there. Raise your hand, John. He's here on his own volition. He made the first contract that we've done through Motorola to -- his company will actually install the radios for us 57 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 on the light poles. And so we're very happy that he's here. Also, I was just informed that they will also be doing warehouse management, as well as installing the radios. So thank you, John, for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to back up a minute. Does the fact that the device is attached to municipal property create the municipality's involvement in the process?
In simple terms, but for the use of the City light pole attachments, this effort would be 58 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 unlikely to proceed. And it is the use of that City resource, which is, frankly, the principal reason why these matters have been brought before the City Council.
Well, let me back up. The fixture belongs to the City of Philadelphia. The utility pole does not. The utility pole is property of the energy company or the telephone communications company. If these devices were attached not to the light fixture and to the utility pole directly, would we be out of this?
It's my understanding, Councilman, and I hope somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, that the City owns some of the light poles. In other cases, owns the light pole attachments to the utility poles.
And so it's both the 59 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 use of City-owned poles and the use of City pole attachments that creates the basis for City contracts and City Council approval.
The aluminum light fixtures that are in the inner City, Center City, are the property of the City. I would assume 80 percent of the construction would be probably on light fixtures that are attached to PECO utility poles or Verizon utility poles. Again, my question, if that weren't a factor, if we weren't going to attach it to City property, could you move forward without the City, if you did the deal with PECO or Verizon?
If all of the light fixtures or a source of power and where we put those radios were all owned by the utility, then we would be doing this deal with the utility. But I think 60 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 that there's a significant effort with the City as well to have the endorsement because of the additional things that we're trying to do here, which is bridge the digital divide. Without that endorsement from the City, I don't think the effort that we would put forth here would be as valuable.
But the City's involvement in this now is simply because you're attaching your transmitter, receiver, whatever it's called, to a structure that's owned by the City of Philadelphia, but that structure is attached to a piece of property that the City doesn't own, PECO Energy or Verizon own that structure. So if you attach directly to that structure -- I understand it's fuzzy to say City WiFi and all that, but you could come to this City, cut a deal with PECO or Verizon, attach your devices and do the deal for the energy, attach your devices other than the lamp posts -- 61 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 there's other places -- your technology, I've done a little homework, isn't dependent on attaching it to a light pole. It's the most convenient place to attach it. You could attach it the same way the cell companies attach to structures. It's obviously a cleaner, faster, less expensive deal to attach it to a fixture that has energy at the location, but if you wanted to avoid doing business with the City, you could probably figure out a way in the inner City to mount your devices other than on the aluminum light fixtures, correct? Right or wrong? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Probably not. There's a couple of reasons. Unless we floated them in the air, you have to attach them to something. The optimum is a light pole because of the distance above the street, obviously. If it were just the vertical light pole, then the signal wouldn't be promulgated correctly 62 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 because the radio would be attached to --
-- that the only game in town is the aluminum light fixture?
You're missing the context here, if I may. This deal began, at least the discussion of this deal began, with the desire of the City to create a non-profit to address the need for digital inclusion programs, and as part of that effort, it was our anticipation that we would have to have Wireless Philadelphia finance the deal. And there was an expectation at the time that there was a distinct possibility that the City would have to be the guarantor of that financing, not necessarily required, but it might have to be the guarantor of that financing in order to make this work. 63 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 As a consequence of the response that was received from EarthLink, that initial thinking was, frankly, retooled when EarthLink said that they would take on the financial risks and the operational risks of creating the network. But initially there was going to be much more expectation of City involvement in making the deal work. As it turned out, it was the attachment of the devices to the City light pole attachments and the City-owned light poles that were clearly a major piece of it. There's also the right-of-way ordinance which Council passed, I believe, last year, which requires that certain approvals and costs associated with that program be complied with. We understand that EarthLink may want to have additional City resources involved in connection with City-owned buildings, for example, for purposes of its network. So we actually began with a 64 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 much more intensive involvement by the City. It became one more directed toward the light poles and the light pole attachments, but you still have other elements of the City involved and, clearly, the digital inclusion mission, for which Wireless Philadelphia was incorporated by the Mayor, was always sort of the driver in terms of achieving that vision.
Mr. Solicitor, I just want to make the record reflect that I've done some homework on this, that if EarthLink or any broadband company wanted to come to the City of Philadelphia, 80 percent, and I'll use that as a conservative number, of the street lights that they will be attaching to, that street light is attached to a wood structure that is owned by PECO Energy or Verizon. If they wanted to do this deal in the City of Philadelphia, they didn't need our street lights to do it. They needed a place to 65 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 attach it at the level that is required for the technology to perform, the energy, in most cases, on that pole. I just want to make sure that we all understand that the easiest way to do this is to attach it to a light fixture, but if they wanted this technology to work in other than Center City, Roxborough, Chestnut Hill, West Philly, that 99 percent of the structures out there are PECO structures, that they could attach that box to that pole, not attach it to the light fixture, and accomplish the same goal. I just wanted to make sure that we understand that. I understand the fuzzy part, the WiFi, City, the Administration's objective, but our involvement to make this work isn't absolutely necessary.
I guess the point I'm trying to make, Councilman, and I don't dispute your percentages because I don't know what the percentages are, but, clearly, a very large percentage of light 66 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 poles are owned by others, not the City. The point I was trying to make is that I think the City of Philadelphia, through the creation of Wireless Philadelphia and through the other elements that we've been talking about, is a valued partner of this deal.
Not that we were indispensable to any deal, but we are not in a situation where, frankly, we don't bring value to the table for the reasons that have been talked about, not the least of which are the MBEC issues.
I think one of the criticisms, and I'm going to end, that there was very little effort to work with Comcast, work with Verizon to deliver what we're trying to accomplish here, that we wanted to do it the Administration's way. There was very little effort to go out and say to Comcast, Look, here's what we want, we 67 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 want a $9.99 rate to bring wireless to all Philadelphia. Similarly, with Verizon, I believe there was very little effort, from what I hear, to accomplish that. If we would have gone to PECO Energy, if this Administration would have gone to PECO Energy and asked them to come aboard to be the attachment point throughout the City of Philadelphia on facilities that they own, I think that they, as a good community-based company, would have probably worked with EarthLink. My point is, this is not the only way that this could have been accomplished. We wouldn't have needed Wireless Philadelphia necessarily to make Philadelphia entirely wireless. It is. It's got other companies that do it. My point is -- look, I understand, it's politics, it's a goal of an administration, but I can tell you that this is not the only way that this 68 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 could have been accomplished.
I dispute the notion, frankly, with all due respect, that this is politics. I believe we're trying to --
Well, that's a definition of politics. This is a situation where it's my understanding that there were multiple meetings with both of the companies that you mentioned. I wasn't in the meeting. I don't have an ax to grind with those companies, but those companies were asked to participate to try to make this happen. They did not have an interest. In addition to that, I would just simply remind you for the record that in fact it was through a very significant effort that the City of Philadelphia, in order to protect its rights to a municipal wireless network, had to negotiate at length what was the 69 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 so-called House Bill 30 that was the subject of a great amount of concern about months ago. 5 We do not have any hard 6 feelings in terms of any commercial 7 competitors, but, in fact, in the interim 8 period, they haven't created this kind of 9 a program to make sure that there is 10 digital inclusion in the City of 11 Philadelphia and, in fact, perhaps as a 12 consequence of the City's taking a 13 leadership role with regard to digital 14 inclusion, the kind of rates that 15 Councilman O'Neill referred to earlier 16 have since come into play. 17 So I think we've done a good 18 thing in terms of being a market leader, in terms of addressing the need, in terms of recognizing that Philadelphia has a substantive need for greater Internet connectivity for more digital inclusion. This is a part of our economic development future, and if others had done it, the City wouldn't have had to 70 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 step up to the plate. We have done that now and, over many months' worth of negotiation, constructed agreements that we believe are fair to all parties and fair to future potential competitors. There's plenty of room in terms of City resources for them to have access on a competitive basis to those resources. We're talking about potentially using five percent of those City-owned light poles and light pole attachments. There's plenty of room for the future competitor that wants to help us address the digital inclusion needs of this City.
Well, I think that if we would have pushed as hard as we did to deliver Wireless Philadelphia, if we would have at certain levels in the government dealt with top executives of those organizations that you discussed, I think we would have been able to deliver the same product. No 24 disrespect to EarthLink, but I just want to make sure that the record reflects 71 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 that this was not the only game in town to accomplish what we're accomplishing here today. Most convenient? Yes. But not the only way to do this project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. I have one more question. I just want to be clear I have an answer to this. It's my understanding that you're going to do $11 million for suppliers, hardware and equipment, correct? Is that correct?
It's estimated, we've estimated, that we'll spend approximately $22 million over the course of ten years on the entire network, of which $11 million will be services.
No. Like 72 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 suppliers, vendors, services like implementation, like marketing, things like that. The actual hardware will be the other $11 million.
The list that you received from Motorola includes minorities in all those little departments?
And have you given out any contract, let's just say, in the area of hardware yet to any minorities?
Right. 73 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 Okay. Have you given any contracts out to minorities other than our friend sitting over there? I forgot his name.
I can probably answer that one for you. We're going to have for the network build-out about four basic types of functions. So for pole installation, Urban Harvest --
Is your mike on? Excuse me. Could you put your mike on?
Sorry about that. So we're going to have four basic types of activities during the network build-out. Pole installation, which John's company will participate in. Site acquisition, we'll use a combination of firms, one called Damiano and Long, which is based over in Camden, and another company called ACC, which is a 74 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 woman-owned enterprise. For warehouse management, we will use John's firm more than likely for that. And then the last thing, and I should grab my notes, field implementation, we will use a disabled person to help run that. So we'll have a mixture of types of disadvantaged businesses as we do the build-out.
So for right now today, what does that come up to in terms of percentage of the 11 million and the dollar amount?
So for the first year, we're going to spend approximately $3 million for implementation. We'll spend approximately $1 million with MBEC-type companies. In the out years, years two through ten, we'll spend approximately $1 million per year, and 75 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 $500,000 of that will be for MBEC-type companies. So of the million, 5.5 4 million will go to MBEC-type companies. 5
One other question for EarthLink, I guess. I know I haven't been in all of the hearings, but I have in spirit. You said you want to start around --
-- around the river wards. When we look at the digital divide, did you base your reason to start where you're starting based on survey, how many households are without Internet access? I mean, what was the 76 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 decision? Why did you come up with where you're going to start?
I can start and Derek can jump in. It was a joint decision actually with West Philadelphia. But our decision wasn't based on the digital divide and bringing inclusion. It was more on a technological reason. We needed to get an area of the City that we were comfortable reflected the vast area of the City. So it had tall buildings, trees, parks, homes and other areas that we would be challenged with throughout the rest of the City. And the 15-square-mile initial area is called the Proof of Concept. So we wanted an area that reflected the whole City basically and we could run up against all of the things and test it and show Wireless Philadelphia we can meet their expectations.
It will be 77 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 approximately four months.
According to our contracts. And then we finalize the service-level agreements once we're done with the Proof of Concept, and then we move out to the rest of the City. It's anticipated that we'll have five zones. So that will be in the first zone. And then we'll finish the first zone and then move to two, three, four and five.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions? (No response.)
The Committee shall stand in recess until a week from today, Wednesday, May 3rd at 78 4/26/06 - TECH. & PUBLIC PROP. - BILL 060160 2:00 p.m. Thank you. I ask you gentlemen to just stay around for a few minutes to set up a meeting time. Thank you. (Joint Committees on Technology and Information Services and Public Property and Public Works adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) - - - 79 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on April 26, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)