a report from Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee, for a public hearing held on March 22, 2018 to gain a better understanding of the extent of the City's digital divide and to explore possible ways to increase digital access

C. C, 108 Uity of Cambridge EIGHBORHOOD & LONG-TERM PLANNING UBLIC FACILITIES, ARTS AND CELEBRATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS In City Council April 23, 2018 Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair Councillor Craig Kelley Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 4:02 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the hearing was to gain a better understanding of the extent of the City's digital divide and to explore possible ways to increase digital access, including the Cambridge Broadband Task Force recommendations and Tilson Report (options 1, 2, and 3) and any other suggestions made in Policy Order #7 of February 12, 2018 or any other related matters. Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui via remote participation, Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager, David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs, Lee ulanetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations, Mary Hart, Chief Information Officer, Mike Dugas, Deputy Director, Information Technology, Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician, Matt McLaughlin, Aide to Councillor Carlone, Nora Bent, Aide to Vice Mayor Devereux, Dan Totten, Aide to Councillor Zondervan, Anna Lee Hirschi, Aide 1o Councillor Siddiqui, and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane. Also present were Dx. K. "Vish" Viswanath, Professor of Health Communication at the Harvard School of Public Health, saul Tannenbaum, Cambridge Broadband Task Force member, Yao Chi Fu, Lin Jingyi, Nancy Ryan, Christopher Schmidt, Bill Cunningham. Teresa Cardosi, Paula Cortes, Mark Day, Sebastien Naginski, Erika Naginski, Glenna Wyman, Susan Fleischmann, Angela Holm, Judith Nathans, E.J. Barnes, Ilan Levy and Shanti Renfren. Councillor Zondervan outlines the agenda for this hearing (ATTACHMENT I). He stated that 1o writlen communications were received by the Deputy City Clerk and asked that these communications become part of the permanent record of the hearing (ATTACHMENTS 2-20). 20). He spoke derva cread erin are posivities to perine tee digilat divide. He stater. hat he came to the United States as a 15-year old immigrant and learned to progran computers, which has become his ticket to access the digital economy. He stated that th

digital divide is a real challenge for real people in the community and added that it severely limits access to education, economic opportunity, better health and many great services that Cambridge provides to its residents. Councillor Zondervan invited Saul Tannenbaum to share his personal remarks. Mr. Tannenbaum gave a summary of his personal remarks (ATTACHMENT 22). He gave a history of the 2006 pilot project that installed wireless access points throughout Newtowne Court. He said that in 2006, the City Manager appointed a Digital Divide Committee which included members from the City Council, School Committee, City human services and technology agencies, the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA), CCTV and other community agencies. A copy of the document containing a summary of the Cambridge Broadband Task Force Phase 1 Recommendations and an executive summary of the Municipal Broadband Study conducted by Tilson for the City of Cambridge was distributed for this hearing (ATTACHMENT 23). Mr. Tannenbaum explained that assessments of both the WIF! program and computer support programs were undertaken. He noted that WIFI service was not terminated when the pilot ended with no support for longer term WIFI support or maintenance. He said that the City replaced WIFI hardware a few years later in response to resident complaints. He said that in the winter 2013/2014 volunteers from the Digital Divide Committee fixed what they could of the WIFI system which meant replacing outdoor cables. Mr. Tannenbaum said that 2017 Envision Cambridge does not even see the digital divide as an issue. Mr. Tannenbaum gave a timetable of the work of the Broadband Task Force. He said that the City hired Tilson which is a well-respected consulting firm to assist the Broadband Task Force with examining options to increase competition, reduce pricing, and improve speed, reliability and customer service for residents and businesses. The findings of this work were reported in 2016. He said that Tilson recommended three options that reflected the goals and the need for government intervention: small build, medium build and large build. He said that the Broadband Task Force rejected all three. The reasons for the rejection showed the path forward. He explained that the first option was "a small build" which was fiber to CHA properties. He said that there was no outreach to the low-income communities to find out problems that were being experienced. He added that this option was also rejected because the City has affordable housing units outside of CHA properties and this did not address those households. He said that there was no service delivery plan and the network could not be expanded to a citywide network. He said that one recommendation was to do outreach and discover problems and develop a solution as it was important for the City not to take half measures. He said that the second option was a medium build of a dark fiber network and have commercial companies finish it. He noted that the task force viewed this as a subsidy and felt if Cambridge were to do that, it should just write a check. He said that Tilson did not have courage of their convictions with this option. He said that it seemed

like a gamble and it was effectively a subsidy. He explained that the last option was municipal broadband with large build. He said that even the municipal broadbanc advocates on the task force felt this premature. He said that community conversation was necessary for this commitment and there was not a detailed financial analysis. They recommended that the financial feasibility be done as well as broad community outreach to put the City Manager and the City Council in a position to make a fully informed decision. Mr. Tannenbaum said that the FCC has abdicated all regulatory authority and it has given its authority to the Federal Trade Commission. He said that they are dismantling "Lifeline subsidies for low-income families. He said that this will be a bad time for free and open internet. He said that when the federal government fails to protect our interests, we turn to our local government and expect it to fill that gap. He said that Cambridge needs to fill the gap. Councillor Zondervan thanked Mr. Tannenbaum and introduced Dr. Viswanath. Dr. Viswanath gave an overview of his PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT 24). He said that over the last 15 years they have documented digital inequalities and the effect that it has on people's health. He noted that communication inequalities impact other aspects of life. Dr. Viswanath said that the idea of digital inequalities is global problem. He said that use of internet is related to gross national product. He said that it is a variation within countries. He stated that the people who do not have broadband are the disproportionally poor, minorities and senior citizens. He explained that if we provide access 1o digital services, it improves many facets of one's life. He said that providing digital access can improve the lives of all people. Dr. Viswanath explained that every aspect of life is influenced by providing digital access. He said that he believes that digital services are engrossed in lite and it is critical to provide access. He said that some people argue that it is just about cell phone and subscriptions and that smart phones can he a solution. He remarked that people go in and out of the digital spectrum and that inconsistent access is something that we must pay attention to. He said that people frequently lose access so it is important to think about consistent, sustained access to services over a period of time. He explained that for certain sections of the population, we must think about training and capacity building. He said that technical support is critical. He concluded by stating that we must look at specific groups to ensure that they are part of the 215 century phenomenon. Councillor Zondervan thanked Dr. Viswanath for his comments and participation in the hearing. Councillor Zondervan explained that Trevor Jones from Otelco Corporation was unable to participate in the hearing and stated that he would give an overview of Mr. Jones' PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT 25).

Mr. Tannenbaum said that the Broadband Task Force discussed many of these options and the framework they came to is that the purist solution was that the City pay for the network and recouping the cost through subscription model. He said that their view was that they did not know how much the premises network would cost and the right way to approach it would it was to be cognizant of money saving models. He said that the end point is to figure the cost and then figure out a business and financing model. He said that he thinks that building out and then having an open access network with a company operating it is an attractive model. He said that most cities do not have the financial stability that Cambridge has. Councillor Zondervan asserted that the main idea of Mr. Jones' approaches is to see the possibilities. Ms. Peterson introduced Steve Lenkauskas, Lee Gianetti, Chair of the Broadband Task Force, Mary Hart, and Mike Dugas. She said that talking about digital equity and access is important. She acknowledged that the Broadband Task Force did a lot of good work with an amazing group of people. She said that there was not agreement by the city to move forward on what it will take to build a municipal network. She noted that the cost was very high. She explained that the City Manager does not want there to be any misunderstanding. She said that Mr. DePasquale does not want to put out scope of services if he thinks that financially it is not in the best interest of the city to build a municipal network. She affirmed that the City Manager is very interested in digital equity. She said that the City Manager is very interested in moving forward to figure out what is a better plan to provide better access to the internet for people who do not currently have it available to them. She noted that this may be an incremental approach. Lee Gianetti thanked the presenters. He said that during the time 2014-2016 when the Broadband Task Force was engaged in its' work, the rewarding part was the interactions at the meetings. He said that it was a learning lesson when people disagreed. He said that the goal is to ensure that people have access to reliable and affordable internet. He urged people to read the Tilson Report and the Broadband Task Force recommendations. He explained that in 2014, former City Manager Richard Rossi appointed the task force and after they presented their findings, a new City Manager was named. He said that Mr. DePasquale does not have interest in Cambridge financing a municipal broadband system. He said that there are a number of vendors who are interested in getting into the Cambridge market to build an internet system in Cambridge. He said that they have spoken to consultants who focus on digital equity so the city can build upon the work of the Tilson Report. He said that there have been discussions with Seattle as it relates to their focusing on digital equity. He said that the Tilson Report gives a solid foundation of understanding of what it would take to build a municipal network in Cambridge. He said that one comment that has stuck in his mind is that we do not have a technological

problem, we have a goal problem. He said that the goals of the task force will help in the next steps. He said that it is important to partner with the public to ensure that we continue to move forward together. Mary Hart stated that the WIPI in the city currently is in public meeting locations throughout the city. She said that there was an experiment in 2007 to see if it would be possible to roll out WIFI citywide, but technically it was not feasible. She said that the city did keep the installation at Newtowne Court up until last year. She noted that the city is working to replace access in Newtowne Court. She said that there are no plans to expand this service but the cily will continue to maintain and improve the service itself. She said that just last month, Comcast connections were discontinued at Newtowne Court. Councillor Zondervan said that he would like to talk aboul the Manning Apartments. He said they are actively being renovated and that during a tour that he attended it was mentioned to him that the building has ethernet throughout and the City's fiber network runs into the basement of the building but these two are not connected. He said that he has heard that there are companies that could provide ISP services and he asked about the possibility of having a private company provide internet service in the Manning using the City's fiber network as the backbone and the building's wiring to provide the service to the individual residents. Ms. Peterson said that in terms of being able to provide fiber to some public housing developments, it is not a technology issue, it is a policy issue. She said that the CHA has some buildings that is internet service ready if they could connect to a fiber connection. She noted that the right agreements must be worked out. Mr. Gianetti said that they had some meetings with the CHA to talk through this sort of option. He said that there would be six properties that would have brand new wiring and ethernet cable in every apartment. He noted that the biggest challenges would be who people would call with problems, how is it going to work, and who is paying for the service agreements. He added that another challenge is how to start dealing with the wireless access and is that a good enough service. Mr. Tannenbaur said that he recalls that the issue with WIFI in Newtowne Court was that the access point showed up in residents' apartments without any introduction. He said that they did not have a good understanding of what it was. He said that is why the Broadband Task Force emphasized outreach. He said that there is no way to shortcut outreach. He said human service agencies and non-profits need to help with suspicion. Councillor Zondervan said that he is not hearing the reason why the city cannot put out a bid and get vendors to be the service provider that bridges the ethernet and the City's

fiber. Ms. Peterson responded that that the city is not in this type of business. She said that it is an individual household's responsibility and not a business that the city has been in, in terms of providing internet service and access to a household. Ms. Peterson said that talking about using the City's fiber it is one thing but if we are talking about being able to use internet in a household, that is a different level of service. Mr. Lenkauskas said that a company can bring fiber to a building but the question is where to pass that fiber off to feed the building. Councillor Zondervan said that the whole idea is that the city has fiber optic running into a building and they could be the service provider to the residents. He said that the city would just be giving permission to connect to the fiberoptic. Mike Dugas said that by adding unknown internet, it would be a security risk to mix with the City's fiber or data network. He said that there would need to be separation between networks. He said that if there is fiber, it is locked and secure. Councillor Zondervan said that provided that there is fiber running into the building, there are conduits where additional fiber could be run. Mr. Dugas said conceptually, yes. He said that there are about 350 wireless access points in the city. He said that since that building is not city- owned, we do not pull fiber to these buildings. Councillor Zondervan said that perhaps there are city operated conduits and there may be ways to break the distance. He explained that he is trying to understand if this is impossible or just difficult. Councillor Zondervan asked what are the obstacles in this concrete situation to bridge this divide. Ms. Peterson responded that there are a number of issues around security. She said that it is a matter of the policies and cost implications and who is paying for what. She said that this needs to be built in the most secure way with protocols around use. She added that there are policy implications that need to be discussed but concluded that technically, bringing fiber into the building could be done. Councillor Kelley said that we all want to get to the same place but we are not sharing information about efforts sufficiently. He said that it is fair to say that people who have been paying attention to this may feel that this discussion is stalled and going nowhere. He said that he would love to know that the discussion is going someplace. Councillor Siddiqui said that she is hearing that there is a lot to figure out when talking about people living in public housing and low-income housing. She said that we must be clear to everyone that we do have a commitment and the City Council wants to figure it out. She said that it is incumbent to close the digital divide. She said that she is confused about the priority. She said that she has concerns about goals and how to reach them. Councillor Zondervan said that one way to get to any level of commitment is to understand how much is currently spent on closing the digital gap. He asked what level

of funding is being applied to the problem and what would the city be comfortable with to try to make progress on policy and practical questions that are being faced. Ms. Peterson responded that it would be important to hear from the City Council exactly what the goal is. She said that if the goal is digital equity, the City Manager will move on developing a path forward. She noted that there has been a stall in terms of the recommendation from the Broadband Task Force and the transition in the administration as well as trying to understand what would be the goals moving forward. She said that it is difficult to determine how much money has been spent on the digital divide. Councillor Kelley said that he thought that the City Council was clear that they wanted a broader range of outreach to give people the ability to grab internet access where they live. He said that being connected is something that people need when they need it. He said that he gets the feeling that the city has stalled or paused on how much money will be spent on the digital divide. He said that he feels that the City Council's focus is the provision of fast internet access that people can afford. Councilior Zondervan said that the School Department provided Chromebooks to all incoming freshmen this year and they will be provided to all students in the high school next year. He said that Chromebooks are useless without an internet connection. He said That not all the people who need access live in public housing. He noted the need to coordinate efforts so there are solutions to ensuring that students have connectivity. He said that it would be useful if there were some sense of cost accounting and estimate of what we are spending on the solution and what we are getting for that spending. Councillor Zondervan added that it would be great if people could borrow computers with internet access from the library to extend digital access to all who need it in a fair and equitable manner. Public comment began at 5:29 p.m. Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, thanked the members of the Broadband Task Force. She thanked Dr. Viswanath for his research. She said that the conversations need to be around the idea that all people need internet, no matter where they live in the city. She said that there needs to be a broad system that services people where they are. She begged the community residents who understand technological issues and the city administration to move on from the notion that we cannot do this. She said that we can. She said that she would like publicly-owned system. Christopher Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT #26) regarding the fact that all residents need reliable, in-home internet access to bridge the digital divide. He said that almost 80% of household spend 15% of their income on internet. He said that reliable access is a critical access of the

internet in the modern age. He said that brining internet to CHA properties will not solve the digital divide. He said that the most effective long-term solution is to break the Comcast monopoly and create a citywide network. Theresa Cardosi, 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, said that she does not know any public housing that has internet except two senior facilities. She said that timing is a big part of getting internet. She noted that it is difficult to just go to public places. She said that if a person is at home, a person can access the internet. She said that all places, not just public housing, need digital access. She said that when applying for jobs, the applications are on-line. She said that it is difficult to schedule the visit to a public building. She said that it is important for Cambridge to put some money toward the digital divide. She said that it is not fair that people that can pay for it end up getting an upper hand because those without internet do not have equal opportunity. Glenna Wyman, 25 Eighth Street, Truman Apartments, stated that she was speaking on behalf of Bill Cunningham who is a longtime resident of Newtowne Court. She said that Mr. Cunningham was unable to testify at this hearing. Mr. Cunningham said that there was a tenant council meeting at Newtowne Court and it was problematic for people to get access. She said that she pays her Verizon bill and it is quite high. She said that in her building, if you have a laptop you can go to the Community Room to access internet as you cannot access the internet from the sixth floor and above. She said that there is no privacy in the Community Room. Koy Kussell, 40 Cottage Street, spoke on behalt of Upgrade Cambridge. He read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT 27) stating that a city-owned network that provides reliable high-speed internet service to all of Cambridge, regardless of the ability to pay, is necessary to address digital equity as well as provide Cambridge with a 215t century competitive advantage. He said that he appreciates Ms. Peterson's comment about providing quality access into people's homes. He said that there is frustration with Comcast. He said that he pays the lowest available amount for internet service and his friends in Somerville get better service for less than one-third of what he is paying in Cambridge. On a motion by Councillor Zondervan to close Public Comment, the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, and Councillor Zondervan -3 ABSENT: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toomey -2

and the motion - Carried. Councillor Siddiqui said that she looks forward to working on a clear policy for the future. Councillor Zondervan stated that it is the responsibility of the City Council to set a clear policy direction moving forward. Lisa Peterson stated that she looks forward to further defining the path forward. Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance. On a motion by Councillor Zondervan to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, and Councillor Zondervan ABSENT: -2 Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toomey and the motion - Carried. The hearing adjourned at 5:57 p.m. For the Committee, Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

Atachment / Call of the Meeting The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing to gain a better understanding of the extent of the City's digital divide and to explore possible ways to increase digital access, including the Cambridge Broadband Task Force recommendations and Tilson Report (options 1, 2, and 3) and any other suggestions made in POR 2018 #38 from the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Remarks Remarks from Saul Tannenbaum, Cambridge Broadband Task Force member, resident Presentation Presentation from Dr. K. "Vish" Viswanath, Professor of Health Communication at the Harvard School of Public Health presenting his research Presentation Presentation from Trevor Jones, Vice President of Sales at OTELCO Updates from City Staff City Manager's Office, Department of Public Works, Electrical Department Any available data on uptake of Comcast's Internet Essentials offering Plans for expanding free WiFi hotspots throughout the city Potential for wireless broadband options and their ability to help low income residents The status and operational health of the WiFi system installed by the city in Newtowne Court in 2007 Planned course of action based on the Cambridge Broadband Task Force recommendations and Tilson Report options 1, 2 and 3 Future actions to be taken which will improve digital access throughout the city and ensure that every Cantabrigian has internet access that is affordable, reliable, and secure. Public Comment Discussion Adjournment

Attachment 2 Crane, Paula From: Carmel Shachar < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 11:21 AM To: Crane, Paula Municipal Internet Service Subject: Hello, I am a longtime resident of Cambridge, currently living at 30 Bigelow St in Central square. I would like to voice my wholehearted support for municipal internet services in Cambridge. The service that Comcast has provided during my decade of living in Cambridge has been abysmal. Very frequently the service cuts out and takes a long time to be restored. The speed of the internet often appears to be throttled. It is very expensive for a sub-standard service. As one of the nation's hubs of innovation, it is embarrassing that Cambridge has such poor internet service. A lot of these issues stem from the monopoly that Comcast has over Cambridge internet Furthermore, with the repeal of the FT's requirements for net neutrality I am concerned about the service that Comcast will provide moving forward. The internet is a tool of innovation because it provides equal access to big corporations and small start ups. A municipal internet service committed to net neutrality is an important tool for protecting the ability of start ups, such as the ones that contribute greatiy to the Cambridge community, to continue to innovation. Please support municipal internet service in Cambridge. Best, Carmel Shachar [email removed] 30 Bigelow St Cambridge, MA

Attachment 3 Crane, Paula From: Kathy Watkins < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:49 PM City Council To: Crane, Paula Cc: Subject: Support Municipal Broadband Dear City Councilors, I am unable to attend today's hearing on municipal broadband but | want to express my strong support. I can barely afford internet service in my apartment and when my discounted introductory period runs out on my current plan, may not have it at all. I have mobile Section 8 voucher and would not be covered if the city creates a piecemeal plan and only installs broadband internet in public housing. I do not live close to a Cambridge library. There are many people in Cambridge who are unable to afford broadband internet and cannot access the many services and sources of information that are only available on the internet. To reach low-income people you usually send U.S. Postal mail. I know this from my many years working with the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants. If you live in a large building in Cambridge, you know that mail is not even delivered every day by the US Postal Service and when it is, important first class mail is often left on counters and floors of mail rooms and entry ways and does not even make it into the residents' boxes. There are so many reasons Cambridge needs broadband internet. Eventually it would pay for itself. It would help small businesses struggling to stay here as well. Comcast has a stranglehold on our city. Even in places where there are more than one major provider, prices do not go down. I had to abandon cable television years ago and if I had a fast enough internet service, I would not miss it as much. The promised speeds offered by Comcast and Verizon are not delivered. We have lots of services for children and families which is terrific. Please fund broadband as something that would benefit everyone. Sincerely, Kathy Watkins 90 Fawcett St Apt 511 Cambridge, MA 02138

Attachment 4 Crane, Paula From: Joshua Reyes < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:14 PM To: Crane, Pauia Subject: Public Comment for Neighborhood and Long-term Planning meeting Dear City Clerk Crane, My name is Joshua Reyes. I live at 35 Lee Street #3. Please include these notes in the public comments for the upcoming meeting of the the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee, tomorrow, Thursday, March 22, 2018. I encourage the City to embark on a municipal broadband feasibility study. I am a software engineer who lives and works in Cambridge. I rely on access to the internet for my livelihood. Without easy, reliable access to the internet I cannot do my job, and the company I work at would not exist. I would not be able to communicate as easily with my friends and family. I use the internet to keep up on the news, pay my bills, buy things, and relax at home with a movie. The internet is how 1 know when the Veterans Memorial Swimming Pool is open. The internet is how I renew books at the Cambridge Public Library. The internet is how I submit public comments to the City Council. Access to the internet should be considered a utility and treated as such. The current Comcast monopoly has me by the throat. Comcast increases its cost for personal internet service without warning, and as a consumer, I have no choice but to accept it. My current monthly internet bill has crept up over the years to about the same level as my condo association fees. Meanwhile, I look to my friends who live a stone's throw away in Somerville, where there is no monopoly, who pay a full third of what I pay for faster and more reliable internet service. Because there is no competition, I have no recourse whatsoever to price increases or policy changes. Because Comcast has a monopoly on a vital utlity service, it has no incentive whatsoever to improve its customer service--which is frustrating at best, but more often inhumane. As a consumer l am powerless to protest its service policies. It makes financial sense for Comcast to violate net neutrality principles, snoop on my usage, and sell private, intimidate details of how l use the internet to companies who are willing to pay. I would like the City to do something to enforce net neutrality. If enforcement is not an option, I would like Cambridge to explore ways to provide a municipal option dedicated to net neutrality principles and personal privacy. And I consider myself lucky to suffer abuse by Comcast. If I were not able to afford the level of service that I currently purchase, I would not be able to do my job as a software engineer. Having fast access to the internet gives me an advantage over those who do not. Low-income families who cannot afford reliable, high-speed internet are at a further disadvantage. Everyone in Cambridge should be able to use the internet at home to do their homework, to look for jobs, and to use resources job training, not just the ones who are capable of paying Comcast for top-tier service. Cambridge has long been a leader in technology. Cambridge has long been in a leader in civil rights. The digital divide is a matter of both. Here is another opportunity for Cambridge to lead the way. 1

As a resident, I would be happy to pay the same prices I currently pay to Comcast to the City directly if it meant bridging the digital divide for all of our citizens and having a provider that adheres to net neutrality. I urge the City Council to consider internet service as a utility and pursue a municipal broadband feasibility study. Thank you very much, Joshua A Reyes 35 Lee Street, Apt 3 Cambridge, MA 02139 2

Alachment 5 Crane, Paula From: Morewedge, Carey <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:14 PM To: Crane, Paula Subject: Internet in Cambridge Dear Cambridge City Council, I am writing as a resident of Cambridge to express my general frustration with the available options for internet providers in our lovely city. At present, due to my geographic location (22 Lilac Court), the only high-speed internet provider available to me is Comcast. They repeatedly experience outages and do not provide service at the speed levels for which they charge. Furthermore, given the lack of price competition, they charge egregious rates. I was paying more than $300 per month for a fairly basic internet and television package until I spent more than an hour complaining to their customer service department. I implore you to open Cambridge to competition and end the (near) monopoly that Comcast has on our fair city. Your constituent, Carey Morewedge 22 Lilac Ct. Cambridge, MA 02141 1

Attachment 6 Crane, Paula From: Alexis Krumme < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 8:43 PM Crane, Paula To: Municipal internet service Subject: Dear city clerk, I am a Cambridge resident concerned about the monopoly Comcast has on our internet service in Cambridge. I have paid exorbitant fees for poor service and worse customer service. I encourage the council to consider municipal internet service as an alternative for all Cambridge residents. Thank you for your service to our community and your consideration of my email. Best, Alexis Krumme

Attachment 7f Crane, Paula From: Charles Franklin < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:28 AM Clerk To: Subject: Comments for Planning Meeting Dear City Clerk Lopez, My name is Charles Franklin. I live at 162 Hampshire St Apt IR. Please include these in the public comments for the upcoming meeting of the the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee, tomorrow, Thursday, March 22, 2018. I am fully in support of a municipal broadband system. I'll keep my comments short. We need municipal broadband because: • The internet has become a necessary part of life in this country • The Comcast monopoly allows them to charge high prices for poor service • The federal government isn't protecting net neutrality, so we should • Comcast won't protect our privacy • Low income families have less access to quality internet needed for daily life • The wifi hot spots installed in the low income housing are woefully inadequate

Attachment 8 Crane, Paula From: Emily Mackevicius <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:55 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: municipal internet service Hello, I'm a Cambridge citizen and wanted to email you in support of municipal internet service! It'd be great to have a better option than Comcast, which is expensive and difficult to deal with. Please look into and consider the option of municipal internet! Thanks, Emily M. 1

Attachment y Crane, Paula From: Jay Wasserman < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:10 AM To: Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim Crane, Paula Cc: Subject: Public comment for Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning committe Councillors, I am unable to make this meeting, but wish to comment about the digital divide and solutions. I've been following the Upgrade Cambridge team and strongly agree with their approach to this: the city should strongly consider it's own fiber connections for it's citizens. It's becoming more and more clear that internet is a necessary utility and given the state of the poor regulation of the providers providing fiber is necessary. The internet is no longer just for "fun": everything for bills, to work, to education require it. On the final point I should note CRLS now gives all freshmen chromebooks that require internet to work: and much of my son's work is submitted by the internet. It would not surprise me if this continues to the lower grades over time. The current utility provides are poor at best. I could put out the obvious issues: poor service and high prices. But should also note less know, like the mandated inexpensive services for those under the poverty line: these services are purposely hidden, and given to large barriers to entry for those who desperately need them. This has been reported about many times. A final comment about the trustworthiness of the utility provides: I remember lots of state/federal tax breaks in the late 90s/early 2000s for laying fiber to advance the state with an end goal of end to end fiber. As we can see that money has gone down a hole. The city should look into it's own service: if for no other reason competition can help. For a few years I had moved out of the city to rare town that had both fios and xinity: I had both good service and low prices. Moving back, I've forgotten how often xfinity service goes down. Regards, Jay Wasserman 34 Second Street

Attachment 1o Crane, Paula From: Joseph Olson < joseph. [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:44 AM To: Crane, Paula Subject: I want to complain about the internet Dear Mr. Crane, I represent a household of 12. We all are packed into small living spaces (sharing beds, sleeping on floors, etc.) because we are broke millennial PhD students at Harvard and MIT. We feel we pay way to much for out Comcast internet compared to our colleagues in Somerville. This is absurd! Why is Cambridge, MA of all places an ISP desert?? This is unacceptable not only for us privileged students but even more so for the low income population - increasing inequality in our diverse community. We implore that you take steps to increase affordable access to what use to be a public good. Much Love, Joe

Attachment 1/ Crane, Paula From: Jacob Beizer < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:54 AM Zondervan, Quinton To: Crane, Paula Cc: Subject: Municipal Broadband in Cambridge Hi Councilor Zondervan, My name is Jacob Beizer and I'm a resident of Dudley Street in North Cambridge. I wanted to write you in advance of the public hearing today on internet access and the digital divide. I won't be able to make it to the hearing but would like to add my voice to the chorus of people calling for a municipal broadband network in Cambridge. I've lived in Cambridge for 3 years with my girlfriend and we are fed up with the poor service and connection provided by Comcast. It frustrates me how limited our options are, and that Comcast doesn't put any effort into improving broadband service in our city. I think it's appalling that internet access is treated as a privilege in Cambridge rather than something that is a basic need. My girlfriend and l are privileged to be able to afford Comcast's service, as poor as it might be, but there are quite a few residents who cannot afford it. That is not just. Cambridge prides itself on being a progressive, inclusive city - nearly every city council candidate campaigned using those words. But the city council, and by extension the city manager, have not lived up to the label of progressive or inclusive when it comes to internet access. I recognize the challenge that building a municipal broadband network would pose, as well as the expense. But I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. --Jacob Beizer [phone removed] [email removed]

Attechment 12 Crane, Paula Harry Reyes Nieva < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:59 AM To: Crane, Paula Public Comment for Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Subject: Celebrations Committee Meeting Dear City Clerk Crane, My name is Harry Reyes. I live at 14 Holden St. Please include these notes in the public comments for today's meeting of the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee. I encourage the City to embark on a municipal broadband feasibility study. I am a postgraduate research fellow at Harvard University and live in Cambridge. Given the substantial and ever growing importance of the internet in our daily lives, access to the internet should be considered a utility and treated as such. The idea is simple. Internet access should be considered a human right, and a local utility similar to electricity. It does not make sense for multiple internet providers to lay fiber in the ground, any more than multiple power utilities should construct their own grid. Cities can construct the core infrastructure, and using an open access model, internet service providers can lease bandwidth for their own customers. The idea is hardly novel. Currently, 172 cities have near-comprehensive municipal broadband solutions for its citizens according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), which comprehensively tracks municipal network data. Hundreds more communities have at least some publiciy-owned broadband infrastructure. Comcast is currently a monopoly in Cambridge. As such, Comcast can increase its fees for personal internet service without warning, and as a consumer, I have no choice but to accept any changes. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Somerville, where there is no monopoly, pay a full third of what I pay for faster and more reliable internet service. Because there is no competition, I have no recourse whatsoever to price increases or policy changes. Moreover, because I can afford the level of service that I currently purchase, access to the internet gives me an advantage over low-income families who cannot afford reliable, high-speed internet. Comcast's pricing behavior exacerbates a digital divide that has deleterious effects on low- income families. Everyone in Cambridge should be able to use the internet at home to do their homework, to look for jobs, to use resources for job training, and to engage with their government representatives, not just the ones who are capable of paying Comcast for "top-tier" service. Cambridge has long been a leader in technology. Cambridge has long been in a leader in civil rights. The digital divide is a matter of both. Here is another opportunity for Cambridge to lead the way. As a resident, i would be happy to pay the City directly if it meant bridging the digital divide for all of our citizens and having a provider that adheres to net neutrality. I urge the City Council to consider internet service as a utility and pursue a municipal broadband feasibility study. Thank you very much, 1

Harry Reyes 14 Holden St Cambridge, MA 02138

Attachment 13 Crane, Paula From: Kathy Holmes <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:29 PM To: Crane, Paula Internet access for all Subject: Dear Ms Crane, Today is the city council hearing on city-wide broadband for all Cambridge residents. I urge you to support this effort and share my opinion with council members and staff. Internet access is no longer an option. Children in school need it for completing their assignments, parents need it for child-rearing advice, and adults need it for job hunting, among many other uses. Many people can't afford the relatively high cost of internet access through Comcast. Please do everything you can to support this effort. Kathy Holmes @->- Kathy Holmes 141 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA

Attechment 14 Crane, Paula From: Solomon Steen < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:08 PM To: Crane, Paula; City Council Cc: Devereux, Jan; Dan Totten; Hirschi, Anna Lee Subject: Public Comment: Public Hearing on Digital Access: Support Municipal Broadband Mayor, Vice Mayor, & Councilors: I am writing in support of municipal broadband as a remedy for inequities in digital access in Cambridge. The current provisioning of internet services through private firms has failed to produce the kind of competitive market necessary to offer consumers affordable choices or quality service. Given this market failure, it is necessary for the city to intervene and provide indispensable services to your constituents. Municipal broadband is the best solution to ensure low-income residents are able to access affordable internet. As a former local mail carrier, I have visited the homes of the elderly and public housing residents. While the public accommodations of the Cambridge Public Library branches may be accessible for younger residents, even a thirty minute walk can render access prohibitively difficult for those with mobility impairments; the routine failure to clear sidewalks means that access to reliable internet can be seasonaily contingent for older and disabled residents. Other residents rely on internet services to pay their bills in a timely fashion; failure to do so can result in onerous fees and fines, which may otherwise be avoided if they had a reliable means to transmit their payments. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you will move forward with considering municipal broadband for Cambridge. BR, Solomon Steen 295 Windsor St. Apt 8 Cambridge, MA 02139

Atlachment 15 Crane, Paula Susan Stockard <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:43 PM Zondervan, Quinton To: Crane, Paula Cc: Municipal Broadband Subject: Dear Mr. Zondervan and Ms. Crane, I am writing to voice my strong support and desire for Municipal Broadband. I find it very troubling that Cambridge has only one option, through Comcast's monopoly, for broadband service. Even more troubling is the inequity for low income families. Please help make this happen! Sincerely yours, Susan Stockard 141 Oxford Street Cambridge, MA

Attachment lo Crane, Paula From: Karen Morris <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:53 PM Zondervan, Quinton To: Crane, Paula Cc: Subject: Hearing today on digital equity Councillor Zondervan, I am writing because I feel passionately about breaking the Comcast monopoly for internet service in Cambridge. I finally found an apartment and moved back to Cambridge 5 years ago after raising my kids in Belmont for 15 years. Imagine my shock when I called my long-time Belmont provider Verizon Fios wanting to change my address and get installation in Cambridge, and learned that they do not provide any service in Cambridge, and that, in fact, I have NO good options for internet service. I work from home doing bookkeeping and grants management as l have since 2001, so it's very important that I have reliable internet. Comcast does not provide that. After starting out with the Comcast Triple Play' (or whatever ridiculous name they give it) nearly 5 years ago, I have now trimmed back my service to internet only, just the minimum involvement I can possibly have with this terrible company. I've been going to the municipal broadband meetings at City Hall for several years, mostly as an interested observer. This week I attended the meeting at the Central Square library on Tues. 3/20. The more | learn about it, the more seriously concerned I am about the need for digital equity in our city and in our schools. Internet service should be considered a utility; we really cannot function without it in the modern age. And there's a shocking number of low- income families who do not have any internet service in their homes (50% of the poorer families). How do we expect these bright kids to excel, stay connected to their teachers & fellow students, and do required research, without fast and reliable internet access? I would expect Cambridge to be a national leader in providing municipal broadband. After all, the internet was invented in Cambridge!! Instead, we have cities and towns such as Chattanooga and Chicopee putting us to shame. Why are we allowing that to be the case in this most wonderful city? Sincerely, Karen Morris 141 Oxford St.

Attachment 17 Crane, Paula Craig Goodman < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 3:02 PM Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim To: Crane, Paula Cc: Subject: Upgrade Cambridge Hello Counciliors, I just wanted to write to express my support for Upgrade Cambridge and the effort for city-wide high speed network. beget upstar the pherd covery one true ption arinernet in Cambridge. For the past years have written to and My family pays $40/month for "get what you get" internet speed. What I mean by that is that our speed slows down so much on weeknights that we've resigned to not being able to stream anything. Thanks for your time, Craig Goodman 469 Windsor St #3

Attachment 18 Crane, Paula From: Sarah D. Lee <[email removed]> Sent: To: Subject: Dear Quinton and Paula: Please help to develop the Cambridge Broadband movement. It's so necessary for families that don't have internet access except at the library. Sarah Lee 141 Oxford St. Cambridge, MA 02140

Attachment 19 Crane, Paula Eugene Baker <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:00 PM To: Zondervan, Quinton Crane, Paula Cc: Cambridge broadband Subject: I would like to add my voice to Cambridge having a municipal broadband network. As seen in the news of late one can see that major corporation do not have their customers best interest at heart. They are only in for the money they can make by selling your information. The city would not be in it for the money. It would be another city service that I hope would respond better to the citizens of the Cambridge than a major corporation. Regards, Eugene Baker

Attachment 20 Crane, Paula Rena Leib <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:25 PM To: Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim; McGovern, Marc; Devereux, Jan; Kelley, Craig; Mallon, Alanna Crane, Paula Cc: In support of Municipal Broadband Subject: Dear City Councillors, I attended the hearing today on Municipal Broadband and wanted to add my support of the city moving forward with it. As was said by many at the hearing, the disparities of access are great and in an era that is so dependent on good, affordable internet access, it is something that Cambridge should invest in. Comcast provides poor service at a very high cost. Net neutrality is not being protected. Instead of the current system, Cambridge could be a leader in building a better, more affordable, and safer internet access for all its citizens. Please support taking the next steps to create municipal broadband in our city. Thank you, Rena Leib 10 Arnold Circle Cambridge 02139

Attachment 21 Councillor Zundervan Opening Remaeks Many people think of this issue only in terms of municipal broadband, but this hearing is specifically about inequity in digital access; municipal broadband is one possible solution, but it's not the only one. Municipal broadband is an expensive and complex solution, and this is an urgent problem, so it is very important that we consider all possibilities to bridge the digital divide. I came to the US as a 15 year old immigrant, and learned to program computers, which became my ticket to access the digital economy. I can't believe we are still struggling to provide similar opportunities 30 years later, but we are: Today I met with two immigrant brothers who recently graduated from CRLS. They couldn't be here in person because they are embarrassed about their situation. Didn't have internet at home throughout their school years, and are struggling with internet access now in college and in the workforce. They will have to cancel their internet for a while, because the older one lost his job and can't afford Comcast while he searches for a new job. All week we had trouble reaching them because their access to internet and phone service is intermittent. In high school, they found a way to keep it all together with support from friends, family, and did their homework at the library and a local non-profit that was very helpful to them. They reflect that they would have done better as students if they'd had internet access at home. Often they would fail to complete or turn in homework assignments because they couldn't finish it before the library closed or because their mother wanted them to come home from the nonprofit because it was late at night. They can't afford to live in Cambridge, of course, but they come back here regularly to access public wifi. My kids told me about fellow students experiencing similar struggles. Problem goes beyond our students and affects young adults, families, elderly and disabled, really everyone! So this is not an abstract problem, it is a very real challenge for very real people in our community, and it severely limits their access to education, to economic opportunity, to better health, and to the many great services this city provides to its residents. I hope this hearing will be the beginning of a new chapter in the long history of digital inequity in our city. The internet in the 21st century is the equivalent of the telephone system in the 20th century or the telegraph in the 19th. It has become an essential component of how we live, especially in a dense urban setting like Cambridge. Those who have access to it are able to leverage it to better their lives. Those who don't have access, or who have poor, intermittent access get left behind. We need to make it our goal to provide every Cambridge resident with an internet connection in their home that is affordable, reliable, secure, and fast.

Attachment 22 Saul Tannenbaum Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Testimony to City Council Thank you, Councillor Zondervan for this opportunity to speak Disclaimer: These are personal remarks and I speak only for myself Digital Divide - Cambridge has a digital divide problem. We are above the US average in terms of broadband adoption (88% to 75%). Effectively every wealthy household in Cambridge has broadband. Among low income households, it's roughly 50%. - 2006, The City, in partnership with MIT, installed wireless access points throughout Newtowne Court housing project as a pilot project - November of 2006, in response to a Council Order requesting that the City help bridge the digital divide, the City Manager appointed a Digital Divide Committee which included members from City Council, School Committee, City human services and technology agencies, the Housing Authority, CCTV and community agencies. - Separate project to provide computers and support to 35 families - Established Cambridge's leadership in digital divide issues - Assessments of both the wifi program and computer support programs were done - Wifi service was not ended when the pilot ended, no support for longer term wifi support or maintenance, yet residents grew dependent on it - City replaced WiFi hardware a few years later, in response to residents complaints - Winter 2013/2014, volunteers from the Digital Divide Committee, which was still meeting despite no formal city sponsorship, fixed what they could of the wifi system, which meant replacing outdoor cables - 2017 Envision Cambridge, with the goal of giving all Cambridge residents access to its economy, doesn't even see the digital divide as an issue Broadband Task Force - 2014 was what we used to think of as a bad year for a free and open internet • Courts overturned net neutrality 1

Wednesday, March 21, 2018 • Our recommendation was to do the outreach, discover the actual problem people have, and develop a solution - "Medium build" a dark fiber network and have commercial companies finish it • Tilson didn't really believe in this solution, as they recommended finding a company to complete before Cambridge started • We viewed this as a subsidy and felt if Cambridge were to do that, it should just write a check - "Large build" - a fiber-to-all premises network - Even the municipal broadband advocates on the Task Force felt this premature - We had not gone through the community conversation necessary for this commitment - We had not done a detailed financial analysis - We recommended the financial feasibility be done, as well as broad community outreach, all designed to put the Manager and Council in a position to make a fully informed decision • Personally disappointed to hear, second hand, these recommendations were viewed as something other than good faith efforts to allow the city to make a civicly responsible decision Today - Now we really know what a bad day for a free and open internet is • FCC has abdicated all regulatory authority • Killed network neutrality • Killed privacy protections prohibiting ISPs from monetizing our internet usage data • Dismantling "Lifeline" subsidies for low income families • "When commercial providers don't step up to serve a community's needs, we should embrace the great American tradition of citizens stepping up to take action collectively." - Tom Wheeler 3

Wednesday, March 21, 2018 • To that, I would add that when our federal government fails to protect our interests, we turn to our local government, and expect it to fill that gap • Cambridge needs to fill that gap. 4

Saul Tannenbaum [email removed] blog: saultannenbaum.org Read CambridgeHappenings.org, a daily Cambridge news summary, curated from fresh, local sources.

2016 $75,000 or more $50,000 to $74,999 Saul Tannenbaum, February 11, 2018 2015 $35,000 to $49,999 2013-2016 2014 $20,000 to $34,999 Source: US Census American Community Survey $10,000 to $19,999 2013 Percent of Cambridge Households With Broadband Subscription By Household Income Less than $10,000 0% 50% 25% 75% 100%

Attachment 23 This document contains a summary of the Cambridge Broadband Task Force Phase 1 Recommendations, as well as an executive summary of the Municipal Broadband Study conducted by Tilson for the City of Cambridge. For the full text of the Tilson Report, please visit the following link and click on "documents", then "Broadband Task Force Recommendations and Tilson Report 92216": https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/citymanagersoffice/broadbandtaskforce

To: Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, City of Cambridge From: The Cambridge Broadband Task Force Date: August 3, 2016 Subject: Phase 1 Conclusion and Recommendations In October 2014, you appointed us to the Cambridge Broadband Task Force to examine "options to increase competition, reduce pricing, and improve speed, reliability, and customer service for both residents and businesses" for broadband service in Cambridge. Since then, we've met with City staff and expert consultants hired by the City, reviewed case studies of other broadband efforts, conducted two public outreach meetings, and conducted a survey of resident opinions. Some of us have attended industry conferences and local events regarding broadband. We've discussed a wide range of options, various public/private partnerships, business models, and alternatives to a city-wide fiber optic broadband network. As this phase of study comes to a close, some members have concluded that the best way forward is through a City-owned municipal broadband system, believing it to be the only way the City can be sure of meeting its objectives. Others believe that there are a range of other solutions that could result in achieving a similar end but with less cost and risk to the City. There are two items, however, about which we are unanimous: • We disagree with the recommendation of the consultant, Tilson, to build a dark fiber network as a way to provide incentives for some corporate entity to finish it. In addition, the option that provides fiber solely to Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) locations is not accepted by the Task Force. • Because the scope of the Tilson study was so broad, it wasn't as detailed as it might otherwise have been. If the City is to contemplate a capital expenditure of as much as $187,000,000, (Tilson's rough cost estimate for a city-wide broadband system), it needs more details and assurances than this process has been able to provide. We recommend that the City proceed to a next phase of planning, a Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study. We intend this phase to be highly focused, broadly inclusive to incorporate better community outreach, and to produce the best possible plan for municipal broadband in Cambridge. This plan should then be rigorously tested against economic realities. In this framework, we would expect to provide you with an appropriately useful analysis of the costs, benefits, and risks of a municipal broadband system so as to allow you to make a fully informed decision. Attached are our conclusions and recommendations, as well as the report from Tilson. We wish to thank you for appointing a Broadband Task Force to examine this important community issue and we look forward to Phase I of this process.

Submitted to the City Manager by the Cambridge Broadband Task Force BM ange Patrick McCormick Ben Campaine alke Ed Naef Susan Fleischmann sened Kharan One che o Jetrold stochow the fra line-Tai NO Jonathan Speise Leci James Lesie Saul Tannenbaum Chris Yu Page | 2 .......:

PHASE 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BROADBAND TASK FORCE Highlights Learned in Phase I Through Tilson's research, a randomized telephone survey, two community outreach sessions, attendance at conferences, and the discussion of the Task Force, we have learned: • About two-thirds of households surveyed felt that their internet service was of average or better value. Based on the survey, only 5% of City residents are frequent users of public Wi-Fi. Another 16% use it "occasionally." • More residents considered "reliability" of greater importance than the cost or the speed of the service. • Slightly more than half the respondents would be very or somewhat willing to pay more for taster service. • According to participants in our outreach efforts, business and institutional users in Cambridge generally have the service they need directly from third party vendors. There is no evidence that data service issues are causing them to either leave Cambridge or not locate in Cambridge. • Dozens of municipalities have implemented their own broadband service, often including cable TV. Hundreds of municipalities have government-owned networks of some kind, with many permutations of ownership and control. They range from totally municipally owned and operated systems to municipal ownership of the underlying fiber backbone with private ownership and control of actual premises connections and the provision of services. • Motivation for municipally-financed systems include the need to wire areas that private providers have neglected, to create better services in order to attract business to the area, and to offer services at lower prices than existing providers. • In the overwhelming number of cases where local government has been successful in creating a municipally-owned broadband entity, the municipality had already owned the electric utility, providing ready access to conduits as well as operating experience and efficiencies in financing, billing, and account management for the add-on broadband service. Goals and Objectives Affordability and Equity In 2015, the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Commission on Income Insecurity in Cambridge reported that the cost of internet was a major concern of residents who participated in its focus groups. Phase Il of planning must directly address digital equity and inclusiveness, seeking the advice of residents who have not adopted broadband in the home or who have, but find the expense burdensome. The next phase should also incorporate targeted outreach to, for example, low income communities, the school system, and Cambridge social service agencies. Cambridge, with its wealth of resources, can provide a model for how cities should deal with digital inclusiveness. Page | 3

Therefore, based on Phase I findings, a few questions arise: • How much would a municipal broadband build-out improve access to affordable broadband for residents and small businesses (with the term "affordable rates" defined for 100Mbs and 1Gbs service)? • How much would a municipal broadband build-out provide a better service at lower cost to all residents than the current levels of commercial service? • How much would a municipal broadband build-out ensure that access programs solve real problems experienced by low income households? Choice & Competition Based ол Phase I findings on the number of broadband providers in Cambridge: • What is the likely impact on broadband pricing for business and residential customers with municipal broadband as the new competitor? • What is the likelihood, and under what circumstance, might a private competitor enter the Cambridge market? Would that undermine, obviate, or reinforce the need for a municipally-financed system? Supporting Entrepreneurs & Small Businesses Based on Phase I findings on broadband availability and pricing in Cambridge: • What would be the level of improvement to access to >100Mbs broadband for entrepreneurs and small businesses? • What new opportunities might be afforded to entrepreneurs and small business by improved access to >100Mbs broadband? • How can enterprise quality broadband be assured to be available throughout Cambridge? Innovation & Excellence The Task Force recommends that Phase Il include broad outreach to the commercial, entrepreneurial, and institutional sectors of the Cambridge community. Institutions like Harvard and MIT have internal high speed networks and seek the highest speed connections for their worldwide research collaborations. We have a burgeoning biomedical industry that needs to move vast amounts of data for its business purposes. We also have a legion of entrepreneurs eager to find digital business opportunities. As Cambridge aims to be a global leader in health care, services for the elderly, smart cities applications, and city efficiency, high quality broadband is critical. Further investigation of these areas will be required in Phase il. Page | 4

How a robust municipal broadband infrastructure could help spur innovation and access to opportunity across Cambridge, as described in Tilson's Appendix G: Outreach Session #1 Issues and Recommendations needs to be explored. Local Control Based on the experience of communities currently running municipal broadband networks • What have been the observed benefits of local control? • What is the range of local control that might be realized under various business models, as all the way from city-owned and operated to city-financed but leased out to operators? Considerations for a Municipal Broadband Network in Cambridge Among the key potential benefits of a Cambridge-owned network would be, first, control over pricing and services and, second, the flexibility to make decisions based on social need rather than business needs. Those of us who support municipal broadband take note of the City's previous efforts to solve these problems. The City has applied for Google Fiber and invited telecommunications companies to build a network in Cambridge. We believe, as do many experts, that the nation is experiencing a widespread market failure in the telecommunications industry. We agree with President Barack Obama' who has called high speed municipal networks "good for business, communities, schools, even the marketplace because they promote efficiency and competition." We also agree with Federal Communication Commission Chair Tom Wheeler who said, "When commercial providers don't step up to serve a community's needs, we should embrace the great American tradition of citizens stepping up to take action collectively."2 The Tilson report documents some of the successful municipal broadband projects. Tilson has provided a rough cost estimate for building a full broadband network in Cambridge, placing it in the cost range of a new school, an investment in the community that the City makes routinely, albeit carefully. Building a fiber optic broadband network is a complex but well understood skill. if Cambridge were to undertake such a project, it would be selecting from among the same consultants and contractors as would the private sector. Cambridge's advantages are two. Because of its outstanding AAA credit rating, it has access to less expensive financing. And, when the build was over, Cambridge would own a network as an asset and be able to chart its own destiny. Although a city-funded broadband network has attractive attributes, the evidence suggests that it could be a high cost endeavor with substantial financial risks. 1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/14/remarks-president-promoting-community- broadband 2https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-332988A1.pdf Page | 5

The Tilson study included a telephone-based scientific survey of Cambridge households. Tilson's survey and surveys from the Census Bureau confirm that Cambridge has a considerably higher rate of household broadband connections than the national average. The Tilson report included a number of case studies of other municipalities that have built cable or broadband-only networks. Few, if any, are directly comparable to Cambridge. There are precious few cases of build-outs that are financially viable without ongoing subsidies. Many were built on top of existing municipally-owned electric utilities, which provide some economies of scale and scope. In most cases the motivation for municipal ownership was to wire homes and businesses that the private carrier had not, which does not apply in Cambridge. A common motivation found in the case studies was to create an infrastructure that would attract and retain businesses and institutions and, thereby, employment. Future technologies, such as 5G wireless, must be incorporated into the assumptions for municipal broadband. Any broadband system built today would be with fiber as both a backbone and to the premises, promising far greater bandwidth than current services. Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study: Questions that require answers Decision makers will need to know how a full municipal broadband build-out might enable the City of Cambridge to meet its goals for broadband, as laid out in Phase I. Phase Il should seek to provide this information by answering the following questions: • Building the network • What will be the full cost of building a full municipal network? Are there neighborhood-by-neighborhood variations in the cost profile considered in Tilson's report? • Can the construction of a network be phased so that each phase of work has its own value to Cambridge? • What's the best plan for funding a network build-out given Cambridge's general practices for capital expenditure? Operating the network • What's an appropriate legal structure for Cambridge to build and operate a broadband network? • How many Cambridge households and small businesses will sign up as customers? Will that projected "take rate" cover both operating and construction costs? • Is Cambridge willing to offer cable television and voice service bundles in order to acquire a significant number of customers? If so, what additional cost and complexity will that add the effort? Are there additional reasons/benefits for doing so? Page | 6

• Should Cambridge seek full cost recovery from a network "business" or is it prepared to use tax revenues to cover some of the costs? If so, how much of the costs? • How would the incumbent players, particulariy Comcast, respond to a competitive player? This could result in desirable changes such as accelerating system improvement or lowering prices. On the other hand, such results may undercut the economic assumptions underlying the take rate and revenue projections for the municipal system. • What is the shape of evolving technologies? Any substantial building of plant and equipment at the end of this study will likely be coming on stream no sooner than widespread implementation of 5G is expected. • Can a stand-alone data-only service reasonably compete with existing services that bundle video and data services together over a plant that has similar costs? • How large a role does "profit" play in the prices households now pay for data and video services? • Short of building physical plant, are there other programs that could achieve the goal of providing quality broadband to the relatively small number of households that have economic need? Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study: Expected Results It is the intent of the Task Force that Phase I provide sufficient quantitative and other information for the City Manager to make a decision about whether and how to pursue a municipal broadband network. We believe the following information is required in order to accomplish this goal: 1. Street-by-street and neighborhood-by-neighborhood cost analysis to build the fiber network. 2. The "cost to connect" to the fiber network for a particular premises. 3. Take rate assumption requirements (revenue streams) to support the build-out. How many households would subscribe to the service? For the network to be competitive, would the City also provide telephone and television services? 4. Given the build-out and take rate assumptions, the capital requirements and operational costs to support the fiber network. 5. Development of a flexible implementation plan that considers external factors. The answers to these questions will allow the City to estimate the amount of coverage/reach of the network and the associate upfront and recurring operating costs. Page | 7

Municipal Broadband Study for the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts TILSON Submitted to: The City of Cambridge, MA Prepared by: Tilson 245 Commercial Street, Suite 203 Portland, ME 04101 Phone: [phone removed] E-mail: [email removed]

1. Glossary of Terms Term Definition Download Speed Measured in megabits per second, it is how fast a user can pull data or conduct online activity from the server to their device. Examples inciude loading web pages and streaming videos. Components of a network that provide broadband service to an end- Last Mile user's premises or devices through an intermediate point of aggregation (e g. remote terminal, fiber node, wireless tower, or other Live Broadcast Subscription-based television services, usually provided by both analog and digital cable and satellite television. Video Services Network components that provide broadband service from one or Middle Mile more centralized facilities (e.g. central office, cable headend, wireless switching station, etc.) to an internet point of presence. A wireless communications services provider that does not own the Mobile Virtual wireless network infrastructure over which the MVNO provides services Network to its customers. Operator (MVNO) A network management policy by which multiple service providers can Open Access offer services over the same physical network. A physical location that houses servers, routers and switches, and is an Point of access point to the internet. It allows two or more different networks or Presence communication devices to build a connection with each other. The percentage of potential subscribers who are offered service that Take Rate actually do subscribe. Telecom The exchange of information over significant distances between two circuits by electronic means. Each circuit contains a transmitter and a receiver. The amount of material or items passing through a system or device. Throughput Measured in megabits per second, iț is how fast a user can send data Upload Speed from their device to others. Examples include sending files via email and video-chatting: A TILSON 2 E Cambridge, Massachusetts Broadband Study

2. Executive Summary The City of Cambridge's Broadband Task Force engaged Tilson to help it identify a strategy for attaining world-class broadband in the City. Working with Tilson, the Task Force has identified five goals for the eventual solution: 1. Affordability and Equity 2. Choice & Competition 3. Supporting Entrepreneurs & Small Businesses 4. Innovation & Excellence 5. Local Control Tilson has conducted an evaluation of current service offerings in Cambridge, solicited residents' input via surveys and public meetings, and worked closely with city personnel in evaluating a range of options. Tilson has evaluated three potential options for a fiber optic network. Fiber optics provide the greatest bandwidth capability and the greatest potential for coping with technological and user pattern changes. Tilson has examined three levels of fiber-build out through a high-level network design. Each of these potential fiber networks illustrates strategies that the City could pursue, although any ultimate City fiber build-out may depart from these examples in some of the particulars. Each strategy represents a different level of financial commitment, operational responsibility, and adherence to the above goals: I. A "Targeted" build connecting only the 22 premises owned by the Cambridge Housing Authority and providing these facilities with connectivity as an extension of the City's existing fiber optic network. At $5.5 million, this is the lowest cost solution that represents the least departure from "business as usual" for Cambridge, but does not address all of the Task Force's goals. 2. A "Partial" build consisting of a dark fiber platform routing fiber to all neighborhoods in the City, but relying on third party Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide services to end users. This is a medium cost option, at $7.0 million, whose satisfaction of the Task Force's goals would depend on the City's ability to negotiate agreements that satisfy the goals, and on the response of service providers. 3. A "Full" Fiber to the Home Network where fiber is run to substantially all premises in the City and services are provided by either the City itself or its designated ISP. This is the highest cost option by far at $130-187 million, depending on the percentage of premises along the route which are connected. It represents the greatest operating responsibility and greatest departure from "business as usual." Given the City's limited experience owning and operating a consumer broadband network, Tilson recommends that the City build a limited but expandable initial network and seek partners to use, manage, and operate the network. The City should regard this initial network as a first stage in its efforts and a test of the willingness of market participants to engage with the City on favorable terms and extend and expand on its broadband effort. We recommend that this initial stage effort be kept small enough that operating expenses and a very limited financial return on the capital investment would be tolerable. As the City gains experience owning a network and working with third parties for the network's maintenance and operation, it can embark on a path of controlled expansion in stages, where costs and projections are clearly understood before committing financial resources. TILSON Cambridge, Massachusetts Broadband Study 3

Atachment 24 Digital Inequalities: Why they matter and need to be addressed GO HARVARD School of Public Health VISWANATH LAB

Communication Inequality... ...is differences among social classes in the manipulation, and distribution of information at the group level and differences in access to and ability to take advantage of information at the individual level. Selmol of Public fealth VISWANATH LAB

Broadband use: Exemplar of Intersectionality Broadband Use by Race, Education and Geography 100 90 80 70 • Urban 88 access • Rural of respondents with home Percent Hispanic Less than HS Less than HS Less than HS Some College Some College Some College Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic White High School Degree High School Degree High School Degree College Degree or more College Degree or more College Degree or more Race Education by NTIA, 2010 # HARVARD VISWANATH LAB Schoot of Public Icall

Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, 2001-2011* 30 - Developed - World 25 20 15 10 Per 100 inhabitants 5 0 2004 2003 2007 2006 2002 2001 2005 2008 2010 2011* 2009 * Estimate. The developed/developing country classifications are based on the UN M49, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/definltions/regions/index.html international Tetecommunication Union [Report on the Internet]. World Teleconsmunication/ICT Indicators Database. www.itu.int/ITU- D/ict/statistics/, Viswanath et al., 2011 a HARVAR * School of Public Hea VISWANATH LAB

Internet Users in Selected countries Higher internet use Poland 63% Ukraine 53% Lower internet use Russia 73% 17, Lebanon 62% United States 377 China 63% Tunisia 42% -Jordan Egypt 50% 47% Thailand 45% + India Mexico 50% Colombia 57% * Vietnam 43% Pakistan 20% Venezuela 67% El Salvador 8% * Philippines 42% 34% Senegal 28% Uganda 15% 1 Malaysia 55% Bangladesh Nicaragua 38% 11% Ghana 21% - Kenya 29% Brazil 51% -Tanzania 19% Nigeria 39% Peru 46% Indonesia 24% Chile 76% South Africa 41% - J Argentina 62% B HARVARI VISWANATH LAB chool of Public lical

Internet Access Strongly Related to Per Capita Income Adults who use the internet at least occasionally or can a smartphone 80% • Chile Russia • Venezuala Poland • China @ Lebanon Argentina 60 • Colombie • Malaysie • Ukraine 5 Brazil • Egypt • Mexico Jordan O Vietnam @ Thailand 0 Pery • Philippines • South Africa Tunisia 40 • Nigerie • Nicarague, El Salvador Senegal e Kenya. • Indonesia 20 o Gher India • Tanzania • Uganda • Bangladesh Correlation = 0.85 @ Pakistan O protes $0 $5,000 $25,000 2019 DP ber capia (PP, eurent international $20,000( Source: Spring 3031 Gobal stitudes survey, QBT% Q99, Date for GOP per capito PPP) fOM IME Word Economic Outlook, Dotober 2014. VISWANATH LAB 7 Let blic Healin

Who uses the Internet.... 0.42 Computer owner D28 English speaker 0.22 Higher education Higher income 0 12 Male 0.06 Employed 0.03 -0,39 Older age Note: The number shown is the diference in predieted probad trOf intemet usage between Selected groups for eech variable. For eramıple. che predicted probability that someone will use the internet VISWANATH LAB DIANAIR i af Pallic ticalh

Highly Educated More Likely to See Positive Influence of internet Increasing use oftle internethas hade good influence 5 Secondar or more 12 Less than secondari 7076 Education $ 5586 personal 1 50 44 relationships Economy 45 41 Politics 30 3-4 loraliti 25 note: Medion percensees across 25 emerging and developing nstions. Russia, Ursine and Tendanis excluded due to insufficient sample size. Sourse: Spring 2014 Global atitudes surves. Q75g-ę. PEW RESEARCH CENTER # HARVAR VISWANATH LAB * Schoot of Public Healt

Disparities by Income Level -United States ¡hand in gheor ..! i :.intes who ne home ind 100 75 50 25 20147 2012 2008 2006 2016 2004 2010 2002 $75,000+ - $50,000-574,999 - Less than $30,000 — 530,000-$49,999 •Ur! •#" i bbed ene 201! PEW RESEARCH CENTER VISWANATH LAB F thai o ulic Healen

Disparities by Age-United States /!.: 100 75 50 - 25 2012 2006 2008 2016 2010 2014 2002 2004 65+ - 30-49 -50-64 -18-29 PEW RESEARCH CENTER F Schola rulic Health VISWANATH LAB

Lessons Learned: Cell Phone Connectivity • Difficulties in cell phone connectivity have impeded efforts to contact participants for follow up • Some cell phones are out of service by the time of follow up HARVARD DANA-BARBER · Sher Bolie Healah VISWANATH LAB

Cell Phone Connectivity - 28% were unable to use the phone at some point over the past 6 months 10% Could not use once 19% Could not use two or more times - When participants had phone issues, time without service varied 70% Less than one week 16% One week to one month tones: SEARCHING 13% One month or more FOR SIGNAL... • HARVARD DANA FARBER School of Pablic Health VISWANATH LAB

• Experiencing a change of phone number was associated - Lower income - Lower education - African/African-American • Gaps in use were significantly associated - Younger - Hispanic - Having a government phone plan School af Public Health € HARVARD VISWANATH LAB

How do computer and internet barriers impact the health information seeking behaviors of low SEP individuals? School of Public Health DINARK VISWANATH LAB

Selected Perceived Barriers • 70% No free time to use computer • 54% Concerned about information quality • 43% Takes a lot of effort to find health information • 30% Frustrated in search for information School of Public Flealth 7 HARVARD VISWANATH LAB

Internet Connectivity Issues Decreased Health Information Seeking Health information IRR (95% CI) n=118 seeking 0.989 (0.980, 0.998)* Days without internet access *p<0.05 •Indicate that access alone is not enough •Even with full IT support, internet connectivity barriers were still a major issue for participants •Frequent moves often exacerbated these issues • No perceived barriers (computer or information- based) were significant in main effects models •May be due to support provided by IT and by monthly computer classes O HARVARI chool of Public Heal DANABER VISWANATH LAB

How do low SEP individuals use the internet for other purposes (capital enhancing or entertainment), and how does this impact health information seeking? 7 HARVARD School of Public Meath VISWANATH LAB

Who is best positioned to participate in the online world? • Extent of Use- Diverse ways of using the internet - Social networking, streaming, reference, email Adds (Wei, 2012) context to internet use Capital-Enhancing Websites- among low - Higher education SEP over health - Money information - Government resources alone - Housing - Jobs - News (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007) HARVARD PANA 1#8: 7 Schood of Public Health VISWANATH LAB

Low SEP: Seen as Using Internet Primarily for Entertainment The New Work Gimes Time Wasting Gap Wasting Time Is New Divide in Digital Era "As access to devices has spread, children in poorer families are spending considerably more time than children from more well-off families using their television and gadgets to watch shows and videos, play games and connect on social networking Alejandro Zamora, an eighth grader, cals himself a Facebook freak." His mother would prefet thal he use bre computer for sites, studies show" hamewerk. Other "usage gap" theories also posit that low SEP individuals use the internet more often for primarily entertainment purposes compared to their high SEP counterparts http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in- wasting-time-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Schnot of Pablic Health VISWANATH LAB

Extent of Internet Use 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% T T 0.00% 15 16 8 12 13 11 7 14 Number of Internet Categories Visited Each additional category visited was associated with 2.1 times the rate of health information seeking (p<0.001, 95% Cl 1.840, 2.437) School of Public Health VISWANATH LAB

Capital Enhancing Internet Use and Health Seeking IRR (95% CI) IRR (95% CI) Financial Site Users Job Search Site Users Medium 1.928 (1.009, 3.683)* Medium 3.051 (1.652, 5.640)** High 5:126 (2.814, 9.336)** High 6.170 (3.275, 11.624)** Education Site Users Government Site Users Medium 3.037 (1.637, 635)** Medium 4:820 (2.640, 8.800)** High 6.943 (3.733, 12.916)** High 8.897 (4.822, 16.415)** Total Capital Site Users Residence Site Users Medium 2.268 (1.265, 4.066)** Medium 2.159 (1.112, 4.193)* High 3.913 (2.033, 7.532)** High 8.708 (4.842, 15.661)** *p<0.05, **p<0.001 Adjusted for age, race, employment status, native language, and wave Schen of Public Health THAYARD VISWANATH LAB

Discussion • Universal principles world summit on the information society - Democratizing role of communic • Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005 - Right to communication build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..... Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium 12 December 2003 • HARVAR hool of Public tical VISWANATH LAB

Discussion • Universal principles - Democratizing role of communication - Right to communication • Low SEP individuals use the internet for diverse purposes • More diverse use associated with more health seeking - May be promise in using social networking sites for health • Capital enhancing use complements, not replaces, health seeking • Entertainment use does not detract from health information seeking - May serve as a gateway to other types of use · HARVARD School of Public Health VISWANATH LAB

Attachment 25 OTELCO Technology. Tradition. Together. Strategic Approaches to Community Broadband Cambridge, MA - March 22, 2018 PRESENTED BY TREVOR JONES

STELCO About Trevor Jones • Vice President of Marketing and Sales at OTELCO • Maine Resident • Blogger, Broadband Advocate, Net Neutrality Supporter • [email removed] [phone removed] Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO About OTELCO • Publicly Traded Telecommunications Provider (Nasdaq: OTEL) - Competitive and incumbent phone companies in ME, MA, VT, WV, AL, and MO - Division HQ and Regional HQ in New Gloucester, ME - ISP for the Municipal Network in Leverett, MA • $72 million in revenues • Approx. 235 employees • Providing Internet Service Since the Late 90's - Dial-Up, DSL, Fixed Wireless, Fiber to the Premise • Advocate for Net Neutrality • Supporter of Digital Literacy, Digital Equity and Community Networks Technology. Tradition. Together.

OTELCO Sticker Shock? "Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." -Francis of Assisi Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO Incremental, Multi-Faceted Approaches • Sometimes, the Incremental Approach is Best. • MTU - MDU's • Hybrid Technology Models • Dig Once • Local Improvement Districts Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO MTU - MDU Hybrid Networks • Light targeted buildings with existing fiber • Extend to neighboring buildings using point to point wireless from rooftop to rooftop • Deliver to Tenants With Inside Wiring and/or Wi-Fi • Better than Internet Essentials - Meets or Exceeds Federal Broadband Standards • Case Study: NetBlazr in Boston and in Newark, NJ Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO Other Hybrid Deployments • Reduce deployment costs by limiting fiber construction Wireless link Distribution - Backbones -next-to lasts Feeder fiber 7/10 - 9/10 of a mile Backup fiber - Wireless in the final feet Central Office (CO) 0: • Fiber to the Curb • Fiber to the Neighborhood OLT Splitter ONU Wireless Wireless Client gateway router Technology. Tradition. Together.

TELCO Dig Once • Digging Up The Streets is the Number One Contributor to the Cost of Broadband Deployment • Bury town-owned, multi-ducted, open access conduit during road or utility construction - Encourages competitive providers to come to town by reducing deployment costs - City neither owns nor operates a network • Case Study: Lincoln, NE Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO Local Improvement Districts • Interested residents join the district and agree to pay the cost of Open Access Dark Fiber - One-time payment or a 20-year assessment - Legislative approval may be needed in MA, but these proposals usually . meet little resistance • Demand based, voluntary, - Very Sticky, those who opt-in are highly unlikely to leave for cheap promotional offers - Encourages competition through open-access - City responsibilities are limited to the construction and maintenance of ne cables, no need to operate networks or support and bill end-users • Case Study: Ammon, ID Technology. Tradition. Together.

STELCO Not alone: Roles in Municipal Networks • Network Operator • Municipal Light Plant "MLP" - Monitors network performance, - Manages contracts with service environmentals and security providers - Manages and dispatches I & R - May or may not be an actual electric constractors utility - Maintains network electronics, keeps • Design-Build Contractor spares, performs upgrades as needed. • Maintenance Service Provider • ISP - Maintains the cable plant, repairs - Provides technical support, billing, downed lines email and Internet access. - Bills and collects on behalf of the MLP - Marketing and sales/ Technology. Tradition. Together.

©TELCO Questions Welcome! THANK YOU! Technology. Tradition. Together.

Attachment 26 Crane, Paula From: Christopher Schmidt < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 10:24 PM To: Crane, Paula Cc: Zondervan, Quinton Public Comment for Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Subject: Celebration Committee, March 22nd [This is the transcript of a Public Comment I made at the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee Meeting on March 22nd, sent in to be part of the public record.] All the residents of this city, but especially those at lower incomes, need reliable, in-home internet access to bridge the digital divide in this city, for what is now a critical service for everything from homework to paying the bills. At this point, according to the Tillson report, almost 80% households at less than $20,000 of annual income spend 15% or more of their gross income on internet alone. The reason for this is simple: the monopoly provider in Cambridge has no competition, and with no competition, there is no motivation for them to lower their prices, or behave in any other way. While cost is the most significant issue raised by residents, especially for those of lower income, reliable access is a critical aspect of the internet in the modern age. When I say reliable access: We all understand that outside wireless access points do not meet this requirement, with thick walls limiting the ability to use these services reliably. I worked with the Roofnet deployments that Saul mentioned in 2005 shortly after moving to Cambridge, and even then, the reliability of those services was a blocker for many users. Mobile networks do not provide reliable access. Wifi in the library does not provide sufficient access. Wifi on the first floor does not provide sufficient access for people who need modern access to internet in their daily lives. As our city continues to evolve, we will need to ensure that access remains available as the city continues to grow. As affordable housing continues to be a struggle for the city, we will need flexibility in how to address those issues - which means that bringing internet access only to Cambridge Housing Authority properties does not solve the digital divide. The flexibility available as a result of building our own municipal network could help support digital equity as we expand our housing efforts as well. Cambridge can not ensure that digital access is available to all in the city via the current monopoly; and most likely can not do it when the providers are commercial only, without any ability to provide for our own digital equity needs. I believe the most effective long term solution to bridge the digital divide is to break the Comcast monopoly city-wide, with a city-owned fiber network. By creating a city-wide network, the city can use the network both to accomplish its direct equity goals, to ensure that users have reliable access provided to the home, and also, because monopolies don't always behave well, can ensure that the monopoly is broken in the city which, as we've seen, will ensure that those incumbents behave more competitively: even residents who were not customers of a city-run network would likely benefit from the increased competition a city-owned fiber network would bring. The city has told us today that they have rejected the idea of a city-owned network based on cost. While I understand the thought, I do not believe the Tillson report provides enough detail or information to make that determination. The Tillson report provided a framework for the city to proceed, but it did not provide enough detail to understand what the cost to the city would be. I think that everything from the amount of conduit under the streets laid by our dig once policy, to the amount of investment that businesses, institutions, and residents of the city would be willing to provide to break the Comcast monopoly on some of us residents, or more importantly to ensure equal access for all the students of Harvard and MIT was not all considered, and I do not believe that $187M figure that the Tillson report arrived at was representative of the meaningful cost to the city following a meaningful feasibility study. This is why the Broadband Task Force called for such a study to be undertaken; and 1 would reiterate that call today. 1

A city-wide network is a critical tool in our toolbox both for what we need today for digital home and access, and a need we will have for the city going forward to maintain our services and infrastructure for the future; and I think that we should get started on it now. We don't need to think about this as one phase: it is instead a series of steps along a path. When we say "Don't run fiber just to there, and do not thinking about nothing else along the way"; we don't mean "Don't go there." The goal of this Committee is to provide digital access throughout the city, and ensure that every Cantabrigian has access to internet that is affordable, reliable and secure. And I think we can do more than we have done so far to get Thank you. Christopher Schmidt 17 Laurel St. 2

Attachment 27 Roy Russell Introductio I am speaking on behalf of Upgrade Cambridge, a grass roots organization dedicated to raising public support for municipal broadband. When we started, we thought that raising public support was our goal, what we are finding is that demonstrating that strong public support exists already, so we just need to demonstrate that fact. We believe that a city-owned network that provides reliable high speed internet service to all of Cambridge, regardless of the ability to pay, is necessary to address digital equity as well as provide Cambridge with a 21st century competitive advantage. Digital Equity The city must take care when addressing the access portion of digital equity not to continue to provide poor internet for poor people. Take the recent provision of free outdoor wi-fi by MIT, Cambridge, and Boston Properties to Newtowne Court and Washington Elms. That project was a generous gift from MIT and Boston Properties and one doesn't like to look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth. Even if the gift was a result of a community benefit agreement. However, outdoor wifi is not a substitute for in-home internet service. It is not reasonable to expect residents to go outside to do their homework or watch a movie or file their taxes or receive a phone call. Similarly, free internet service in common areas is nice to have but is not a substitute for in-home internet access. How would you feel if you had to go to a common area or a public space in order to have access to the Internet? That access has become so much a part of our lives that it is hard for most of us to imagine doing without it wherever we go. The first thing I ask when I check into a hotel or an Airbnb rental is, "What about wi-fi?" 1 appreciate the deputy city manager's comment that the next step is providing quality internet access at home. Sustainability and Municipal Broadband A system which assures long term financial sustainability covering all costs is the right thing to do. Anything which depends on regular or increasing subsidies from the city will be at risk. A municipal broadband system that serves the whole city is one way to address sustainability, and can provide significant additional benefits. Where 80% of the households can subsidize 20% of the households, creating a system where the city can make use of a significant revenue stream, directly or indirectly from the use of the municipally owned infrastructure. Benefits The other benefits of a municpal broadband system are many: Frustration with incumbent provider: The city has acknowledged that there is considerable frustration with the incumbent provider.. Lee Gianetti has said that the city receives complaints about the city having a single cable provider. A municipal broadband system would provide an alternative.

High prices with incumbent provider: The monopoly situation in Cambridge does result in higher prices. I pay $96.90 for internet service only from Comcast, the lowest rate possible. Just over the border in Somerville where there are multiple providers, I could get the same service for $29.99 a month from RCN. A municipal broadband system could provide a higher level of service for a lower price. It would also encourage the incumbent provider to lower their prices in order to compete with the municipal broadband. That alone is a signficant benefit that would accrue to the residents of Cambridge. Businesses are frustrated: Businesses are also frustrated with the high price of internet access and the poor level of service. CHA pays Comcast $1500 per month for 25 mbit commercial internet service for their headquarters building alone in Central Square, and that is inadequate, they are looking to pay more to upgrade this service. And this is in the old Police Station which has plenty of city-owned fiber passing through it already. Local Control and Local Revenue A municipal broadband network would enable local control, policies around net neutrality, pricing, privacy, and other terms and conditions of service could be determined locally rather than set by corporate marketing and legal departments. A municipal network would keep the finances local, which would further benefit the economy in Cambridge. Cost The city is well aware of the cost savings as well as other benefits that can result from having our own fiber network. The city owns their own network that services their own facilites, here at city hall, the libraries, the schools, etc. This network was built because it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. A municipal network that services the whole city could do the same thing for the residents of the city. The 2016 Tilson study which reported only on the costs and risks, and not on the benefits and funding models is only a small part of the story.