Voting NO on Prop J doesn't mean you hate WiFi 

It means that you don't like the provisions contained in it.

Prop J introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom creates a non-binding policy supporting a new WiFi deal like before but worse. Contract negotiations fell through when Earthlink abandoned WiFi deployments nationally due to the economics. The Mayor is planning this again despite major news and industry reports WiFi is not feasible. Passage of this ballot measure would tie the city to one approach in the future and creates new precedents for infrastructure franchises.

As volunteers, technology professionals, youth and students, nationally recognized Internet businesses, low-income tenants, people with disabilities, social workers, non-profits, parents, seniors, community service advocates, education advocates and SF Internet users among others, we support all methods of Internet access including WiFi.

• Saying NO On Prop J means that you do NOT support the conditions to getting it. It doesn't mean that you don't support WiFi but instead you oppose the provisions provided in this declaration. We all want some wireless access but it must be robust, secured, accessible by everyone. Prop J does not provide this.

• None of the work and agreements over 3 years by volunteers, tech professionals, Supervisors, City staff, and even Earthlink are being respected in this non-binding declaration of policy. It only serves as a 'blank check' confirmation for a new process.All the necessary protections and quality control are being left out.

• Prop J creates a brand new franchise to exist in our City with very little accountability.

DECLARATION: Using the word “should” makes everything in this policy VOLUNTARY.

• Please compare the language of Prop J with other declarations of policy and you will see that the voice of the people is heard in a weak tone. Declarations Of Policy are meant to be put forth by the People in a very strong assertive voice, not by politicians looking to get a simple statement from the public that fits their needs.

• In a 2007 Mayor's press release on homelessness: “Of the total homeless counted, 2,771 were on the streets. An additional 3,606 reside in sheltered locations such as transitional housing, stabilization rooms, resource centers, hospitals, jails and emergency shelters. The vast majority of homeless individuals are Caucasian and African American single adult males.”

  • There is no real Digital Divide in San Francisco by comparison to the rest of the nation. Proponents say that Controller reports a continued 'Digital Divide' of 25% of the City. It is just a number without context. This means that 75% of the people CAN get Internet access. Of the 25% unable to get Internet access; 5% too young, 5% too old, 5% don't want it. The rest are homeless and those living in shelters, SRO's and low-income housing projects. The cost is very, very minimal for this few people. It is irresponsible to have not provided technology support for this population more than four years ago. We have been able to afford such an effort plus community support.

TECHNOLOGY: According to experts, a WiFi-only solution WILL NOT provide reliable Internet access for ALL San Franciscans as shown by similar rollouts in other cities.

• WiFi is already here. We ARE the most UNwired city in the world. We have been using it for nearly a decade. There is no reason to reaffirm this at the ballot. WiFi does not work as the primary access to the Internet on a citywide scale. WiFi can be an element of any future city Internet infrastructure plan such as the City's own ultra-high-speed Fiber Optic network already in operation since 2005.

PRIVACY: Civil liberties and online privacy groups like the ACLU say the plan LACKS sufficient protections for privacy and free speech. This means internet searches on personal health, financial information, sensitive information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, or online political activism, can be recorded. Service providers may keep and use this information for any internal purpose.

Some other concerns are:

• Proposition J would allow any efforts to create a citywide WiFi system to apply for all possible exemptions to public process in pursuit of such a prospect--including categorical exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and environmental review.

• No mention of exercising city's Precautionary Principle.

• SF is already most unwired city in the country. Prop J would unnecessarily add thousands of antennas across the city adding to existing access points.

• Prop J makes a weak voice of the city. This is a statement written for you by Mayor Newsom. It isn't the voice of the people that should be strong and demanding since it is non-binding much like other declarations.

• Digital divide exists at less than 15% despite Controller's spin report of 25%, is totally affordable and reasonable now and should be done with current city-owned ultra-high speed Fiber Optic connections.

• Protection of identity is essential in these times. Privacy is not addressed in enough detail. Google pulled out of the failed deal because of the Supes' ask for more privacy. Civil liberties and online privacy groups like the ACLU say the plan LACKS sufficient protections for privacy and free speech. This means internet searches on personal health, financial information, sensitive information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, or online political activism, can be recorded. Service providers may keep and use this information for any internal purpose.

Prop J is not what it's all cracked up to be. It insults our intelligence, denies adequate protections and won't provide the measure of performance we need for the 21^st century. Support Supervisors' plans for Municipal Broadband using ultra-fast Fiber Optics installed with the existing sewer replacement project.

Think about voting

 NO On PROP J and protect San Francisco

from complete privatization.

For more information: http://Public.FreeMuni.Net or http://www.our-city.org