Two decades after Palo Alto launched its mission of bringing ultra-high-speed access to the internet to every home, the tortuous path is taking another sharp turn.
The new plan puts on hold the original goal of what is known as "Fiber to the Premises" -- expanding the city's underground "dark fiber" ring to every part of the city, effectively creating universal broadband access. Now, officials are mulling a new model called "Fiber to the Node," which calls for extending fiber to different neighborhood "nodes" and only later pursuing the "last mile" connections to individual homes and businesses.
The shift was prompted by both the high cost of going all-fiber and by a rapidly changing technology landscape. More customers are choosing to go wireless and telecoms like AT&T and Comcast are preparing to launch their own high-speed broadband services.
Palo Alto's Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental outlined these trends at Tuesday's meeting of the City Council's Policy and Services Committee, which then voted 3-0 to endorse the latest staff vision.
The committee's vote directs staff to develop a business case for a Fiber-to-the-Node network, which could ultimately be used to support wireless communication for public safety and utility staff and to enable "smart grid" and "smart city" applications. The network would establish nodes at multiple neighborhood access points, leaving last-mile solutions for later phases.
According to Reichental and staff from Utilities Department, a fully built-out and city-owned Fiber-to-the-Home network has an estimated price tag of $50 million to $78 million. The estimated build-out cost for the node system is between $12 million and $15 million.
Another key difference between the old approach and the new one is the role that wireless technology would play in the network. Before, the city was effectively choosing between fiber and wireless technologies. Today, the two technologies are expected to work in tandem, with the fiber system providing the "backhaul" for what would ultimately be a ubiquitous wireless system.
In presenting the new vision, Reichental told the committee that it's become very clear for him that "the future is going to be wireless intensive." He noted that the share of American households that relied exclusively on wireless internet access had doubled in three years, going up from 1 in 10 in 2013 to 1 in 5 in 2016.
Furthermore, telecoms all over the globe are now working to implement fifth-generation wireless systems (known as 5G), which are expected to be mainstream in 2020 and which would enable speeds roughly 400 times faster than today's broadband.
"Whether it's smart homes, smart cities, wearable technologies, connected cars, self-driving cars, internet of things or next-generation health care, they will all be powered by wireless technology," Reichental said.
Even so, the city isn't completely pulling the plug on Fiber to the Premise. Under one possible scenario, Fiber to the Node, which would require construction of about 62 miles of fiber, could serve as a first step toward the broader system (which would require about 230 miles).
The city's existing fiber backbone consists of about 49 miles and continues to be a cash cow for the Utilities Department. Last year, the Fiber Optic Fund had about $25 million in reserves, according to a new report from Information Technology Department. The network serves dozens of commercial customers and generates between $2.5 million and $3 million annually.
The report states that building a FTTN network "would be an incremental approach for fiber expansion and may lower the barriers for potential FTTP providers to build the last mile from neighborhood access nodes to individual premises."
"FTTN would provide the City with a phased and economically viable deployment approach to push fiber closer to residential neighborhoods and create a potential 'jumping off point' to bring fiber to individual premises," the report states.
Jim Fleming, senior management analyst at the Utilities Department, said one of the cornerstones of FTTN is to "push more fiber out to the community." Once there, private companies could take over and deliver the last-mile service, which is the most expensive portion of the network.
Reichental said the collaboration between the city and a third party can take different forms. It could involve a private company coming in and owning the last-mile connections or the city retaining full control.
"We definitely want to explore different business cases before we make a financial commitment to it," Reichental said. "That's what we're proposing."
The council committee largely embraced this vision, with Councilman Tom DuBois calling the idea "interesting" and urging staff to provide more information about estimated revenues and potential strategies for rolling out the network. Council members Cory Wolbach and Lydia Kou supported his recommendation, which will be presented to the full council in August.
DuBois also favored coming up with a rollout plan for the program, with an option of halting the experiment if it's not going well.
"I'm glad to see the discussion shift from just wireless and fiber to how they work together," DuBois said.
Comments
Crescent Park
on May 24, 2017 at 10:43 am
on May 24, 2017 at 10:43 am
Those who put all their eggs in the wireless basket should hope the sunspot cycles will remain benign.
Downtown North
on May 24, 2017 at 11:26 am
on May 24, 2017 at 11:26 am
20 years of work and nothing usable in the realistic future? Sounds like a big waste of taxpayer money.
Palo Verde
on May 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 12:01 pm
@Norman, yes sunspots can wreak havoc on my shortwave. :)
Professorville
on May 24, 2017 at 2:01 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 2:01 pm
Given the security and reliability issues with wireless, I'm still interested in a physical connection (be it fiber or copper) for the last mile. I wonder if this new plan would allow individuals or groups to pay for a connection at the node.
Barron Park
on May 24, 2017 at 2:35 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 2:35 pm
For a FTTN solution, are we talking about nodes co-located with the POTS copper nodes where the phone line from your house connects to the line to the central office? -- if so, can the city strike a deal with AT&T to access the last mile of copper? Will city fiber nodes have battery backup so they'll be operational during power outages? I'm afraid that we'll see the city build fiber nodes which are not in the right place or correctly provisioned for any other provider to take on building the node-to-home infrastructure. I'm glad the city is at least breaking even on the existing fiber service, but I really wish they had embarked on the FTTH build 10+ years ago...
University South
on May 24, 2017 at 5:53 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 5:53 pm
This is pathetic! 20 years and nothing to show for it for at least another 20. The city should just give the network to a third party in exchange for a full build out.
Evergreen Park
on May 24, 2017 at 7:36 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 7:36 pm
"This is pathetic! 20 years and nothing to show for it for at least another 20. The city should just give the network to a third party in exchange for a full build out."
Perhaps it is time to hire a consultant and do a study on the problem? Otherwise we cannot really have a meaningful dialogue on the issue. The fees from the Residential Parking Permit Program, being all gravy, can be used to fund the study.
Downtown North
on May 24, 2017 at 10:50 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 10:50 pm
Fibered-up nodes are worthless if nothing connects downstream of them. Build something that's immediately useful or don't build anything.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 24, 2017 at 11:49 pm
on May 24, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Why is Palo Alto wasting more money on this when they obviously don't have the expertise and while we're supposedly running a deficit? Does PA really think it can or should compete with the likes of Comcast and AT&T? This smacks of delusions of grandeur like the "Grand Boulevard" initiative to turn El Camino into a Parisian boulevard. Nuts.
I know someone who was involved in the first go-round and he said the city couldn't get out of its own way and let the professionals do it. Why should this time be any different?
Downtown North
on May 25, 2017 at 11:00 am
on May 25, 2017 at 11:00 am
These nodes may be useful to businesses who can afford to install their own cables from the nodes to their businesses. Maybe new housing developments can connect as part of their construction costs. The city is essentially telling current homeowners to forget about it.
Palo Verde
on May 25, 2017 at 11:38 am
on May 25, 2017 at 11:38 am
While I am disappointed that this isn't fiber to the home, it is a step in that direction. It can be paid for by the current surplus. Just do it.
I would like to see more detail on the cost estimates for fiber to the home, how expensive it can it be be to run new wires on the existing Palo Alto utility poles? "$50 million to $78 million" seems like a lot for this. Fiber technology is greatly improved and much lower cost than it was two decades ago.
I hope the FTTN will allow a range of organizations and residents to connect. It would be good to use this to try out various approaches to connecting homes, e.g., Wireless, Fiber, Copper. Let's find out what works.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on May 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
on May 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
@resident writes "The city is essentially telling current homeowners to forget about it."
The typical message to residents from the ridiculously business-friendly city and city council.
Downtown North
on May 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm
on May 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm
"While I am disappointed that this isn't fiber to the home, it is a step in that direction. It can be paid for by the current surplus. Just do it."
I disagree. This proposal for an incomplete, but costly, fiber system is at best a giveaway of general taxpayer money to those who can afford to run a connection from their homes or businesses to a node. Nothing beyond that is assured.
We have other urgent uses for that money which benefit everyone, like upgrading our parks and getting new ones.
Professorville
on May 25, 2017 at 7:40 pm
on May 25, 2017 at 7:40 pm
@Curmudgeon: While I usually find plenty in your postings to support, I'll push back on this one. :-)
We don't know enough about pricing yet to say who would be able to afford a connection or whether the City's costs would be recoverable over some reasonable time. We don't know enough about the infrastructure to say whether a connection could be shared effectively.
As for other uses for the money that would benefit everyone, I'd argue for improved transportation ahead of new parks. And better communications might reduce the need for transportation expenditures.
Skepticism is appropriate here, but the information is too incomplete to draw all negative conclusions.
Downtown North
on May 25, 2017 at 9:54 pm
on May 25, 2017 at 9:54 pm
"We don't know enough about pricing yet to say who would be able to afford a connection or whether the City's costs would be recoverable over some reasonable time. We don't know enough about the infrastructure to say whether a connection could be shared effectively."
Fair enough. So we ought to hold off until we do know enough. Like, check if there's water in the pool before diving in.
Midtown
on Jun 1, 2017 at 4:19 pm
on Jun 1, 2017 at 4:19 pm
@Online Name (05-24-17) -- This interactive database says 187 municipalities have their own FTTP networks.
Web Link
Most are able to do very well despite competition from incumbents like AT&T and Comcast.
What are you saying the "first go-around" was?
Downtown North
on Jun 1, 2017 at 6:28 pm
on Jun 1, 2017 at 6:28 pm
"Most are able to do very well despite competition from incumbents like AT&T and Comcast."
Meaningless. Let's try for some meat:
Most, huh? What happened to the others? How badly did they fare, and what lessons can/should Palo Alto learn from their goofups?
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 1, 2017 at 6:53 pm
on Jun 1, 2017 at 6:53 pm
The "first go-round" was about 20 or 25 years ago when the city first explored bringing internet connectivity to residents' homes and used a pretty famous techie to develop a plan to do so. (Actually it was the 2d attempt because they first envisioned using 2-way cable but that's a different story.)
Because of the involvement of people at all levels of the city govt -- esp. the non-techies -- it because the proverbial "horse designed by committee" and the guy still laughs at the ridiculously complicated way the city wanted people to connect.
Midtown
on Jun 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm
on Jun 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm
@Online Name (06-01-17 and 05-24-17) -- I'd be interested in more specifics about the "first go-round." Who was the "pretty famous techie"? Who were the "professionals"?
I don't think the City was doing anything about providing internet access to premises during the time from 1992 to 1997 ("20 or 25 years ago").
In 1996, the City decided to build a dark fiber network, where the city provides just the fiber connections and customers provide the electronics. The City made an initial investment of about $2 million. The dark fiber network has proven to be spectacularly successful, currently bringing in net revenues of between $2.5 million and $3 million annually. But it isn't FTTP.
In 1985, the City franchised Cable Co-op to provide cable TV service in Palo Alto (and Menlo Park, Atherton, East Palo Alto, and some unincorporated areas).
Web Link
Years ago, Marvin Lee told me that a competing entity, led by Walter Hewlett, wanted to use at least some fiber optics to build the network infrastructure, and that, in hindsight, the Cable Co-op people might have done better to have joined forces with that entity rather than just outcompeting it.
By 1997, Cable Co-op had developed the capability to offer internet service over its all-coax infrastructure, and had deployed it to some parts of town, but its primary focus was on resolving its financial difficulties.
Web Link
Anyhow, I don't see why you think the City's experience in the 1990s is a good predictor of its behavior now.