On March 17, 2022, the monthly Los Alamos League of Women Voters Lunch with a Leader program featured the new County Broadband Manager, Jerry Smith. You can see a recording of the event on youtube. Having watched the video, I believe that the County did well in hiring Mr. Smith. He understands the many aspects of broadband: technology; politics; business; etc.
Here are some high points from the last year’s progress on broadband for Los Alamos:
The County has posted the new Broadband Manager position. It closes at the end of September. If you know anyone qualified who might be interested, tell them about it. I have written a separate page promoting the position.
On Thursday 2021-09-16 I posted a request on Hacker News with the title “Ask HN: Advice on bringing community broadband to Los Alamos? ” I was pleased with the discussion which you can read by clicking on the link. There was good advice from several people with a variety of knowledge and backgrounds. southerntofu from France wrote in part “social justice is an important part of public service“. At least three folks who have lived in Los Alamos commented including brianolson who wrote that in the 1990s, “I was the student representative on the committee setting up the first internet service to all the schools.” Five people invited me to send them email which I’ve done. I believe that the discussion will lead to some interesting applications for the Broadband Manager position.
From the agenda for the 2021-6-29 County Council meeting, here is the position description for the Broadband Manager and the proposed Salary Plan for FY22. The two documents are inconsistent and reflect uncertainty about what’s required.
The position description mixes two goals: First someone who will start up a new utility; Second someone who can do IT support for County staff. The description specifies technical work and skills, but the County needs a big picture person who can lead an evaluation of the telecommunication infrastructure and business here and if appropriate start a new County owned utility. The salary range is $91K – $135K. On the other hand Deputy Utility manager positions are ranked 303 and range from $106K – $156K.
While the description in the agenda packet has long lists of duties and skills, it doesn’t convey the need for a big picture person. Among the essential duties that are missing from the description are:
In an earlier version of this post, I took the rank from the job code in the position description and the title of the broadband manager agenda item, namely “H-203 Broadband Manager”, as specifying the level to be 203 and read the proposed compensation from the “Salary Grades” agenda item. Now the post reflects agenda items 8.J.A, the detailed list of salaries, and 8.J.H, the job description for the broadband manager. I think the inconsistency in the agenda documentation reflects uncertainty among the County staff about the nature of the position.
Rather than using my copies of those documents with the links above, you can fetch them from legistar at:
Position description
http://losalamos.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=0ab3b103-dc12-463e-aab0-046ac9c2e6b1.pdf
Salary Plan
http://losalamos.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=6ce12708-5f02-48f1-8f11-a60a895c9787.pdf
The 2022 fiscal year for Los Alamos County starts on July 1, and the FY22 budget that the County Council approved in April includes a recurring item for a Broadband Manager. The current staff will bring Council a new position description and salary to approve on June 29.
I think that the Broadband Manager will be key to improving broadband access in the County. It will require an unusual set of activities and skills. The same set of circumstances that has moved Los Alamos to begin moving again on broadband now has led a large number of other communities to make similar decisions. So there will be more competition for people and resources than there would have been even a year ago.
Here’s what I want the Broadband Manager to do:
Here are some skills and experience that the Broadband Manager will need:
Here are some links that I found while thinking about what I’ve written:
Council Chair Ryti has alerted me to an updated version of budget options prepared by staff in which there are two more lines for broadband, namely: 12b a recurring item of $161,664 for a Broadband Manager; 12c $500,000 for Broadband design services. I like the revisions.
As Emily Litella would have said, “Never mind”.
As I said in the previous posting, I was pleased that in the discussion of broadband at the April 6 meeting of the County Council there was consensus that it’s time for the County government to run fiber in Los Alamos County. The FY2022 PROPOSED BUDGET does not reflect that consensus. A search for “broadband” finds that only on four of the 448 pages is it mentioned. Here is what it says:
In the sections on broadband, the text of the proposed budget uses the following abbreviations for units in the County: PW Public Works; ASD Administrative Service Department; CMO County Managers Office; IM Information Management. The text also refers to the “middle mile” which I think means a connection off of the hill to the trunk that Redi-Net runs from Santa Fe to Taos. At the April 6 Council meeting there was speculation that Xfinity and LANet share the use of a middle mile link off of the hill that Lumen (the phone company) built for the benefit of LANL. I recommend the brief Wikipedia article on “middle mile” which says in part “However, middle-mile access, where bought from the incumbent operator, is often much more expensive than either, and typically forms the major expense of non-incumbent broadband ISPs. The alternative, building out their own fibre networks, is capital-intensive, and thus unavailable to most new operators.”
The budget proposal fails to take County responsibility for broadband seriously. A recurring budget item for staff oversight of broadband in the County is appropriate whether or not the County owns or operates any part of a telecommunication utility. The level of staff understanding demonstrated at recent Council meetings is not sufficient. Here is a list of some staff activities that the budget should fund:
While staff will need external help to understand some of those issues, staff should take responsibility for maintaining the expertise. It will take staff expertise and flexibility to move forward successfully. The 2012/2013 study and design was prepared with constraints imposed by Council at the time that forced the design into the most expensive possible regime, and when the price came in Council chose not to pursue it. If Council takes a more flexible approach this time that relies on staff expertise, it is more likely to be successful.
I attended almost the entire five hour meeting of the Los Alamos County Council on April 6 2021. I am pleased to report that the Councilors think it’s time for the County government to run fiber in Los Alamos County. The meeting is available on line, and you can click on the agenda items and watch just the parts you are interested in. In addition to participating live by zoom on the 6th, I watched the video of the first round of comments on the broadband issue by each Councilor to make the notes here (the times are approximate).
Presentation by Steve Lynn, 3:32:40-3:35:28: Proposed $175K for a needs analysis by an outside consultant.
Comments by Councilor Scott, 3:35:28-3:41:00: Instead of supporting handing off a new needs analysis to an external consultant, Scott believes the County needs a staff person in charge of broadband.
Comments by Councilor Williams, 3:41:00-3:50:55: Williams and LAC IT staff member John Roig talked about capacity off of the hill. They each believe that Lumen Technologies (formerly CenturyLink/QWest/U S West, ie, the phone company) owns a fiber link across the Rio Grande that LANL and all of the local ISPs use it to get off of the hill, and that there is not a capacity bottleneck. Williams believes that trenching the County for fiber is the only credible solution. He supports an analysis to discover what residents would save by having such fiber and the associated improvement in service quality. I don’t know if he meant to include the savings from the rate changes we would see from the incumbents in response to the emergence of credible competition. He said that if we are serious, it leads to a bond issue, and if we are serious, fiber is the technology.
Comments by Councilor Derkacs, 3:50:55-3:54:26: She said that it’s time to make a decision to move forward; we should forge forward. She started her comments by referring to the history of studies funded by the County, saying, “This page I’m looking at.” I believe that she was looking at blabnow.blog.
Comments by Councilor Izraelevitz, 3:54:26-4:04:55: He said that economic modeling will be important and raised the question of the County providing dark fiber or becoming a service provider. He mentioned an informal survey effort that he led in January. (He called me when I launched blabnow.blog to ask me to lead that effort, and I declined.) He also suggested that LANL might financially support broadband in the County so that LANL staff could work more effectively offsite. I believe that Councilor Izraelevitz is alone on the Council in opposing a bond issue for broadband infrastructure.
Comments by Councilor Robinson, 4:04:55-4:08:55: He led by saying that there’s not a chance that Triad, ie, the lab, is going to pay to support broadband for staff at home. Next he compared investing in fiber now to the investments decades ago in the El Vado and Abiquiu generating stations. He meant that it’s an opportunity for a once in a generation good move, and he said “It’s the greatest advantage we could give to attract people and business up here.” He wants a study of how to pay for fiber, not a needs analysis, and he says we should move quickly.
Comments by Councilor Reagor, 4:08:55-4:13:00: Reagor said that no more study is necessary. He believes that we need a fiber optic backbone in the County and that the next steps are an RFP (Request for Proposals) and a bond issue. His principal concern is that “wireless technology is moving really fast”. Rather than running fiber to the home where signals are then translated to WiFi, the best solution in the future may be to have that translation at the level of a block or even a mile from each residence. He noted that we can’t address that concern with a survey of the public. While I suspect fiber to the home is going to be the best option for many years, I don’t entirely discount Reagor’s concern about wireless bypassing the final link from fiber to devices in homes. I support getting external expert advice on the question.
Comments by Councilor Ryti, 4:13:00-4:15:36: Ryti would like to see options that could be implemented before we get fiber to every home because it will take so long to install all of the fiber. He believes that the County should move quickly before the telecom incumbents have time to get laws passed that would constrain our options. He also said the County needs a person on staff to manage broadband issues.
Comments by the public, 4:15:36: I made the first comment.
Summary: A 6 to 1 majority of the Los Alamos County Council wants to progress to a bond issue to fund an optical fiber plant of some sort.
Broadband is on the agenda for the April 6 County Council meeting, and I bet the County Council will approve a motion to study the issue. As revealed by the discussion of broadband at the October 27 Council Work Session, some study to develop the expertise and understanding of County Staff and Council would be good. As part of an email conversation about the upcoming meeting and a likely new study, I got copies of old studies from Laura Gonzales who retired from the County IT department several years ago. In view of the volume of that material I recommend restraint in commissioning yet another study by outside consultants. Instead, Council should direct Staff to develop and maintain knowledge and expertise about the infrastructure, technology and business of electronic communication in the County. Given the importance of electronic communication in the 21st century for everything from employment and education to entertainment and social cohesion, such expertise is appropriate for any local government. It is particularly appropriate for Los Alamos because of our status as a high-tech leader and because through our ownership of our other utilities we own the paths for distributing electronic communication.
To chart a path forward I propose accepting as the goal communication utilities in the County that are useful, appropriate, efficient, equitable, responsive and foresighted. In order to have power to move towards that goal, the County must have some control of communication utilities here. While we can use our ownership of rights of way and electric utility infrastructure to exert some level of influence over other actors, eg, through franchise agreements, I believe that owning and operating a communication utility based on optical fiber is the best mechanism for delivering the required product and having the necessary control.
No matter how the County chooses to exercise influence or control over communication utilities here, staff will need knowledge and expertise in the area. We should begin by understanding the current state of affairs. Staff and Council should understand and be able to weigh technical and business alternatives and their impact on other values, eg, free speech, economic productivity, intellectual development, social cohesion, equity, and support of innovation.
Electronic communication is more fungible now that it was when everyone thought NBC, ATT and the Post Office were in different markets that addressed different needs. Because of that fungibility, we need expertise that touches on at least the following current businesses:
For each seller in our market we should know:
For each customer in the County we should find out the corresponding data:
We should also understand how the County is currently supporting and using the communication utilities that operate here already.
We should understand the legal constraints on County participation in the business. Because we own and operate our other utilities, I believe that we are not treated like investor owned utilities by the NM PRC. Would the County see similar advantages if we operated a communication utility?
And ultimately we must understand the technical, business, organizational and legal options for the County to own and operate an electronic communication utility.
I believe that eventually we will have fiber running throughout the County. I want the County to own that fiber, and I support any action that will get us there faster and more certainly.
As the County learns about the current state of electronic communication in the County, making that knowledge available to the public will be a great service. Because the business is unregulated, residents currently have trouble discovering their options.
I would like to know why Internet signals from LANL to my house get routed through California. It makes working from home difficult.
I believe that signals between residences and the schools are similarly routed off the hill and back. Is that the case, and if so, why?
Why do the existing communication utilities have equipment on poles that the DPU has abandoned?
Why is the location of Xfinity cables not available in advance of digging as part of the location service provided by the DPU?
I believe that the existing communication utilities use Century-Link fiber to get off of the hill. Is that true? If so, why are we waiting for a second Century-Link fiber to cross the Rio Grande?
Because broadband is on the agenda for the April 6 County Council meeting, I’m thinking and writing about the issue again. Los Alamos County has spent a lot of Council and Staff effort and some money studying and talking about the communication business here since the 1990s. Over several years I’ve read a few sources about the communication business, and recently I did some searching as I set up this blog. I’ve found that people are saying that in the United States we are paying more for worse service than much of the rest of the world because each region is served by unregulated monopolies. In other words we are being charged monopoly rents. However, I have not seen a serious study that estimates the amount of those rents. I contacted two experts, Christopher Mitchell at the Institute for Local Self Reliance and Professor Susan Crawford at the Harvard Law School, and asked how to estimate those rents in Los Alamos County. They each
suggested that I contact Joanne Hovis at CTC (https://www.ctcnet.us/). Here are replies from Dr. Hovis to a couple of emails:
Hi Andy:
I wish I had a resource to which I could direct you but I don’t
know that anyone has done that analysis. It would be a valuable
contribution to the field if it were undertaken.
Thanks,
Joanne
Andy,
I appreciate you thinking of us, but I would recommend you speak to an economist on that. I suspect their work would be more persuasive on that kind of issue than that of a consultant like us.
Thanks,
Joanne
So CTC has experience and expertise on technology, but not economics or business.
It would be nice to have an estimate of the monopoly rents that we as a community are paying because that amount is the floor for what we should spend to get better service.