|
|
|
|
|
 |
By Anni Chung
President & CEO, Self-Help for the Elderly
These numbers tell the real story:
1. One third of the residents in San Francisco do not have access to a computer or the Internet at home (2003 Census).
2. San Francisco ranks last in computers per 100 students among California cities and last in classrooms with Internet per 100 students in the Bay Area (California Board of Education 2004-2005).
3. The biggest digital divide in San Francisco exists among non-whites (including Hispanics), women, seniors, disabled and low income populations.
On March 20, 2007, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will either approve or reject the Google-Earthlink WiFi contract which, when implemented (target completion date is end of 2007), will provide universal Internet access to all San Franciscans at 300 kilobytes per second. On January 29, 2007, the city released a feasibility study, requested by Supervisor McGoldrick, on an alternative plan to find a municipally – owned wireless network. This study’s findings will be discussed at the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting on March 20, 2007 along with the Google-Earthlink contract.
The Board of Supervisors’ action to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a feasibility study – and another $10-$20 million to build the network if the Supervisors should vote for the municipally-owned version in March – is not based on sound judgment and does not reflect the sentiments of the people who have spoken at the public hearings to date. I was there and I witnessed speaker after speaker, representing many communities of color in Chinatown, Western Addition, the Mission and Bayview Hunter’s Point, urging the Board to implement the SF Wireless Initiative as soon as possible so those who lack access now can enjoy the benefits of the Internet sooner rather than later. The few speakers who spoke against this initiative claimed there is no digital divide in San Francisco, because there is an abundance of Internet cafes and everyone can afford to pay for DSL. I challenged these people to come to Chinatown and find us such a place with internet access – besides the Chinatown Library where the line for the computers is so long that usage is limited to 20 minutes per person.
Supervisors who want the city to build and operate a wireless business should think twice – just remember the recent reports on the performance of MUNI and the Department of Parking and Traffic, which suggest strong arguments against this proposal. As to the additional $10-$20 million the city would have to spend on a city-owned network vs. a private one, I would argue as a senior advocate that these funds should be spent on increasing affordable housing and healthcare for the residents instead. Given that our city is facing a $40+ million deficit for the coming fiscal year; where is the rationale behind Supervisor’s McGoldrick’s resolution?
This is my recommendation:
- Take time to study the pros and cons of the Google-Earthlink contract vs. the municipally-owned network proposal;
- Visit a community-based organization to understand the impact of the digital divide on at-risk socio-economic groups such as immigrants, seniors, youths, low income and disabled;
- Advocate for free Internet access for vulnerable communities;
- Support the city’s Digital Inclusion Framework;
- Organize a small group of your friends to visit your District Supervisor, and voice your strong support for universal free access for San Francisco.
- Attend the Board Meeting on March 20, 2007 and speak up!
We must work together to seize this one opportunity that will transform our communities from the “have-nots” to the “haves.” We must provide free access, affordable hardware and software, culturally competent content and training and technical assistance to those San Franciscans who are at the bottom of the digital divide. Passing the Wireless Initiative is the first step.
Learn more:
City of San Francisco Digital Inclusion Strategy
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dtis/tech_connect/DigitalInclusionStrategy.doc
The Digital Divide in San Francisco (February, 2007)
http://www.andrechan.com/DigitalDivide/Digital-Divide-San-Francisco.pdf
Understanding community and municipal wireless
http://www.freepress.net/wifi/wireless_practices.pdf
http://www.freepress.net/wifi/social_benefits.pdf
Nonprofits and community wireless (an overview and case studies)
http://www.nten.org/sites/nten/files/NTEN_wireless_0207_final.pdf
http://nten.org/sites/nten/files/NTEN_wireless_casestudies_0207.pdf
- - - - -
Anni Chung has been the President & CEO of Self-Help for the Elderly since 1981. She oversees and manages a community-based organization that provides a comprehensive range of health, educational, social and recreational services to over 25,000 seniors a year.
She served on the Board of Directors of the Community Technology Foundation of California from 1999-2005. She is currently on the Board of Directors of NICOS Chinese Health Coalition, Community Technology Policy Council and a member of St. Mary’s Medical Center’s Community Board, AT&T’s Community Partnership Agreement Committee and Verizon’s Community Citizens Collaborative.
Besides her community involvement, Anni is also the Producer and Host of a weekly public affairs program called "Chinese Journal" for KTSF-Channel 26.
Note: Articles are posted for the purpose of generating ideas and honest debate on how San Francisco can live up to its full promise and potential. Posting of an article does not imply an endorsement by the author of Gavin Newsom for Mayor, nor an endorsement by Gavin Newsom for Mayor of the positions set forth in the article.
- : 1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
It’s ironic that the Mayor has avoided taking responsibility for the failure of his once bold initiative to bring WiFi to San Francisco, but almost any policy initiative a leader undertakes to bring to the voters must be sold through a process between all the parts of government, not just the executive branch. Mayor Newsom froze not just the people out of WiFi negotiations and policy, but also the legislative branch of government and that alone is cause for this failure. What will it take for the Mayor to start working for the people rather than against the board and the people?