Board delays vote on EarthLink–Google wireless proposal, seeks fuller analysis

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to continue consideration of a resolution urging the city to weigh costs and benefits of a proposed EarthLink–Google wireless Internet agreement until March 20, saying council members need more analysis and pending negotiations must finish before any final action.

Supervisors said they want time to review a recent budget analyst report and a city-commissioned fiber-to-the-premises study as they weigh the private agreement against options for a municipally owned broadband system. “This board is doing the people’s work,” Supervisor McGoldrick said during a lengthy floor debate, urging delay to allow a more thorough public review.

Why it matters: the item would shape how San Francisco expands broadband access and addresses the “digital divide.” Supporters of municipal broadband cited the budget analyst’s finding that a city-owned system could be more cost-effective in the long run; proponents of a public–private deal said the EarthLink–Google approach could deliver service sooner.

Key facts and debate: the board heard competing arguments: some supervisors said the mayor’s office and the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services (DITAS) had not provided adequate comparative analyses; others argued the city can pursue short-term wireless coverage while studying longer-term fiber options. Supervisor Ammiano and others pressed for hearings at committee level so the contract, the pole-use agreement and related technical materials could be reviewed together.

Chris Dien, director of the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, told the board that one piece of the contractor package — an agreement with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission over use of utility poles for mounting antennas — was still being negotiated and not yet complete. “You are correct, supervisor,” Dien said. “That agreement is currently being negotiated but has not been completed yet.” He said the board and the PUC would both have to approve the pole-use agreement before construction could begin.

Legal timing: supervisors debated whether the 180-day review period the city charter requires for certain contracts had begun. After staff conferred with the city attorney, the board was told the enforcement window does not begin until the pole agreement is concluded, a point that helped persuade members to delay action.

Action taken: the board approved a motion to continue the resolution to the March 20 meeting (continuance motion by Supervisor McGoldrick; second by Supervisor Mercarini). The roll call recorded the continuance as passing by a 6–5 vote.

Next steps: committee hearings and additional analyses were requested by multiple supervisors; members asked that the contract language, pole-use agreement and budget analyst findings be made available to committee and the public before the March 20 meeting so the board can consider alternatives — including a phased approach that could combine a short-term EarthLink–Google arrangement with later municipal fiber deployment.

Ending: with the item continued, supervisors said they expected fuller documentary evidence and the opportunity for public testimony and committee review before taking any final vote on the proposed agreement.