LAFCO hears fiber study recommending phased city network; public raises Wi‑Fi contract concerns

San Francisco—s Local Agency Formation Commission on Wednesday heard a status report on the city—s broadband strategy, including a recently released fiber study that outlines a phased approach to municipal fiber and debate over a near-term Wi‑Fi agreement with a private vendor.

Chris Feehan, director of the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, told commissioners the department had released a digital inclusion strategy and the fiber study "yesterday," and described the twin tracks of near-term Wi‑Fi and longer-term fiber deployment. "With fiber, you really are getting a bigger pipe," Feehan said, while noting fiber requires "significant infrastructure investment" and a much longer timeline than Wi‑Fi.

Joanne Hovis of Columbia Telecommunications, who led the consultant team, recommended beginning with a city-owned internal network to serve public safety, education and municipal functions, then piloting an "enterprise zone" covering roughly 20 percent of the city, and only afterward considering full fiber-to-the-premises. Hovis said the report estimated an enterprise‑zone pilot at about $150 million and a citywide open‑access build at approximately $560,000,000 under an open‑access (wholesale) model; she said a retail model where the city operated as a service provider would be substantially more expensive ("mid $700,000,000 range").

Hovis emphasized that fiber and wireless are complementary. "Nothing has the kind of speed that fiber does," she said, adding wireless remains valuable for mobile uses and public‑safety applications and could serve as interim coverage. She also recommended staging construction to coincide with sidewalk repair, sewer replacement or other digs to capture substantial cost savings.

Commissioners pressed staff on financing and implementation. One commissioner noted the $564 million capital figure was a present‑dollars estimate and warned that borrowing and carrying costs would raise the long‑term price. Feehan and Hovis repeatedly recommended follow‑up hearings and public comment on the study; Feehan said the report would be posted for at least 30 days to gather input.

Public commenters focused largely on digital inclusion and the pending outdoor Wi‑Fi contract negotiated by DTIS with EarthLink (often described in public comment in connection with Google). Nonprofit and community speakers urged that any contract include enforceable coverage and inclusion standards, questioned the strength of termination or enforcement provisions, and requested explicit commitments for underserved neighborhoods. Ralph Muilen of SFLAN, a community wireless network, urged both fiber and Wi‑Fi: "We need both." Other speakers urged the city to preserve strong network‑neutrality protections and clear performance remedies in the Wi‑Fi agreement.

The commission did not make final policy decisions at the meeting. Commissioners agreed to schedule follow‑up sessions so the public and technical teams can vet the study, finance options and contract provisions more thoroughly.

San Francisco officials said the study is intended to inform both short‑term and long‑range discussions and that no final procurement decisions would be made until the city completes further public review and fiscal analysis.