Attachment D City of San Jose

Broadband and Digital Inclusion Strategy Gaps & Opportunities Assessment

June 2017

Page 1 Contents

• Context • Methodology • Economic development and governance • Digital inclusion • Appendices: 1. Economic development and governance – Additional information 2. Digital inclusion – Detail on digitally-excluded area 3. Digital inclusion – Additional information 4. and Internet of Things primer

Key questions

• What patterns of fiber deployment, market intervention and pole use are common to peers? • Where are the “digitally excluded” neighborhoods in San Jose, and what actions can the City take to target interventions in those neighborhoods? • Where is San Jose’s current governance of weak, and what can the City learn from peer cities that have stronger broadband governance? • Are any peer cities clear leaders on smart city and Internet of Things-related issues, and what can San Jose leverage from these peer leaders?

Page 2 Methodology

This gaps and opportunities analysis is derived from three major categories of research: City and third-party data Interview data Peer benchmark data • DOT broadband infrastructure • Deputy City Managers • Peer city websites and published • City broadband initiatives • City department heads reports • FCC 477 • City department staff • Third-party benchmark research • US Census and American • Mayor’s office staff • Consultant proprietary data Community Survey • Santa Clara County Housing • Our team interviewed dozens of stakeholders across City departments, regional actors and other third-party specialists to get perspective on broadband in the US • We also collected data from many of these interviewees (e.g., DOT fiber maps), which we supplemented with publicly-available sources, like FCC and Census • These current-state data were supplemented with our benchmark of ten peer cities, below, using their own data/reports and consultant proprietary data

Priority domestic Other domestic International • Charlotte, NC • Los Angeles, CA • Barcelona, Spain • Chattanooga, TN • City, NY • Seoul, South Korea • Kansas City, MO • San Diego, CA • Singapore • San Francisco, CA • Seattle, WA

• Data and analysis are current as of May 2017

Page 3 Executive summary

Benchmarking results and key gaps/opportunities on San Jose broadband and digital inclusion

Page 4 Economic development and governance

Page 5 Broadband Digital inclusion

San Jose has a functional duopoly of cable and DSL providers, with few incentives to improve speed, price or quality

Cable access DSL access Key takeaways (Census blocks with cable)* (Census blocks with DSL/ADSL)*

Basic broadband access is nearly universal: • Most census blocks in the City provide residents a choice of cable or DSL service • Residents can choose between (cable) or AT&T (DSL) • Top speeds are 250 mbps Map 1: census blocks with (cable) and 100 mbps (DSL) • Satellite access is available, but cable (all types) very slow (5 mbps); fixed access is available, but only to businesses

Providers have limited incentive to improve: • DSL/ADSL are nearing their technological limit at current speeds and cannot be improved significantly • Cable has limited competition Access available Access unavailable Mountainous regions are from fiber, so no market incentive mostly un-populated, so do to improve speed, price or quality not have access • Primary fixed wireless provider Source: FCC 477 data, December 2015. * This analysis includes both residential and commercial broadband (Cruzio) has no plans to provide residential service Page 6 Broadband Digital inclusion

San Jose has very low availability of high-quality fiber connections – just 3.8% of all census blocks (2015 data)

Fiber access Key takeaways (Census blocks with fiber)*

Fiber access is objectively low: • About 0.2% of census blocks show residential access and 3.6% show commercial access across the city • SpeedUp San Jose results showed 94% of residents using AT&T or Comcast for broadband service; just 6% use “Other”, which may not be fiber • Some fiber seems to be located in selective high- tech commercial areas, but do not cover most of the City’s business areas

Fiber access does not appear to correlate with median income: • The cluster of existing fiber access is split between a low- and a high-income area • Other areas of high income (circled) do not have corresponding fiber access

Fiber density will be required for high-speed technology, either wired or wireless Area of high Absence Presence • and other wireless technologies will require high- median income Source: FCC 477 data, December 2015. bandwidth backhaul * This analysis includes both residential and commercial broadband Page 7 Broadband Digital inclusion

Fiber availability is increasing at a very slow pace – with only 1.1% of census blocks with residential access

Fiber Access 2014 2015 2016 Provider(s)

# of Census Blocks 16 19 99 Residential AT&T % of Census Blocks 0.2% 0.2% 1.1%

# of Census Blocks 1288 329 1354 13 Providers in Commercial 2016 % of Census Blocks 14.2% 3.6%* 15.0%

Total % of Census Blocks 14.4% 3.8%* 16.0%

Source: FCC 477 data * Sunesys, LLC provided commercial broadband access in 2014 and 2016 but not in 2015. Page 8 Broadband Digital inclusion

San Jose owns over 67,000 streetlight poles, and can use other assets to increase broadband access – particularly for low-income people

City-owned City public access Key takeaways streetlight poles resources

Streetlight coverage is very strong – the City’s most useful negotiating asset • Coverage is nearly universal throughout the City, and essential to make citywide interventions • Mobile download speeds in these areas tend to be 2-5x faster than in most other parts of the city

City public access resources are still a strong tool for digital inclusion • Most of these assets are City-owned streetlight pole Community center already in use, through Public library computer labs or training • City could consider using these assets for fixed wireless or additional Wi-Fi points

Source: City streetlight pole, community center and public library data; Census income data. Page 9 Broadband Digital inclusion

DOT owns 90 miles of fiber with connecting copper and wireless assets – but these seem unavailable for other City initiatives…

DOT fiber and related assets Key takeaways

San Jose’s municipal fiber is currently reserved for transportation-specific uses • DOT reports using its fiber loops (in conjunction with other assets) to connect to every traffic light • Fiber lines may have additional capacity according to DOT interviewees, but are subject to restrictions on their use (i.e., transportation initiatives)

This network does not appear sufficient to run significant interventions by the City • The network edge uses old, low-capacity T1 copper lines that are maxed-out • Wireless assets are also specifically dedicated to traffic management and are, reportedly, not available for use to provide City Wi-Fi

The City could try to package some connections to its fiber network as an offering, but would need to DOT wireless radios DOT copper lines navigate legal restrictions on the fiber’s use. DOT-owned fiber lines SVITS fiber lines

DOT multimodal fiber DOT wireless links

Source: City fiber maps, Census population data Page 10 Broadband Digital inclusion

…and while other assets are available, like VTA and SVITS fiber, there may be additional restrictions on their use

Same map with VTA DOT fiber and related assets and SVITS only

DOT wireless radios DOT copper lines

DOT-owned fiber lines SVITS fiber lines VTA rail route SVITS fiber lines DOT multimodal fiber DOT wireless links

Source: City fiber maps, Census population data Page 11 Broadband Digital inclusion

Light poles are seen as the “asset of choice” to drive broadband infrastructure and smart city services not yet widely-deployed

Ownership issues Proxy case study: LinkNYC • Cities are working to determine which entity controls the pole, Context selects providers, owns data, etc. NYC leased its public telephone assets to a • Many current pole connection pilots are on proprietary pole private provider to deliver gigabit speed Wi- designs from hardware manufacturers (e.g., Phillips) Fi and related services Standardization and regulation • San Jose and its peer cities are struggling to develop cohesive Key benefits processes, rules and end-points for attachments • Increased connectivity and intervention • California SB 649 (the Hueso Bill) would standardize on digital divide attachment rules and rates at the state level, removing the • Revenue generation ($20MM) ability and need for many forms of standardization (as well as • Re-purposing of little-used street municipal control over it) furniture • Seattle (via State of Washington) recently passed legislation • Awareness and leadership on streamlining provider access to poles for attachment broadband issues Revenue and rates Continuing challenges • No consensus or transparency on the profitability/correct lease • Power connection and metering rates, which is impeding roll-out as cities and providers fear a • Cost of fiber backhaul bad deal • Permitting and city government • Traditional model is cheap pilot rates, with much higher long approvals term rates ($300-$700/site/month) (e.g., Kansas City, NYC) • Siting new locations Power capabilities • Many cities (including San Jose) are struggling to renegotiate agreements with utilities to support new attachments and

increased electrical load/requirements Source: Consultant research. Page 12 Broadband Digital inclusion

While government intervention is associated with higher fiber penetration levels and leading top speeds…

Peer city Market model Fiber buildout (% of census Top speed (gbps) blocks with fiber connection) Seoul, South Korea Government-led 100% 10 Singapore Government-led 100% 10 Barcelona, Spain Government-led 100% 1 Chattanooga, TN Government-led 98% 10

Kansas City, MO 96% 1 Seattle, WA Hybrid public-private 58% 1 , NY Hybrid public-private 66% 1 Charlotte, NC Aborted google fiber 5.9% 1 San Francisco, CA Market-led 2.4% 1 Los Angeles, CA Market-led 1.9% 1

San Diego, CA Market-led 1.1% 1 San Jose, CA Market-led 0.4% 1

Source: Consultant research, Broadband Now/FCC 477, provider websites. Page 13 Broadband Digital inclusion

…municipally-owned fiber networks – still the theoretically-best outcome – are increasingly seen as untenable due to high costs and risk Government-led Hybrid model Market-led (Recommended) San Francisco New York City Los Angeles

Chattanooga Seattle Charlotte San Diego Kansas City San Jose Building a full-fiber networks is Cities that welcome private investment Cities with laissez-faire expensive, complex and risky. Most with appropriate guidance are most broadband oversight often cities are not ready to finance the successful. Evidence shows that cities stagnate as cable-telecom Summary infrastructure and act as Internet can drive extensive fiber build-outs by duopolies. Service Provider. removing roadblocks (restrictive policies) and negotiating successfully with carriers. Key • Seattle, Palo Alto and others • Seattle leveraged streamlined • Broadband speeds and Takeaways have determined that city-led full policies to drive competition and prices cluster to the bottom fiber build-outs are not practical, massive fiber buildout (<10% to of the peer set after detailed assessments >50% of City in just three years) • No substantial competition in • Chattanooga’s unique buildout • NYC used franchise agreements to major market-led cities included control by the utility and drive fiber build-out heavy federal funding from • Peer cities in this range tend to have American Recovery & strong fiber showings at significantly Reinvestment Act less cost or risk than government-led

Source: Consultant research and interviews, City websites. Page 14 Broadband Digital inclusion

Cross-departmental needs of broadband drive leading cities consolidate governance; San Jose is unique in having many owners

Broadband governance bodies Topic-specific governance Includes policymaking, initiative execution and telecom Includes smart city, IoT and digital inclusion owners relationship owners

Two owners: Mayor’s Office and Department of Innovation & Charlotte, NC Two owners: Department of transportation and Digital Charlotte Technology Two owners: Department of Transportation, The Enterprise Chattanooga, TN One owner: EPB (utility) Center

Kansas City, MO One owner: Department of Innovation One owner: Department of Innovation Two owners: Mayor’s Office, Information Technology Two owners: Information Technology Department, Community Seattle, WA Department Technology Advisory Board Two owners: Mayor’s Office, Department of Information Two owners: Department of Information Technology & New York, NY Technology & Telecommunications Telecommunications, Mayor’s Office of Tech + Innovation Multiple owners: Mayor‘s Office of Sustainability, Department of Los Angeles, CA Two owners: Mayor’s Office, Information Technology Agency Public Works, Information Technology Agency, City Council

Multiple owners: Mayor’s Office, Department of Infrastructure and San Diego, CA One owner: Infrastructure / Public Works Public Works, multiple digital inclusion owners Two owners: Department of Technology, Committee on Multiple owners: SF Municipal Transportation Authority, San Francisco, CA Information Technology Department of Technology, Committee on Information Technology

Multiple owners: City Council, Department of Transportation, Multiple owners: City Council, Department of Transportation, San Jose, CA Office of Civic Innovation, Office of Economic Development, Office of Civic Innovation, multiple digital inclusion owners Department of Public Works

Consolidated governance is an indictor of maturity on the topic. Peer cities are more mature on broadband than on Smart Cities generally.

Source: Consultant research and interviews, City websites. Page 15 Broadband Digital inclusion

Future wireless technologies (5G, mmWave) are in their infancy – but important for the City to focus on as it prepares for the future

5G/mmWave – City actions 5G/mmWave – Carrier actions Key takeaways: Key takeaways: • City-led actions on 5G/mmWave are in pilot stage • Carriers plan to roll out 5G in 2-4 years • Early steps include information gathering, rulemaking • Carriers have begun selecting pilot cities, however – and limited exploratory sensor deployment and San Jose is not currently expected to be one Kansas City, • Partnered with Google to pilot test 3.5 AT&T • Released a “5G Evolution” service in Austin in MO GHz wireless capabilities in eight districts April 2017, with a plan to expand to 20 cities across the City • Acquired two companies with large portfolios • Focus on providing short-range wireless of mmWave spectrum connections to areas not reached by Google Fiber New York • Encouraging smaller vendors of fixed Sprint • Announced plans to develop and launch a 5G City, NY wireless (mmWave) solutions network (in the 2.5 GHz range) and devices by • Conducted an analysis of tall buildings in end of 2019, in partnership with the City that could serve as hubs and SoftBank Rhode Island • Issued an RFI in November 2016 T-Mobile • Announced a nationwide 5G network by end seeking implementation of 2020 recommendations on 5G wireless, IoT, • Began hosting 5G trials and device testing to and fiber network infrastructure prepare for deployment Washington • Introduced SB5711 in February 2017 to Verizon • Announced that it will pilot 5G fixed wireless State standardize permitting rules for new technology in eleven cities by end of 2017 (not equipment and allow service providers to including San Jose) place small cell networks on city-owned • Acquired a communications and networking street furniture, including streetlight poles company that owns mmWave spectrum

Source: Consultant research, Provider websites. Page 16 Broadband Digital inclusion

Broadband outcomes, governance, and funding: Gaps and opportunities summary Gap identified Potential opportunity San Jose has very low fiber access Equitably expand the fiber and compared to leading cities fiber-grade connectivity footprint throughout the City Consumers have few choices for cost Break the cable-DSL duopoly by and speed, especially at lower-end expanding consumer choice using segments of the market City assets and new technology (e.g., 5G/small cells) No clear owner for broadband Centralize broadband governance initiatives, and uncoordinated over initiatives and coordinate with ownership over policymaking and policymaking (Mayor’s Office) and telecom relationships telecom relationships (OED) The City generally allows telecom Leverage assets (e.g., streetlight providers to use and develop assets at poles and/or franchise) to achieve the will, provided they pay certain fees and City’s desired changes in negotiation alert the City to their activities with providers Peers are implementing policies – Implement no-regrets policies to which San Jose does not have – to advance broadband (e.g., streamline make broadband deployment easier permitting and fees to align with leading practices)

Page 17 Digital inclusion

Page 18 Broadband Digital inclusion

San Jose is active across the key aspects of digital inclusion, using a constellation of public, private, and NGO players

Select Initiative Description Owner

Comcast Internet Pilot program providing seniors access to affordable internet Comcast (Private) Essentials

ESUHSD Wi-Fi Pilot project to deploy Wi-Fi network to ESUHSD students and families ESUHSD

Facebook Terragraph Demonstration project with Facebook to implement 1 gpbs Wi-Fi access City (Civic Innovation)

in the downtown corridor and select underserved areas onnectivity Free public Wi-Fi Free public Wi-Fi available at select City buildings and neighborhoods City (ITD)

SpeedUp San Jose Speed test that allows for residents to see internet cost and quality City (Civic Innovation) and Access/c Speed Up Your City (Private)

Sprint 1MP Partnership with Sprint to provide free mobile devices and wireless internet City (Library) and Sprint connectivity to qualifying high school students (Private)

Comcast Digital Youth training program focused on internet and computer skills ConXion to Community (NGO)

Connectors and Comcast (Private) Digital literacy Digital literacy courses Public programming at the library on basic computer to business skills City (Library)

Chicana/Latina & Latino Digital inclusion initiative to connect 3,000 new internet users in the Latinx Chicana/Latina & Latino Community Foundation community Community Foundation (NGO)

Latinos in Technology “One-start-shop” for college aspiring middle and high school students and Hispanic Foundation of Silicon

Diversity, language, language, and culture and Initiative their parents to obtain college access information, and workshops Valley (NGO)

The output of these activities, while individually meaningful,

does not add up successful digital inclusion. Page 19 Broadband Digital inclusion

Access: Domestic peers have not yet solved for affordable broadband; low-cost plans for most providers do not deliver 25 mbps

Low-cost broadband plans of US providers Minimum speed necessary to qualify as “broadband” (FCC)

$16

$14

$12

$10

$8

Price ($) Price $6

$4

$2

$0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Speed (Mbps)

Nearly all basic Internet packages from major US providers do not qualify as “broadband” as defined by the FCC, and prices vary considerably based on the provider. This means that San Jose cannot rely on current low-cost programs to provide acceptable broadband to digitally-excluded residents.

Source: Provider websites, FCC website. Page 20 Broadband Digital inclusion

Adoption: The City’s “digitally-excluded” area contains many low- income Latino residents lacking college degrees

No. of adults who used internet in Spanish speaking population the past 1 month

Very low Very low

High High

Note: Our data show Vietnamese population is not correlated with digital exclusion. Requires Street Survey data to Population with Bachelor’s corroborate. Median income degree Further detail and drill-down maps in the Appendix.

Very low Very low

High High

Source: Census and Claritas datasets.

Page 21 Broadband Digital inclusion

Peer cities in the US share similar, if not fully satisfactory, governance and funding models for digital inclusion

Governance Funding

Key takeaway Cities assemble collaborative, multi-stakeholder Inclusion programs heavily skew toward groups -- usually involving the Library as lead -- foundation and NGO funding, with modest or to manage inclusion activities” matching City support San Jose, CA

Charlotte, NC

Chattanooga, TN

Kansas City, MO

In addition to sharing governance and funding activities, US cities also tend to have similar digital inclusion initiatives: public Wi-Fi, device provision and digital literacy classes. Source: Consultant research, City websites. Page 22 Broadband Digital inclusion

Comprehensive digital inclusion solutions remain elusive among US peer cities, but Seattle seems to have had some early success

Planning Action Impact The Seattle IT Community Seattle has invested over $2M As of 2016, the TMF program Technology program released to date in the Digital Equity has served more than 150 the Digital Equity Initiative Initiative. local nonprofits and enabled Action Plan with a specific digital equity for more than focus on: Activities have included: 14,900 residents. 1. Skills training • Conducted a “barriers” study 2. Devices and technical and began initiatives to Additional successes from support address them 2016 include: 3. Greater internet • Developed • Provided 100 low-cost connectivity recommendations for a refurbished devices public Wi-Fi strategy for • Expanded free Wi-Fi at 26 This effort is co-led by the underserved areas (e.g., community centers Seattle IT and the Office of transit tunnels, homeless • Awarded an additional Civil Rights. encampments, parks) $320k in TMF projects

A key component is the Additionally, the TMF has Technology Matching Fund, awarded over $4.2M in grants which awards matching grants since 1998, which have helped up to $50k for projects to close in order to fund computer the digital divide, in stations and provide partnerships with NGOs or technology education classes other groups. While no US city seems to have “cracked the code” on digital inclusion, Seattle’s example could serve as a useful model for further action San Jose could take.

Source: Consultant research, Seattle Digital Equity Initiative Action Plan (Phases I and II), Seattle IT website. Page 23 Broadband Digital inclusion

Digital inclusion: Gaps and opportunities summary

Gap identified Potential opportunity There is no centralized governance Centralize governance of digital of digital inclusion issues within city or inclusion and build structured across partners, and approaches are collaboration among city, private, often ad hoc and NGO partners The City and partners executing many Expand funding and deployment of programs but results are not programs within the and develop strongly measured and City clear metrics for success programs may not be optimized San Jose has clear neighborhoods Develop neighborhood-specific of digital exclusion, where certain strategies (e.g., for Downtown and groups have very low use rates (see East San Jose toward Alum Rock) Appendix for further detail) San Jose’s branding as the Capitol of Develop a public awareness Silicon Valley may project a picture of strategy to generate greater support broadband access at odds with reality; for inclusion, both within San Jose the City is not yet using this and outside perception to drive action

Page 24 Appendix 1: Economic development and governance – Additional information

Page 25 Speed tests show a disconnect between maximum advertised speeds and actual consumer speeds—likely due to cost of high speed plans

Maximum advertised speed Actual consumer speed (Residential speed, using FCC data) (SpeedUp San Jose test results)

26-54 Mbps 54-83 Mbps 83+ Mbps

• Difference in speeds could be due to either consumers purchasing lower-speed broadband or ISPs providing slower Key takeaways service than advertised (e.g., “throttling”) – or a combination of both factors • Speed tests do not correlate strongly with fiber availability or median income Page 26 Chattanooga, Kansas City and Seattle have broken through the duopoly stasis in three different ways

Chattanooga made fiber a utility to Kansas City partnered Seattle removed roadblocks bypass telecom providers with Google Fiber for fiber providers • Chattanooga was the first city in the • Google selected Kansas City as its • Seattle commissioned a detailed cost US to provide a full fiber-to-the- first Google Fiber city in 2012 assessment to build out its own premises (FTTP) gigabit-speed fiber network – like Chattanooga – but • Google was seen as the first major network, called “The Gig”, in 2010 decided the price was too high corporate challenge to the telecom • The City built the entire fiber incumbents in the US • Instead, Seattle identified two major network itself through its utility, the initiatives it could undertake at a • The two incumbent providers, Time Electric Power Board (EPB) much lower price: Warner Cable and Comcast, both 1. Reduce regulatory barriers, like • The buildout was expensive, but announced faster speeds at no permitting processes Chattanooga positioned it as a additional cost on the news of the 2. Work with private providers, like project to win $111M in Google Fiber buildout CenturyLink, to build out their American Recovery & Reinvestment • Unfortunately, Google appears to be network and lease City assets Act (ARRA) funds exiting the wireline fiber market as of • Benefits to Seattle have also been • Benefits to Chattanooga have been 2016, putting build-out in jeopardy impressive: the City went from very impressive: the EPB is moving to 10 little fiber to 60%+ penetration in gbps-speed broadband, and its smart just a few years – without the costs grid is attracting Amazon and others associated with a municipal buildout • The EPB survived through four lawsuits from AT&T and Comcast Sources: Consultant analysis. City websites. Page 27 The price of fiber is falling: Residents of many US peer cities spend less on fiber than the OECD average for basic (non-fiber) broadband

Providers with Fiber broadband plan cost as Fixed broadband Peer city package cost in fiber (%) % of monthly per capita income developed countries: 2.82% 1.7% of average Chattanooga, TN 20% monthly income Charlotte, NC 25% 2.17% 1.99% Kansas City, MO 36% 1.86% 1.67% San Francisco, 1.42% CA 27% Seattle, WA 30% 0.92% 0.79% Los Angeles, CA 22% San Diego, CA 13% New York City, NY 18% San Jose, CA 0%

Low number of ISPs with residential fiber network options may be driving the fiber broadband plan prices in many US cities

Source: Consultant research. Page 28 Appendix 2: Digital inclusion – Detail on digitally-excluded area

Page 29 Overview of findings Area of impact for ESUHSD pilot program

Overview

• This analysis sought to examine the digitally-excluded areas of the City in greater detail, by zooming in geographically on those “hotspots” of digitally-excluded residents • Our analysis generated four zoomed-in areas, as seen at right (and in greater blown-up detail on the following slide

Key takeaways

• Slide 4 – The area north of Taylor Street has no City-owned facilities, meaning the City would need to find some other means of intervention • Slides 5 & 6 – Digitally-excluded areas in downtown and just south of Highway 280 appear to be well-served by community centers and libraries that could be the focal points of City interventions • Slide 7 – The digitally-excluded area east of Highway 101 has just a few City-owned facilities that could serve as focal points of action • Slide 8 – The area of focus of ESUHSD is indeed a “high” priority area, but appears to miss an adjoining “very high” area of need – indicating that resources could possibly be better allocated

Page 30 Our analysis divided the zone of high digital exclusion into four neighborhoods based on major boundaries (e.g., highways)

Neighborhood 1: North of Taylor Street

Neighborhood 3: East of Highway 101

Neighborhood 2: South of Taylor Street, West of Highway 101, North of Highway 280

Neighborhood 4: South of Highway 280

Page 31 Neighborhood #1 (North of Taylor Street) is an area of high need, as no existing City facilities are available to jump-start inclusion work

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data.

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data. Page 32 Neighborhood #2 (Downtown) shows many available City facilities – and due to business presence, will likely attract carrier investment

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data.

Page 33 Similarly, Neighborhood #4 (South of Highway 280) also has several community centers that anchor City inclusion work

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data.

Page 34 Neighborhood #3 (East of Highway 101) shows limited City facilities available, indicating more resources are needed for inclusion

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data.

Page 35 The City’s ESUHSD work focuses on a “high” area of exclusion – but appears to skirt a “very high” area of exclusion right next to it

Broadband use backdrop Median income backdrop

Note: Shaded area above indicates general area of influence of ESUHSD program.

Note: This map layer is based on INDEX values from Claritas data. Area of impact for ESUHSD pilot program Page 36 Appendix 3: Digital inclusion – Additional information

Page 37 Outcomes from peer cities’ digital inclusion initiatives are being evaluated; some cities show early signs of successes

Chattanooga, TN Kansas City, MO Seattle, WA

Governance The Enterprise Center, an economic The Kansas City Coalition for Digital The Seattle IT Community Technology and development entity chartered by the Inclusion is led by the Library, government program released the Digital Equity strategy City and County governments, entities, local nonprofits and businesses Initiative Action Plan with a specific focuses on innovation economy, focused on fostering internet access and focus around 1) device and technical entrepreneurship, and digital digital readiness. The City’s Department support, 2) greater internet connectivity, inclusion. The main focus of DI of Innovation released the KC Digital and 3) skills training. This effort is co-led initiatives are around closing the gap Roadmap, which identifies digital inclusion by the City’s Department of Information in technical literacy, hardware as one of the City’s technology initiatives. Technology and the Office of Civil adoption, and internet access. Rights. Initiatives Tech Goes Home, a nonprofit KCMO’s action items are: Seattle is investing $1.6M on digital organization partnering with the • Develop a City-wide digital inclusion equity initiative. The City has since: Enterprise Center, is working on policy to bridge the City’s digital divide • Awarded $470K in Technology addressing three main issues: • Develop strategies to increase public Matching Funds (TMF) to local • Education access to free Wi-Fi and to manage nonprofits to create computer work • Hardware public infrastructure stations and provide technology • Low cost connectivity • Improve approaches to technology education classes procurement with a focus on digital • Developed recommendations for a literacy, skills, communications, public Wi-Fi strategy for underserved operations, and delivery of services areas (ex. Transit tunnels, homeless encampments, parks) Outcomes Since the pilot in January 2015, Tech • The Coalition brings individuals from • As of 2015, the TMF program served Goes Home served around 1,800 various sectors to discuss policy issues more than 150 local nonprofits individuals through its computer skills and identify strategies for community enabling digital equity for more than courses, information sharing of improvement 14,900 residents discounted internet options to City • KCMO has made investments in public • To improve internet availability, and County residents, and by Wi-Fi via a partnership with Sprint Seattle is evaluating building codes providing options to purchase devices • KC Digital Inclusion Fund has to ensure access and infrastructure for a low cost. supported nonprofit initiatives ($5.29M for broadband service and proposing from ‘13-’16) legislative solutions Page 38 Sources: City websites. Appendix 4: Smart city and Internet of Things primer

Page 39 “Smart City” is still an undefined term, requiring careful navigation

• There is no concrete definition of Smart City • This breadth allows many types of actions to be called Smart City, confusing the term • The more complex definitions better align with the rhetoric and vision for Smart City Key point: San Jose’s vision – and primary driver – for smart city is to drive benefits for San Jose residents.

Integration of multiple hardware/data streams to unlock new services

Tech-enable improvement to existing services (e.g., traffic flow management) Hardware and Infrastructure Tech-Enabled Services • Internet connected hardware • Innovative resident/city interaction (e.g., app based) • Innovative hardware • Online city services • Digital connectivity infrastructure

• Open Data Value delivery and complexity and delivery Value

Source: Consultant research. Page 40 Most smart city initiatives focus either on hardware or services

Selected Initiative Description Owner Demonstration Downtown Wickedly Public-private partnership with SmartWAVE Technologies and Ruckus Wireless to Civic City Fast Wi-Fi deploy fast Wi-Fi networks in downtown Innovation

Facebook Terragraph Demonstration project with Facebook to implement 1 gpbs Wi-Fi access in the Civic downtown corridor and select underserved areas Innovation

Silver Spring IoT Partnership with Silver Spring Networks to install Starffsh wireless network service Civic for IoT deployment Innovation

Inclusive City Customer Relationship Implementation of a CRM solution to resolve service needs and lay a foundation for ITD Management (CRM) future use Safe City Transportation Events Informs DOT's traffic engineers of traffic delays and unusual backups, and enables DOT Tracking and them to make necessary adjustments to the City's traffic signal system Management Vehicle Fleet Cellular enabled GPS devices are installed on City vehicles to record and DPW Telematics communicate vehicle functions and driver operations Radar Sensor Module Radar devices and data processing units are deployed across demonstration sites DOT at signalized intersections for advanced traffic, pedestrian and bicycle counting, and analytics Sustainable LED Streetlights Convert over 60,000 streetlights to LED at no cost to the City, in exchange for DOT City (potentially) allowing providers to attach smart city or IoT technologies to the poles User- Friendly Citywide Data Provides an open data blueprint and proof-of-concept results to help advance the ITD City Communities City’s ability to reach across the organization’s data and systems, Architecture

While these initial traffic management steps are useful in a congested city like San Jose, the City has only begun to scratch the surface of potential useful smart city applications.

Source: San Jose Smart City Vision, stakeholder interviews. Page 41 This one-off approach is very common within US cities

• US cities are quickly becoming more aware of and Traditional one-off approach interested in Smart City/IoT - Most large cities have some kind of broad vision about achieving Smart City outcomes Develop • No US city has yet delivered integrated Smart City/IoT idea Limited outcomes – especially compared to leading Reduced buy in and international peers, like Barcelona or Singapore future funding possibilities • Many US cities have executed limited initiatives, such as traffic management or virtualization of city services Minimal Narrow idea scalability • A few cities, including Chicago, Seattle, and Denver, are RFP beginning open-ended sensor partnerships, but they are quite experimental - Chicago partnered with Argonne National Labs, Limited known as the Array of Things (AoT) success Difficult Vendor - Program is piloting sensor technologies simply to execution selected see if they can survive outdoors for 5+ years, and if the City can manage all the data involved Hangs - Project is not specifically designed to solve existing Execution hardware/ City problems, just be a testbed challenges stands up • Some cities are starting to take small steps toward service integrated, platform-based approaches (though most are exploratory), using RFIs and RFPs

Source: Consultant research and interviews. Page 42 Many US cities are executing one-off smart city developments, usually around traffic and parking

San Jose, CA San Francisco, CA Los Angeles, CA Kansas City, MO San Diego, CA Driver for • Transportation • Transportation • Transportation • Transportation • Transportation smart city • Safety • Sustainability • Sustainability • Sustainability investment • Sustainability • EcoDevo Funding • Federal grants • $31M from • $400M Traffic • $15M streetcar • $30M City source funded by USDOT to USDOT to Reduction Project, investment with investment for IoT develop and install develop funded through smart sensors platform and sensors transportation transportation Prop 1B and City funded through PPP management system technologies and expenditures • $600k state grant for devices improve parking ”Adaptive Traffic Systems” Major • Congestion • Smart parking • Smart traffic • City leveraged its • City upgraded 3,200 benefits reduction from DOT meter pilot management streetcar street lights to add activities resulted in a 30% system uses road investment to add sensors for gunshot • Greater benefits reduction in sensors and parking and traffic detection, parking could accrue with parking-related cameras to reduce sensors to the spaces, air quality additional investment greenhouse gases congestion district and traffic flow

Atlanta is leveraging City’s $250M infrastructure bond approved for better traffic management to create a demonstration smart city corridor.

Sources: Based on PwC Analysis, City websites, third-party research.

Page 43 Other cities are trying to break the ad-hoc cycle with integrated planning, but are very early in the process

Philadelphia RFI & RFP Boston RFI • Executed RFI to understand • Published Smart City principles landscape • Executed RFI on applications and • Recognized complexity, and assets needed currently soliciting RFP bids for • No strategic public actions yet (just Smart City IoT strategy ad hoc programs in place) • No specific public actions yet

NYC Goals Rhode Island RFI • Set high-level smart city goals • Recognized complexity of issue • Set early smart city principles and • Requested information about behaviors integrating infrastructure, sensors • Struggling to align departments. and IoT applications Substantial pushback on zoning • No specific public actions yet and aesthetics

In the current funding environment, it is difficult to acquire capital for integrated smart city approaches, outside of foundations. Source: Consultant research, City websites. Page 44 All peer cities are taking action on smart cities, and most have a formal, written strategy in place

Charlotte, NC Kansas City, MO San Francisco, CA Smart Charlotte has 1,500+ video cameras The City installed a 2.2-moile downtown San Francisco has set its vision of transportation deployed across the city that monitor streetcar line with free Wi-Fi; similar to creating a path toward Shared, traffic, read license plates, and provide many cities, Kansas City has been Electric, Connected and Automated real-time views of streets; the City has focused on deploying connected vehicle Vehicles (SEVAC); the City has smart sensors embedded in parking spaces and automated vehicle technologies in parking meters that adapts different to help drivers reduce their time finding high dense areas within the City with a price points according to location, parking spots goal to improve passenger safety, time of day, and day of the week increase efficiency in highways Open data Open Charlotte provides City services, The City launched an Open Data The City’s former Mayor Newsom operations and statistical data to Catalogue in 2013 to provide its enacted the nation’s first open data citizens; nonprofits, such as Code for residents raw City data, such as: annual legislation in 2009, creating DataSF Charlotte, have emerged to provide budgets, crime stats, traffic counts and education and advocacy as well as 311 service requests increase civic engagement in the community Other smart City implemented a “smart district” Free, public Wi-Fi installation in The City set specific goals: reduce: city topics initiative to have a narrower focus on downtown; 25 interactive digital kiosks single occupancy vehicles, emissions, addressing smart city-related topics; along the streetcar line in downtown; collisions and fatalities, and cost for heavy focus on environmental installation of sensors and integrated low-income residents; the SF Public sustainability, with an emphasis on LED street light to capture data for Utilities Commission initiated the LED energy, air, water, and waste future smart city applications Street Light Conversation

Source: City websites.

Page 45 Barcelona has taken a leadership role with a well-defined network architecture

Smart City Applications Layer 1: Enables city government, private sector and citizens to leverage data and analytics to improve services Smart Applications (e.g., Control Center for lighting, Tourism Apps, etc.).

Layer 2: City Operating System (City OS) Data OS and Data Layer Enables the data aggregation, analysis, modeling and City Open Data, Social Media Data, predictive analysis etc.

Sensor Platform (Sentilio) Enables the integration of both proprietary and open source sensors data Layer 3: Sensors Lighting Irrigation Parking Waste Traffic Weather Other Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors

Layer 4: Fixed and Wireless Broadband Infrastructure Network Infrastructure City-wide fiber optic and wireless networks, enables data aggregation and system control

Source: Consultant analysis, Barcelona city government website, Cisco. Page 46 Smart city and Internet of Things (IoT): Gaps and opportunities summary

Gap identified Potential opportunity IoT projects are in their infancy Create actionable platform that nationally, though the City recognizes maintains flexibility as technology their importance in future civic and management evolves development Smart city and IoT initiatives are ad Deepen smart city vision and hoc and owned by several consolidate leadership for departments, not coordinated by the IoT/Smart City work into an effective, City empowered point of contact San Jose does not appear to have a Create integrated data architecture consistent set of principles and and security principles for future data formats that would enable it to smart cities and IoT projects leverage smart city applications

Smart city and IoT projects are in their infancy in San Jose, so the City’s strategy needs to allow for flexibility – and avoid tying the City to a particular technology.

Page 47