Catalyzing Digital Development: The Case of Santa Monica City Net
We don't have technology for technology's sake. The critical consideration with tech is what we do with it. Big picture, how do we use it to make life better and more sustainable? What are the means, the process, and results? It is what I call digital development: use of communications and computing technology to increase liberty, prosperity, and wellness; how to get the most “bang for the buck” from investments in technology.
Technology is typically deployed for a particular purpose—to collect parking fees, for example, or to interconnect buildings. Then, when some other need arises, more technology is deployed for that, often replicating, if not conflicting with, elements of prior deployments. Less than obvious uses are missed. And obvious needs are too often not addressed because previously deployed technology is not usable for other purposes.
Santa Monica City Net, developed between 1998 and 2015, is a prime counter-example that shows how to develop technology as infrastructure economically. The case also shows how to maximize the benefits of network infrastructure.
Background
Santa Monica was an epicenter of community-oriented technology development in the early 21st Century. In 2014, the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) produced a case study of Santa Monica that focused on how it built one of the first municipal fiber optic networks. [1] While that was an important aspect of what the city accomplished, it was really just part of the story about the “bottom of the tech stack.” The rest of the story, about the larger impacts, insights and issues of community-based technology, is about what was built on top of that fiber network.
The underlying concept is relatively simple: It is important for everyone to have access to information and communication technology, particularly the internet, because of the economic and social benefits. The rationale for municipalities is that the technology can decrease their costs of serving citizens and visitors, grow the tax base and increase economic activity, and improve the quality of place and sense of community.
Physical network infrastructure is required to connect assets and facilities so city employees can access internal information systems. Locations along the network routes can also be connected with a small marginal increase in costs: It is more economical to connect many assets and facilities than just a few. Network connections have market value, which was relatively high in Santa Monica in the early 2000s because there was a lot of need but very little supply.
More than “just” fiber
As the ILSR case study emphasized, Santa Monica took a methodical, incremental approach to building its fiber optic network. It was not an ad hoc process. The city had a plan. It also had public access and software. Santa Monica deployed one of the first social media platforms, the Public Electronic Network (PEN), for digital democracy with a community calendar, discussions, email, and forms for city services, accessed via 19 terminals at libraries and other locations around the city. Santa Monica also made early investments in geographic information systems (GIS). The software increased requirements for the city, which came with additional costs and maintenance issues. That is what led to the plan.
The planning process was carried out by a working group consisting of nine community members, an outside consultant, and 15 city employees. The group assessed municipal assets, conducted surveys and workshops that engaged a range of city stakeholders and researched the local market. The planning focused on the city’s functional and operational issues, departments’ missions and opportunities, rather than technology. The goal was to control the city’s information future, enabling technological development, to achieve financial and social goals.
It was a “telecommunications plan,” though, and ultimately recommended building a municipal fiber network so the city could control its critical infrastructure, make technology-enabled improvements without having to worry about connectivity, and save money while allowing for much greater bandwidth. Because of the plan, the city was able to capitalize on several market opportunities that allowed it to connect two dozen city buildings, thirteen schools, and six college buildings with low-cost, long-term leased fiber and gave it access to buried conduit under major roads.
Capitalizing on fiber
Strategic, incremental moves drastically reduced the city’s telecom costs while greatly improving its connectivity. Public support from community engagement created political will to establish a fund for city-owned infrastructure that it could lease to others. Santa Monica invested some of the savings to increase its capabilities to build and manage the network, which provided a basis for collaboration between city departments.
Community Services, Parks and Recreation, and IT departments joined forces to create computer training centers in the many of the City’s art and community facilities. They developed the curriculum, managed the programs, taught the youth about basics of internet, audio and video editing, and how to create websites. The network resources made it practical to connect commercial sites and community institutions along with parking garages, low-income housing, and traffic signals. Geo-data gathered during the planning process made it possible to create detailed plans and efficiently execute them.
Santa Monica City Net, as it came to be called, was used to provide public Wi-Fi wireless internet access. The Wi-Fi was also used for electronic parking payments, public safety cameras, and real-time parking and transit information. The first connection was via Smart Corridor transportation project along Pico Blvd, funded in part by Metropolitan Transportation District, which facilitated connection to carrier hotels in Downtown Los Angeles, enabling Santa Monica to provide high-performance connections. They also did a joint trench project with AT&T along Colorado Blvd that completed a ring with diverse routes. The city used this as a means to attract tech-based businesses that needed lots of bandwidth. Generally, City Net was about economic development and quality of life, which was possible due to Santa Monica’s methodical, community-engaged approach to planning.
Now, for the rest of the story.
Laying the Groundwork
Santa Monica had substantial disenfranchised residents, particularly along Interstate 10, which divided the city, north and south. [2] While there was a clear business case and technological basis for building City Net, much of the motivation was political. According to Jory Wolf, who led the initiative, the city council asked "what are we doing for the less advantaged?" A lot was being done incrementally and opportunistically by leveraging in public and private projects in the public right-of-way. Fire and police stations were located in the community based on need, for fastest responses to issues. Low-income housing units got federal funds for inside wiring and had community rooms in which the Boys and Girls Club were offering after school programs. Fiber routes passed low-income housing complexes or were nearby.
Meanwhile, regional economic development was copying its northern neighbors by establishing “Silicon Beach” in western Los Angeles, anchored by Santa Monica. The city’s IT department built applications for other departments and engaged many different companies in its attempts to get better, more economical connectivity. They built relationships with tech leaders of startups as well as large corporations and institutions. Major technology companies were involved as more than vendors but the process of procuring devices and software from them was cumbersome and slow. The IT department developed ways to work around roadblocks and streamline processes, specifically by having blanket contracts and open-ended purchase orders.
Bringing the Pieces Together
City Net provided a literal and figurative new road to new destinations. It brought together numerous players with complementary goals that had been working totally separately, if not at cross purposes. The network did not necessarily connect them to each other, it provided an economical, shared platform to connect however stakeholders required: internally, to local government, online service providers, the public, and, on some occasions, each other. The network connected interests and purposes as well as sites. It started inclusively and became more inclusive as it grew. The low-income housing complexes served as models for connecting private residential complexes—an interim step from providing enterprise managed network services—and created social new connections as well as generating revenue.
The Youth Tech program is not just a prime example of City Net’s inclusivity, it was the realization of the network’s potential. It occurred to the City Net team that their fiber could easily connect Santa Monica’s low-income housing complexes, which, it turned out, had recently been wired for high-speed data. Consequently, the city was able to provide discounted internet to low-income housing but still generate excess revenue. It paid for computers and network equipment for the complexes’ community centers, where the Boys & Girls Clubs were hosting programs. The IT department also teamed with business incubators, co-work facilities, and startup accelerators to provide space for additional Youth Tech training.
The City’s team had connections with technologists at a variety of firms, many of whom needed a tech-savvy workforce. It just made sense to collaborate. Youth Tech was born (2010). The programming was handled by Boys & Girls Club mentors in conjunction with city Housing and Human Services and Parks and Recreation and the school district, supported by the IT Department and tech stakeholders. A separate project funded by a Bloomberg Foundation well-being grant assisted the City with its community outreach.
The idea of using networking for youth job training was not new. The community centers in the low-income housing were ideal locations to connect with prospective participants. They had mechanisms for identifying and on-boarding, so they didn't have a problem getting participants. It was learning by doing, not just taking classes or learning about tech. They taught fiber splicing, for example, and had a “fusion splice event” with the mayor. Initially focused on technology, with hackathons and similar events, the program evolved to include business skills and soft skills. Participants created companies and pitched them to local tech leaders.
Instead of looking internally to city resources, Jory looked externally for tech talent to mentor participants. He reached out to various industries. As he connected them to the network, he educated network subscribers about the local tech ecosystem. It intrigued them. Many were more interested in that than the network. Then he asked to volunteer for Youth Tech, supplementing city staff, giving back to the community, mentoring, and hiring participants. They partnered with startup accelerators/incubators, angel investors, and venture capitalists.
Results
Beyond City Net and Youth Tech, Santa Monica’s IT team developed 24 smart city applications, marketing webcasts, open data portals, and outdoor kiosks, and provided tech startup sponsorships and funding. The fiber infrastructure was useful for municipal purposes but also as a catalyst and source of capital for activities that had much broader beneficial impacts and social returns on investment. City Net did not just build the bottom layers of the tech stack, it built layers of software and skills on top of the physical infrastructure.
Young people who went through Youth Tech had a 98% placement after graduation. They educated their parents and siblings about technology. Some families had two or even three kids go through the program. Graduates came back as interns, developed content for the program, and went on to be software developers, tech execs, etc. The original goal was for at least 51% of Youth Tech participants to be of color. It ended up being 75%. The city had taken on substantial risk with the program, so it had a very thorough process for mitigating risk. Over the first five years, there were no injuries or major complaints.
Santa Monica received a $1M grant from the Bloomberg Foundation to conduct well-being research using big data gathered from the community via digital technology. Jory and his department received numerous industry, internal, and public accolades. ILSR wrote a case study on Santa Monica. Multiple cities followed its lead by building fiber networks but few used their networks as catalysts for broader, more impactful development. The city team created a workbook on how to start a Youth Tech program for other communities, which positioned Santa Monica to be the co-founder and launch site of “Next Century” cities. Jory taught a class at Harvard on the Santa Monica approach to fiber build-out, including information about the Youth Tech program, and participated in international forums at Columbia on municipal broadband. Regardless, the program was not replicated.
City Net continued to grow, including more low-income housing properties, businesses, hospitals and clinics, and community anchor institutions. It lost support when leadership changed, creating a situation in which new CIO and staff could be in a difficult position. Other platforms had emerged, eroding the critical mass of users, and those who were left on PEN were unruly, leading to the decision to shut it down. There were questions about whether the government should have a role in creating a digital utility because of First Amendment rights.
Through new leadership the focus shifted to studying what had been done rather than championing or sustaining new initiatives. Employees got disaffected and other departments came up with similar programs. Health and Human Services took over the well-being research, and the Library started taking over social media. The various City Net functions diffused to other departments without practical knowledge of how to coordinate people, places, and things, deal with politics, get people excited, and get them to take ownership of their tech ecosystem.
Conclusions
The distinctive value of public network infrastructure is based on how it is developed, focused on maximizing public value, rather than what it is. The life trajectory of Youth Tech participants was fundamentally shifted, enabling them to be more liberated, prosperous, and well, by City Net. It was not the bandwidth of fiber that did this, it was the financial, human, and social capital generated by City Net. The approach that made City Net economical also made it impactful. The physical network connectivity was important but the social connections made it transformative. At the same time, the case highlights the fundamental limitations on public sector’s role. Government can create the space but it cannot unduly limit how that space is used.
Clearly, municipal fiber networks can be built and operated economically if developed in an incremental, opportunistic, strategic manner. The market has changed substantially in the last decade but this still seems to hold true. There is more competition and much more infrastructure. The rationale for municipalities to own their critical infrastructure remains. Municipal investment seems to spur market activity rather than replace it. At least as importantly, municipal investment in network infrastructure can be a catalyst for developing software and skills. Indeed, such higher level development is critical for getting the full benefits from the network: Networks don’t do anything without software and skills as needed to build, maintain, and use the software as well as the network.
The critical factor that differentiates City Net from similar initiatives is its inclusive, iterative approach to addressing various purposes. On one level, City Net involved identifying as many unrelated purposes as possible—various private and public organizations with particular needs—to drive utilization and generate revenue. On another level, City Net was successful because it socially connected stakeholders around shared purpose, generally around developing technical capabilities and new opportunities. Municipal requirements drove initial development but addressing other entities’ requirements multiplied the value of the network and enabled development at other layers, particularly by young people who would not have otherwise been exposed to the technology. City Net fostered learning at all levels among diverse stakeholders who would not have collaborated otherwise.
The infrastructure can do more than provide connections and generate revenue. It can enable more comprehensive, impactful initiatives. Broadband is a space in which to build applications, services, and virtual assets. It is an object for collaboration as well as a means to collaborate. Broadband stakeholders—any individual or organization that requires economical, fast, reliable connectivity—have shared interest in skills and talent, particularly those who can build and operate those applications, services, and virtual assets. But it requires vision and work to make those connections. The larger benefits are easy to miss if the network is developed as a utility without intentionally and continuously seeking new, better ways to use it.
Santa Monica’s digital development did not happen sequentially. There were a lot of parallel efforts that created synergies by working in unison. It wasn't just one person's doing. A leader is necessary but leaders of such initiatives can't dictate, they can't even delegate. Having a plan makes it easier to capture the synergies, empower leaders, and get stakeholders on board for community-based, technology-enabled development. Such initiatives must be planned in a comprehensive manner to be efficient as well as effective. As the telecom saying goes, “you don't want to visit that pole three or four times.”
It is important to engage stakeholders so they have a sense of ownership of the infrastructure and a commitment to really use it. The attitude that "this is now my product," rather than something someone else is providing for a fee, is critical to success. A champion working over a long period of time is important but so is collaboratively creating something in a short period of time. The former is not sustainable because it relies on a single individual. Such initiatives invariably fail when that individual moves on. The latter builds interest and fosters buy-in. It can be difficult for governments to iterate quickly because things take forever, therefore it is necessary for private and public sector champions to work together.
A progression of people is required to take over from predecessors—not “a champion” but a series of “champions.” They must have a dynamic set of inclusive practices to celebrate what was done and plan what’s next as the team, including stakeholders, for people to come together, learn with others but also compete with each other. The champion’s role is to identify, engage, and empower others, focusing their vision and mobilizing them. It is not clear how or whether local governments can provide this progression of champions. Similarly, it is unlikely private companies, with their focus on profits, could. It is necessary to have a “complete stack” public-private partnership that addresses business issues, capabilities, and software as well as access and infrastructure.
What is the “Complete Stack”?
The tech stack is an essential model for technology analysis and planning. Specific forms of it are the Internet Protocol (IP) and the more general Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference models. The key characteristics of the models are (1) they consist of layers, with more concrete, physical elements at the bottom and more abstract, virtual elements at the top, (2) each layer provides functionality to support the layer immediately above it, but (3) how each layer functions is independent of other layers, which means that (4) each layer is defined by protocols that, when brought together, creates a suite of protocols used for a particular purpose or system.
Technologists generally focus on one or two layers, using frameworks built on protocols. For example, a “full stack developer” actually works only in the software layers, typically using a specific programming language and type of database. Network engineers, in contrast, focus on hardware, how it is interconnected, and how data flows between devices without any concern for the software layers. This is the power of the stack approach—elements of one layer can be developed without impacting others—but it also causes gaps outside technologists’ focal areas.
The biggest gap is above the top layer of tech stacks, the activities the stack supports and the capabilities that are required to use it, as well as the overall purpose of those activities—why the stack exists. A complete stack includes layers for purpose, activities and processes, and abilities, knowledge, and skills. This is important because the lower layers of the stack constrain what is possible with upper layers. For example, you can move around if the network you are using consists of wires. Effective tech stacks are integrated into a complete stack, created to support a set of capabilities to carry out a range of activities for a particular purpose.
Santa Monica City Net was distinctly successful because of the inclusive, collaborative approach taken to develop it. It was not just about providing connections, it was about enabling development at higher levels of the stack for as many stakeholders as possible.
Acknowledgements
I sincerely acknowledge the guidance and input of Jory Wolf who led the City Net initiative as CIO for the City of Santa Monica. The purpose of this article is to appreciate the broader significance of his work, beyond simply deploying broadband infrastructure. City Net was smart because it economically developed advanced infrastructure incrementally by tapping a wide range of resources. It was brilliant because it methodically enabled as many purposes as possible, connecting diverse stakeholders to learn together in the process.
Notes
1 This section draws liberally from that report, “Santa Monica City Net: An Incremental Approach to Building a Fiber Optic Network,” by Eric Lampland and Christopher Mitchell, March 2014, available online at https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/santa-monica-city-net-fiber…
2 Santa Monica is a liberal city that had long had rent controls. Community leaders wanted to make sure citizens had a strong voice. City Net was a way to do that. PEN was created as a means for electronic democracy.