10A Action Calendar 2018 0917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

153 Comparative Wireless Strategies Summary Each network was implemented for specific original purposes, supported by a specific business model. The table below provides a comparison of the purpose, business model, funding mechanisms, and resultant network speeds of the cities’ wireless implementations. City Purpose Business Model Funding Speed Address Digital Divide & Public Access Support City Functions Public** Public-Private Public Partnership City Budget Grant or Partnership Subscriber Fees Relatively Low Higher Boston, MA   $$ + Corpus Christi, TX *    Minneapolis, MN *    Oklahoma City, OK *   $$  Ponca City, OK  *    Port Angeles, WA  *  $$   Richmond, CA   $$ + San Francisco, CA     San Jose, CA     Santa Clara, CA     Santa Monica, CA     *Network Purposes: Corpus Christi, Texas (AMR); Minneapolis, Minnesota (Anchor Tenant, City field staff); Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Public Safety); Ponca City, Oklahoma (City Departments); Port Angeles, Washington (Public Safety) **Run by city department. $$Boston, Massachusetts—HUD; Oklahoma City, OK—fiber capacity for business, in-home residential modems; Port Angeles, Washington—ARRA; Richmond, CA—Partner +Boston, Massachusetts—1Mbps; Richmond, CA—16Mbps Regardless of the scale and scope of the wireless broadband network deployment chosen by the City of San Leandro, there are successful best practice implementations to guide the City for its own successful network deployment. As the City moves forward with its wireless deployment strategy it is important to: • Examine successful implementations and draw applicable lessons; • Consider unique needs and challenges of the community and address them in planning; • Strive for clarity of purpose among stakeholders regarding the purpose and goals for the network; Figure 87: Comparison of City Wireless Implementation Strategies