Fiber Last Century!

(This is a recent photo of items found while doing a once-in-a-century telecommunications infrastructure upgrade on a 100 year old SF building. Given the MPOE choices for this locale, the shaky aerials climbed, there is no doubt that the dark corners of the SF telecom system has parts that look like this or worse.)

Was: Fiber Now!

Then: Fiber Last Year!

Now: Partial Fiber Soon Maybe.

So what’s up with high speed internet in San Francisco? Wasn’t there some big hullabaloo about this last year?

In fact, there is some good news. San Francisco Beautiful’s (SFB) latest delay tactic for the all-city fiber internet rollout by ATT has been defeated. Sadly, this is not a chance to rejoice and carouse through the streets, singing so long, suckers. They will no doubt appeal, as haters always hate. And SFB has been hating for five long years and counting….

So what’s going on here?

Let’s break it down into three groups: San Francisco Beautiful, leading the opposition to a once-in-a-century telecommunications upgrade for San Francisco. The Supervisors of San Francisco. And San Francisco citizens who want broadband/home networking that is competitive with other top-tier, high-speed venues like Paris, Bucharest, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Seoul.

News on the high-speed front: in the report above, is there a glimmer of hope for people who want gig internet in SF’s mission/media gulch/north/beach/haight/castro/noe/soma/etc neighborhoods? Is Sonic.net gonna put 200 boxes in? YES PLEASE ACCORDING TO THESE COMMENTS. Is Verizon looking to put FiOS in SF, for real? Pinch me. Again, the primary goal for SF should be to have multiple vendors providing high-speed internet services, and not limit it to one vendor. This kind of competition means lower prices and faster bandwidth. A secondary, hail-mary type goal should be to convince sonic or google to bring gig-ethernet service to the city, and stop messing around. Note, some expedited processing by the part of city government certainly helped Kansas City. Would the same help SF?

Of note: Seattle just allowed private licensing of the (public) dark fiber ring: SF has this same capability, but is not even considering these solutions. The lack of use of SF’s fiber network is even more distressing when one considers all the recent SFDPW water/sewage improvements, which ripped up streets all over the city: with effective leadership, a full fiber to the home solution could have been implemented simultaneously with the water conservation work. Wiff…. missed opportunity.

News on the supervisor front: Mad Rad Supervisor and proven Internet Champion Carmen Chu and the FUF are planning on planting a record number of trees in the Sunset district in a couple of weeks. Come on people, sign up for the “Outer Sunset” plant and help to make San Francisco REALLY Beautiful. Oh, look who helped pay for some of this beautification: ATT. LOL. Now, I will go cry over a glass of wine….

And bringing up the rear: San Francisco Beautiful. INTERNET DEATH EATER. Stick to the Mission Mural Restoration project and give up on attacking internet infrastructure already. What has to be done to get you to stop harassing San Francisco residents who want better internet? What has to be done to get you to live up to the “livability” part of your mission statement?

The saga so far:

Fiber Near Futures

Fiber Internet Wins!!

San Francisco Supervisors vs. Fiber Internet

Fiber Internet Wins!!!

At approximately 4:45PST, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to affirm the exemption determination for AT&T’s once-in-a-century telephone infrastructure upgrade project, aka “Project Lightspeed.” This means that AT&T can now start to implement their plan to upgrade the telecom infrastructure in the city, with the goal of delivering higher-speed 24Mbs DSL service within all San Francisco districts. AT&T also calls this as “Uverse” which can be any combination of television, telephone, and internet.

The final proposal seems to allow 495 cabinets to be installed throughout the city of San Francisco by AT&T. Multiple potential sites for each cabinet location are to be evaluated. When AT&T seeks an excavation permit from the DPW, besides doing the usual permit stuff, DPW will also notify that site’s supervisor. Then, that supervisor signs an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with AT&T regarding the site, or one of the alternative sightings are considered. Something like that: the specific details seem fuzzy. There seems to be a formal and sane DPW appeals process, and a  my-supervisor-is-crazy-curve-ball appeals process.

Voting against were the following sorry lot of supervisors, with their comments below.

District 1: Eric Mar

District 3: David Chiu

District 5: Ross Mirkarimi

District 6: Jane Kim

District 11: John Avalos

Note to the supervisors listed above: I will be voting against you in future elections, geography permitting, and consider your conduct in this matter anti-internet, anti-technology, anti-jobs: death eaters, all! Here are specific comments.

Mirkarimi: Against this for 2+ years. I don’t understand the process outlined in the MOU. Is this a back-door in the city planning process? Voting against, and in addition tried to defer decision for a fourth time to September 6th.

Mar: AT&T community engagement much improved. They scaled back from 726 to 495 locations, shows improvement. AT&T pays 5% tax on video profits to the city for the right to have boxes taking up city space providing the city/state a utility like telecom. Should that be increased for more boxes? Decreased for fewer boxes? Protect public space. Voting against.

Kim: Confused here. Starts with: “this is not about competition.” Then mentions that many constituents in SoMa want more companies providing internet connectivity and television. Unlike the present situation, with a Comcast monopoly.  Then she gets a couple of thank-yous in, and gets less confused. AT&T did great community outreach. Then she gets confused again: At what number is there a significant impact? Pedestrian safety! Pedestrians complain about the palm trees on 6th street. Voting against.

Chiu: AT&T phase one is 495 cabinets, and then have to confer for up to 231 additional cabinets in any phase two. He wonders about the six years the board of supervisors have been discussing this, and the way technology has changed. (Implying that the technology can be re-engineered by our now-smarter future selves?) Also brings up placement of the boxes on private property. Voting against.

Shouts out to Elsbernd for getting real about this and his unequivocal support from the beginning, and for Wiener for voting yes and the dialogue with AT&T, even if he did delay this vote three times and three months. All good in the end! Scott Wiener’s note explaining his vote is an excellent read, and clearly states the issues: recommended.

This marks the end of a nearly 2.5 year saga whereby AT&T tries to do a network upgrade and the SF Board of Supervisors resists. See San Francisco Board of Supervisors vs. Fiber Internet for some background.

Addendum. Not so fast, apparently. San Francisco Beautiful strikes again, and launches a new legal initiative, which will no doubt delay this project once again. The situation is a bit more nuanced, with ATT on the attack on another front: wireless antenna improvements, aka Project Snail-speed. This second front is also under attack by SF Beautiful and the likely battleground is the Board of Supes at some point, so stay tuned. In addition, ATT is making the tie between good wired infrastructure and better wireless infrastructure explicit with this microcell product. This kind of do-it-yourself-with-our-help-and-network is common in the southland to fix up cellular network holes and dead spots.

When will San Francisco have 100Mbit or gig fiber internet available to the majority of residents, with a choice of providers? Sebastopol, CA, anybody? Canarsie, NY, anybody? Kansas City? Hello?

We built this shit.

The saga so far:

Fiber Near Futures

Fiber Last Century

San Francisco Supervisors vs. Fiber Internet

Facebook + Art

Facebook in art practice.

Like it or Unfriend it., New York Times, July 3, 2011

Teen Age, You Just Don’t Understand, Catharine Clark Gallery, SF, June 20, 2010. Site archive.

Mutual Friends Visualizations. Visualizing things like political affiliations + geo tags.

Facebook analytics

webtrends, per-post analytics for pages, reading facebook analytics, analytic arm race

To get data, use Account->Settings->Export, or use something like Give Me My Data.

To get some idea of your own behavior, this stalking thing.

Facebook aliases.

Privacy, sharing. Use of aliases on Facebook, couple dog aliases, activist dog aliases.

See Zhao Jing Controversy, Zuckerberg Puppy Page, Tulip, Asta, others. EFF position on pseudonymity on-line and the nymwars. Super-cogent break-down of who is harmed by a real-names policy.

Not about facebook per se, but instead about web analytics, privacy, tracking: collusion.

Europe vs. Facebook, and their report.

Figurative Art Censorship vs. Facebook.

A good perspective on where user-generated content goes as social media sites die.

An article in the gray lady comparing those who don’t have facebook in the year 2011 to those who grew up in the 80s and 90s without television. Since I was Amish about television before I met my lovely wife, this comparison has great appeal.

Using R to visualize the friend graph, and the first post about crawling facebook data with R. Along the way, I discover Rcpp, which is a C++ mapping to R, looks very interesting.

An example data trail, with just a part the facebook trail.

More examples of Facebook and visual art, performance art, etc.

Some of the initial response to Facebook’s graph search, including the display of generated graphs, made some interesting statements.

Using Gephi to visualize Facebook connections.

PLOS ONE: Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach. Gender, word choice, visualizations.

Looking at APIs of social media companies, including Facebook. What you Look like to a Social Network. Also, the onavo app, acquired by Facebook.

When You Fall in Love, This Is What Facebook Sees, The Atlantic, , 2014-02-14

San Francisco Board of Supervisors vs. Fiber Internet

“What is this, Mumbai?” Said by a visiting Canadian engineer while looking out my study window in the Mission.

Regarding the San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting about the plan to install 726 utility boxes, as required to implement ATT’s plan to roll out high-speed internet citywide. Both video and minutes will be available at some point in the future.

My statement for the board, submitted to the clerk:

Statement for the board of supervisors, San Francisco concerning woeful internet infrastructure.

As a San Francisco resident, I am concerned about the present state of our communications infrastructure. In my professional career, I interact with many software engineers all over the world. When they visit San Francisco, one of the items that invariably comes up is our woeful internet infrastructure.

How can it be, visiting engineers will ask, can the city minutes from the heart of Silicon Valley, with Google, Twitter, all of media gulch, have both poor wireless capability for mobile devices and ancient DSL? In Europe, “regular” DSL, nothing fancy and available for ~$40 a month, is capable of 18Mbps downstream, and 2 Mbps up. This includes free VOIP, digital television, and more. But let’s just concentrate on bandwidth capability, regardless of cost.

A San Francisco resident is hard-pressed to find such bandwidth, at any price, in San Francisco proper. There are three obvious choices for wired, residential high-speed internet in SF:

1) Verizon FIOS. This is only available in SF’s Financial District, and in select parts of Mission Bay.

2) Comcast coax-fiber hybrid. For just internet alone, this would be around $120. Some companies are pooling employees and negotiating better rates, but this is not an option for the rest of the public.

3) ATT Uverse fiber. This is not available in SF due to past issues, see 2008 attempt. The highest-bandwidth Uverse in SF is Plain Old Copper DSL and stuck at 6Mbps maximum.

High speed internet access is vital for collaborative software development, and sadly San Francisco is not competitive with cities such as Austin, Chicago, and New York in the United States, and Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and London in Europe, or Seoul, Tokyo, and Bangalore in Asia.

Allowing ATT to proceed with its Uverse installation in SF would be a small step to help restore competitiveness. And a welcome sign. I would like to see the SF Board of Supervisors go much further, and allow all three network providers equal access to San Francisco property owners, with the end goal to make San Francisco a true world competitor in internet infrastructure, with all residents having access to highest-bandwidth internet from multiple providers.

Once that was properly filed, I sat in the lovely meeting room in City Hall and tried not to fidget during a four hour plus meeting. Free WiFi vs. rather austere bench seating. Mostly I just listened, but I jotted some notes down on my phone. These notes are only on the first four hours.

Speaker list: how do people get on this list. Some confusion about who is speaking for and against the boxes.

CEQA? Environmental regulation that may apply to this roll-out, if San Francisco Beautiful’s appeal is successful.

SF fiber coalition member says: bring pure fiber to home! Long term strategy for bandwidth lacking. USA is 30th in the world, San Francisco Bay Area even worse. Who cares about 24Mbps maximum when Tokyo has Hikari-Fiber and 100Mbps. Who cares about 24Mbps maximum when Google is putting 1Gbps in Kansas City, Kansas. Agreed! And Sonic.net is putting gig ethernet in Sebastopol, much closer to home.

Monkeybrains.net founder says this ATT plan is antiquated, need fiber to the home not neighborhood. Microtrenching. Classic SF tech slacker look. Right on!!

Some issues with side-walk right of way for existing Muni and Telecom boxes as well as traffic signaling equipment. Will Muni upgrades also force an environmental impact review? Even bike racks are a cause of blight? Wow. San Francisco Beautiful may have overstepped with that one… one can pick on the geeks all you want, but the bicyclists in this town…. they will cut you. Need for some kind of planning process for side-walks?

New DSL equipment is to be placed within 300 feet of existing SAI cabinets for ATT services. DPW makes undergrounding decisions on an ad hoc basis, each site is unique. Size requirement increases if underground due to OSHA regulations, 8 by 12 to 13 feet if undergrounding as opposed to 4 by 4 by 2. Planning and DPW assume worst case placement when they reviewed the proposal, in that they assume all boxes will be placed above ground and in the public right of way. This may end up not being the case.

ATT notes: actually .005% of side-walk space used by new fiber utility boxes…

A lot of comments about “undergrounding.” This is when the fiber utility box goes underground, and is not located at the street or side-walk level.

President Chiu had a crazy comment about how he used to work for a startup making servers and “servers get smaller every day,” which he extrapolated to mean that the ATT boxes should be re-engineered again. You know, smaller. Uh huh. Clearly has never seen the inside of a telco or network operations center.

DPW should review existing cabinets on a yearly basis and take into account the current state of technology. If new technology creates opportunity to reclaim public space then it should be pursued. If the cabinets are obsolete then the DPW guidelines enforce removal.

What do other jurisdictions do? Do they underground? In some circumstances, yes. What about SF?

DPW says, case by case. For instance, permits around pacbell park, around 3rd street will most certainly be underground. Muni has indicated that these sidewalks are already at capacity on game days so this is a place where undergrounding would be required.

Historical districts also merit special consideration. Keeping out of historical areas due to past opposition. Let the locals who wannabe Amish read newspapers that the pony express messengers couriered via saddlebag from the East Coast! My people.

Lisa Gibson. Planning Department. Hero. We are not aware of other companies who are going to try and do a citywide roll-out of telecom equipment requiring new utility boxes.

Jane Kim asks, “how many other utility structures currently exist in the city?”

DPW/Gibson: Do not know.

Kim: Cannot quantify? Estimate?

DPW: Thousands and thousands. One street light every 150 feet. Do the math…. Will get count and get back to you. Plus PG&E, water, other city utilities.

ATT upgrade biggest in one century. 75 million dollars. Union labor. Franchise fees to city treasuries. Simply the first step in a long permitting process, each neighborhood gets further review as the plan gets rolled out.

Undergrounding. Lot size comes into play. OSHA requirements for safe spaces.

ATT notes DPW surface mounting guidelines in SF are most detailed and restrictive in the nation.

CEQA lawyer. Same for traffic equipment. No previous CEQA review issues. Installs in 260 other California municipalities, all subject to CEQA, no EIR required for vast majority, only 4 or 5 required CEQA EIR, none of the reviews had actionable issues.

ATT indicated they were prepping for a block by block fight for approval. No doubt San Francisco Beautiful will give it to them.

All in all, I would be more impressed with San Francisco Beautiful if it would focus a bit more time on its stated rationale of “public art” and “ending blight” and less on being crazy high-speed internet obstructionists. Clearly, there is a need for a proactive solution for the utility box graffiti problem: maybe a better solution that would work for the whole city would be to have neighborhood arts organizations take over these new expanses and make something cool (subject to the environmental/temperature constraints needed for the utility box contents). Places like Southern Exposure and Mission Cultural Center in the Mission, Mollusk in the Sunset, Park Life in the Richmond, Luggage Store on Market, White Walls in the Tenderloin, etc.

Sigh. Maybe not Herb Caen’s “Board of Stupidvisors,” but certainly not a city that works.

Addendum One: SF Appeal‘s effort at reporting this. And SF Citizen‘s write up. Personal fave and rad internet video news experimental host Melissa Griffin agrees, in a necessary telecom conversation. Since fiber is a dream, indie net is concentrating on high-speed microwave links.  MonkeyBrains.net, rocking free WiFi in the Mission in 2010, also microwave links. Webpass, another option for SF residents (microwave links?). Some background info: San Francisco Government’s Fiber Study. Another proposal for a multi-vendor use plan for San Francisco’s fiber infrastructure from FTTH . PBS has a great short covering some background on this issue, see Need to Know: High Fiber. There is also a report from Harvard’s Berkman Center that attempts to provide a world-wide comparison of internet speeds, ranking the US in “broadband” and adding a “next-generation broadband” category to help clarify an often-overloaded term.

Addendum Two: the saga continues.

Fiber Internet Wins!!!

Fiber Last Century!

Fiber Near Futures

Notes on Art Publishing Now

From the event hosted by Southern Exposure, Art Publishing Now.
Preview
I register, and then look at some of the books on the wall. There are perhaps ten items, laid out on a shelf at the entrance.

The majority are web printed or xerox copied. But definitely from a zine background. And then one, probably the best printed, was a photo-book from colorandcolor.blogspot. A blog book by blurb: the four bs. But hands down, it looked the best from a pure print production ranking.

The most interesting object, conceptually, is an envelope containing various quizzes, with a hyper-designed logo and very slick packaging. Meaning Maker, a detournment of the organizer brand Meeting Maker. But then one reads the various pamphlets: one for “family meeting” had a checklist of everything about the person that has changed over the last five years. In addition to the expected spouse, kids questions was a check box for gender change, one for breast mastectomy, etc. All very interesting. The rest of the faux-questionnaires were similarly interesting.

Another. A small printed booklet, two color. Orange and blue. My Mission, by the blog Mission Local. Abigail loves this one.

Round One: Publishing When It’s Not Publishing

Gwen Allen, Art Historian at SFSU. Note: “Artists’ Magazines: And Alternative Space for Art” MIT Press 2011. This book looks good, some discussion of Fluxus and a new one that reminded me of Up Against the Wall Mutherfuckas. UAW/MF. Instead, this was called Shit Must Stop, SMS. Yoko Ono is a contributor, and on art.net a full collection is $3k.

Bad at Sports, audio archive of art talk, conversations, interviews. (Rauschenberg piece). They had set-ups that were quite funny. Well played. Some of the sport photography hilarious, and made me think of a sweaty ping pong match with ? shirts, so that it became bad at sports? Fun.

THE THING. They seem relieved to be out of the art world, or perhaps a more traditional fine art background. They create an object on a regular interval and send it out.

The [un]observed. This is art soundscaping and natural-voice storytelling. There is a component of audio production and radio narrative. The broadcaster’s voice is quite stunning: if anybody’s got a voice for radio, man. She’s got it. But the visual component is also outstanding. Postcards and bus stop posters, snapshots behind the story being told.

The discussion afterwards was interesting. New media was just thrown around. Long artist statements and poorly worded ones. Other descriptors: lens artist. Post-production. Collective  and curatorial work, but no anonymous work.

There was some interesting probing of the web, and of web organized projects and the curious experimentation with objects. And why does this topic then devolve into a careful dance around money?

Part of me wonders if creation today means trying to find a form that can be combined with computer-based algorithms for categorization or other data visualization. A collective effort to be categorized by the machine. And re-categorized to taste, to be perfectly pliable to all forms of recommendation. Count us! Visualize.

Round Two: The New Fetish Object

Of these, top picks were Electric Works, with the new media eye roll, and The Present Group. Both do multiples, but the Electric Works ones are sometimes quite expensive. Eleanor Hanson Wise is super chill, and ends up being the only one in the group to talk about recycling, decommissioning, and secondary markets for all the precious art objects that have been created.

Laura Sydell, when talking about printing, and the new fetish object. Two things of interest, as she is a pro moderator and thus seemingly impervious to shock or surprise.

1) No, really, y’all are so retro to be from the future. Printing is dead. Da-dum.

2) None of you are non-profits? She seems to be surprised at the composition of the pane,  that none on the panel were non-profit. They were all in it for the money.

Reproducible in intent means that there is no original.

There seems to be some ambiguity in production, with print feeding into web, or web feeding into print, or even some web to print to web to other print. These linkages and mutations are interesting. Even so, one on the panel has to go through a tortured loyalty oath to the internet before daring to mount a defense of the physical object. The non-virtual!

What is the difference between post-production and curation? Appropriation? Abigail says modification or other remix is necessary for post-production.

Perhaps the advantage of the book object is that it is an old form. One that is well archived and archival: within the large category of book, you have a universal way of characterization, of identification. Such that search agents are able to convey it to you, extract meaning by association, and learn to suggest relevant items to you.

What is edge to the art market? Where’s the limit? Are these objects participating in that market? If SMS (Shit Must Stop) back-catalogs are $3k, and being collected, isn’t this squarely the domain of the traditional art market? It’s certainly some kind of market. Cash for objects or services, call it a subscription if you’re lucky, but all of the panelists are making money. For profit and not-for-profit organizations seem to be in a twisted embrace here, where the for-profit are getting grants from the not-for-profit. Is this just canny accounting? Is this a distortion caused by the art market?

Some real screen hate here. Talk of getting away from computers. Spending too much time on your notebook.

Production. Design. Art. Intention to create what?

Round Four: West Coast Critical

First talk is two-thirds introduction. No slides. Please. Some Art in America or Frieze bullshit here. We like to cover artists of historical importance on the west coast, to re-discover works by prominent artists of twenty years ago or so, and find the stuff that still looks good today. Shows that cover the region. Blowhard.

Key here is Anne Walsh. X-Tra Art quarterly. Was surprised by the six minute rule as well, but her presentation was fine just the same. Later on, in the conversation, she rattles through a very brutal list of art critics. A La Times dis, Christopher Knight. Then a bunch of names erupted, starting with Catherine Lord and ending with Ken Goldberg, but it was just too quick to even note. I go to the websites of each, but don’t see any art critical writing by them, but some about Ken. None click-able, at least. Was this a statement? There definitely seemed to be some bad-girl persona here.

And in any-case, it was entertaining as hell. She questioned the new four color printing of x-tra, but made fun of the production quality (web press and newsprint) of early issues. She highlighted working with designers, and liked that xtra art quarterly used to change design frequently.

Another academic, Mark Van Proyen, chair of painting at SFAI and an editor for Art in America. He makes a statement about what is controversial in art publishing and criticism today versus what was controversial thirty years ago. But it flames out when the example he picked to be non-controversial, some Gingerass photo, ends up being “disturbing” in the words of one woman in the audience. Perhaps he was going for gadfly? He says art criticism went downhill from the results of one article in 1990, Art World Revisited.

Post Brothers, who read a prepared statement into the mike. Just show the link next time, after it has been edited. Swing, miss.

What’s wrong with criticism? The topic is narrowed.

Moderator makes suicidal mistake in questioning Anne Walsh with a question on Vogue. Which sounded a bit like baiting the feminist, probably despite his apparent lack of intention. Instead, it should have been more theoretically worded about theory vs. mainstream art media. Wow. Best answer was actually by Steven Wolf, but he describes an article that few would want to read.

I wonder at what is the role of the social in the act of art criticism?

Seems to be an extended discussion on art criticism versus entertainment. Should critics vamp on a review of art in the way that screenwriters vamp on the novel?

Should reviews be 500-800 words? Is this too short? Can’t be too short, must let the work reveal itself. They can’t even agree that a 500-800 word limit constituted a real barrier to excellence.

Anne Walsh defends the manifesto and essay forms, but leaves reviews out to dry.

There are some questions from the audience, including a very impassioned one directly from my left that asserted that the traditional art magazines were going to be dead within years. One that says art criticism is hyper academic and unreadable. Neither touched by any of the panelists.

There is only the glimpse of the question of popular media, the question of why isn’t visual cultured talked about, outside of a narrow niche. Always looking we are not, apparently.

The talk ends, and most of the critics on the panel have dispersed before the start of the final talk.