The Intersection of Smart Cities & Smart State Policy
As homes, businesses, cities and governments continue to migrate to newer, faster technologies, the world is witnessing a seismic shift in how we all live, work, and communicate. Advanced, Internet-based technologies have become the primary mechanism by which cities and communities gather, share, and grow. Today, there are some 15 billion internet connected devices, think Internet of Things (IoT), and that number is estimated to jump to 50 billion by 2020. In order to keep up with this staggering demand, we need public policies that support the shift from outdated networks to modern infrastructure.
Unlike the monopoly era telephone networks still in existence, modern IP networks actually have the capacity to keep up with our changing society by quickly and efficiently transmitting vast amounts of data. These modern networks are vital as cities more fully employ IoT technologies to better manage data and municipal resources. These IoT technologies weave through smart cities creating interoperability between resource agencies, allowing those agencies to serve the public at maximum efficiency. Yet that efficiency requires 21st-century infrastructure which necessitates smart state policies.
In California, a bill currently before the legislature, AB 2395, authored by Assemblymember Evan Low, seeks to transition—starting in 2020—from the outmoded legacy phone system to advanced IP-based technologies and services. The bill recognizes the future needs of California and sets the right policy goals to promote IP networks and services across the state. This policy framework creates the right environment to build out modern infrastructure that can make cities and communities across California smarter and more sustainable.
New communications infrastructure is already leading to energy optimizations, improved resource allocation, and more sustainable urban habitats. This network modernization is critical as urban populations globally are projected to grow by around 60 million people each year. Rapid urbanization strains resources and can deeply impact the environment.
Cities must be able to communicate quickly, effectively and intelligently in order to conserve resources and mitigate risk. For example, it’s not uncommon for a city to lose up to 50 percent of water via leaks. Drought-plagued California as a whole loses more than 220 billion gallons of potable water a year due to leaks. IoT technologies offer cities the ability to recognize these vulnerabilities, and collect and analyze increasingly large amounts of data in order to better manage critical resources.
More than ever it’s important that policymakers support modern network technology infrastructure that will allow for unprecedented information and data sharing. AB 2395 addresses the reality that old phone networks cannot support California’s future needs, and these old networks are diverting significant investment and resources away from modern infrastructure. Only IP-based technologies and services can seamlessly deliver data and information to improve the sustainability of our cities and improve our quality of life. Simple policy changes, like those provided by AB 2395, can be an essential tool to deliver the mechanisms for this valuable and necessary technology shift.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
The key to the Access Pass success was to make sure from the beginning that it was as easy to sign up for as possible. Eligible residents only need to input their Access Pass number into Indego’s website to make use of the discounted option. While BTS figured out the technical side of setting up the Access Pass, the Coalition has been vital to getting the word out about this alternative, and encouraging individuals to enroll.
Progress needs to be made in the evaluation of approaches to developing resilient communities. The evidence base for the effectiveness of these approaches is currently lagging behind practice. Funding for evaluation is generally too short-term to offer scope for capturing the developmental nature of community resilience related activity and evaluations on wider outcomes are lacking.
Disaster resilience is frequently pursued separately by the public and private sectors in the US. Federal, state, and local governments take it as their role to execute disaster preparedness and emergency response for their populations; however, economic recovery is often not addressed. The public sector does not necessarily engage businesses, nor does it seem to plan for the economic “reboot” required after a disaster, resulting in business disruption continuing for much longer.