Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Brim" <swb@internet2.edu>
(Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some other location of theirs}. Best of both worlds.)
Right, and a public-private partnership model is more common than having the city actually operate the network at any layer.
Oh, sure; most muni's contract out the build, and often the day to day operation and customer support load, to a contractor. But that wouldn't really help as much in this case, I don't think; that contract would create an agency relationship, and the contractor would not protect such log data (if it existed, which for L1 and L2 service, it would not as this argument posits it) *from the responsible IT employees of the municipality*. Cheers, -- jr 'IANAL, I just play one on the Internet' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave supporting muni network ownership -- or at least a not-for-profit entity. I tried to start one a decade ago, but a lawsuit was threatened by the incumbent cable provider (MediaOne in those days) who claimed an exclusive right. Since then the state law has been changed, so we really ought to look into it again here. Although the 4th Amendment originally applied to only the Federal Government (states routinely violated it), the 14th Amendment applies it to the state (and local) governments now.
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave supporting muni network ...
+1 i'm indifferent to the "public-can't" rational as munis appear to do an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene, palo alto, san francisco, ... and the capacity of fiber obsoletes the early telephone and telegraph notion of poll space contention, a basis for an earlier "natural monopoly" theory. i'm also indifferent to the "leo-in-the-noc" rational as the separation is presently somewhat fictive and overzealous prosecutions are the norm. -e
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
i'm also indifferent to the "leo-in-the-noc" rationale, as the separation is presently somewhat fictive and overzealous prosecutions are the norm.
So, you're saying "muni transport is bad because there's *less* separation" is actually a red herring; private transport carriers are little better protected? Yeah, I'll buy that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね 勘違いしてました。
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I want to move there! :) -Zach 2013/1/29 Masatoshi Enomoto <masatoshi-e@is.naist.jp>:
ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね 勘違いしてました。
-- Zach Giles zgiles@gmail.com
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Zachary Giles wrote:
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I want to move there! :)
I don't know any in the US that have the model I describe. :( My limited understanding is some other countries have a similar model, but I don't know of any good english language summaries. For instance I believe the model used in Sweeden is substantially similar to what I describe... -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
participants (6)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Jay Ashworth -
Leo Bicknell -
Masatoshi Enomoto -
William Allen Simpson -
Zachary Giles