[159935] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Tue Jan 29 12:14:28 2013
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:13:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <7658033.4193.1359479531271.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- 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
