No need to be defensive. Much of the info I cited was based on info found in both City of Eugene Council minutes/agendas, in EWEB minutes/agendas and also quotes from former city council members. So looks like most corrections to inaccuracies need to be made there.
Please define the 'EWEB fiber network". Is there an online map we can see? How does the EWEB Fiber network relate to the MetroNet and to PANnet? Is there a map of both MetroNet fiber and PANnet administered fiber, which also shows the various institutional interfaces/interconnects to the PAN network and other local fiber networks. And is there a map of fiber where EWEB was "contracted" by run the fiber? Regarding that the EWEB is not "owned" by the city but is "chartered"... tomato/tomatoe. With the need to do "in-house" research sounds as if some sensitive nodes were touched on. I would love to hear an update on MetroNet. My simple search on the subject locates only old documents. I hope current info on the status on MetroNet is not all in-house or all "underground" ;-) I stand firm in my belief that the revenue bond and charter change would have never passed if the current status quo was presented to the city citizens/taxpayers as a potential/likely end scenario. Darren ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] MetroNet revisited (was wi-fi hell--let's talk WiMax) PS - In discussing this thread with some EWEB employees .. to sum it up the response was - " The list of inaccuracies and errors I see is >> lengthy. > Though Im not really in a position to set the record straight.. some comments made to me - EWEB is not owned by the City.. they are chartered by the City.. its a different thing. EWEB does not run fiber to City libraries - there was one instance apparently where EWEB was paid to run some fiber I think to a Barger location .. but its not a part of EWEB's fiber network ... nor are any other private runs as far as I know that are a part of EWEB's fiber infrastructure. If someone really wants the real deal .. they should contact EWEB Public Affairs, I'm sure they would be happy to oblige. Mark Ben Barrett wrote: > It is my understanding that anyone (including private industry and > citizens) can buy fiber uplink from EWEB, th hitch is having a > location that non-dark fiber already comes to or [the expense of] > having fiber laid to your location. I think service is not cheap but > I think it is a "better deal" than Qworst's T1's in a number of ways :) > I might be wrong, and YMMV... > > Ben > > > Michael Miller wrote the following on 1/24/2006 10:15 AM: > >> I guess it's a nice thing that the city decided to add a 4th floor to >> the Library. The reason I say this is because there is more room for >> books. Instead of the Library giving up space for books for people. >> Anyway I think that the "government" might have a short fall in >> funding (someday). If they don't already and will lease out the fiber >> to make money. It makes no since that some entity would lay fiber and >> not use (or resell) the unsued capacity. Then again there might not >> be any discussion or budget problems. >> >> Mike Miller >> >> On 1/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> While I dont know the history I do know the fiber I work with is >>> "government" only and has something to do with regulations of some >>> sort. >>> Im not aware of any private entities getting fiber from EWEB. This is >>> why its a big deal to sell that building to Peacehealth.. all the fiber >>> infrastructure would need to be moved.. seems to me if Peacehealth >>> actually owned or leased a part of it it would stay. But Im not an >>> authority on the subject - I know who is though.. and can do some >>> checking. >>> >>> This wouldnt surprise me though.. the city has done this kind of stuff >>> before.. like the Library .. taxpayers voted.. was supposed to be 3 >>> stories .. then they added a 4th to house non library staff... and >>> there >>> was some sort of budget finagling. ... then oh by the way that bond >>> measure included building the library but didnt include the costs to >>> run >>> it. .. another bond measure.. and it passed. So im not sure who is >>> the >>> bigger idiots .. the people that run government that way or the people >>> who keep voting the bond measures in . Glad I dont pay those taxes... >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> Darren Hayes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Just some background on MetroNet... >>>> >>>> Original intent was for the City of Eugene to have EWEB build out >>>> fiber for >>>> local Metropolitan Area Network (Initial Phase) then later bring >>>> fiber to >>>> the curb for everyone in 2007 (Universal Build Phase). Plan also >>>> included >>>> opening up the network (Open Access/OpenPlatform) so other vendors >>>> could >>>> utilize capacity. >>>> >>>> A revenue bond measure and then later a city charter change >>>> allowing the >>>> City to proceed with the build out passed with much grassroots >>>> support, but >>>> with wide opposition coming from local business interests and from >>>> Qwest, >>>> ATT Broadband (now Comcast) and other self-interests. >>>> >>>> Then not soon after EWEB (owned by the City of Eugene) nixed the >>>> Universal >>>> Build Phase and decided to serve only public, quasi-public and >>>> institutional >>>> facilities via the Public Agency Network (PAN). Reason given was >>>> EWEB did >>>> not want to incur additional debt and have electrical or water >>>> customers >>>> subsidize the Universal build phase. So the MetroNet idea was >>>> transformed >>>> with a focus to run fiber ONLY to "existing customers only". That >>>> meant >>>> EWEB's current partners in PAN with a scope which continued to >>>> include large >>>> businesses and large users only. Besides EWEB and the City of >>>> Eugene PAN (or >>>> PANet) includes the ESD 4J, LTD, Lane Co, SUB, LCOG/RIS, UofO, LCC, >>>> City of >>>> Springfield, LaneESD and other public entities. >>>> >>>> Note that EWEB utilized (and continues to utilize) the proceeds of >>>> the bond >>>> sale to finance fiber build out related to build out of "EWEB fiber >>>> network" >>>> for internal operations. >>>> >>>> Was the idea of the Universal Phase "used" to promote the bond >>>> measure to >>>> get the "Initial Phase" done. Was there truly any real dedication >>>> in making >>>> the Universal build phase a reality? Wondering what major changes >>>> occurred >>>> with performa numbers between the time the measure appeared on the >>>> ballot >>>> and the time EWEB and City of Eugene changed course and nixed the >>>> Universal >>>> Build idea? The end-result is EWEB ratepayers and City of Eugene >>>> taxpayers >>>> backing the debt financing the "Initial Phase" servicing private >>>> properties/facilities owned by large businesses and large local >>>> developers. >>>> It is very likely many involved in the grass-roots campaign >>>> supporting the >>>> bond measure and charter change would not have if they had >>>> knowledge of the >>>> current status/end result. >>>> >>>> EWEB has ran fiber to many of it's PAN partners including schools >>>> in Eugene >>>> School District 4J. Some of the fiber is leased but much is still >>>> dark. Each >>>> year 4J continues to lease more fiber capacity from EWEB to replace >>>> Qwest T1 >>>> lines and also to continue 4J WAN build out (e.g. 4J schools are also >>>> implementing voice services on the data network). >>>> >>>> EWEB has ran fiber to the city libraries, fire stations, the airport, >>>> satellite police stations, etc. And the plan was for EWEB to run >>>> fiber to >>>> and/or share fiber with private entities, i.e. Reg-Gd, Hynix, >>>> Valley River >>>> Center and Country Club Road medical offices and other ancillary >>>> businesses, >>>> BLM, USFS, State of Oregon and Lane County buildings, Peace Health, >>>> etc. (I >>>> still don't understand the Chambers involvement with "Light The >>>> Apple"? >>>> Could not EWEB and 4J done this on their own at effectively the >>>> same or >>>> lower cost?) Wondering how many private businesses located in >>>> downtown core >>>> are now connected via EWEB fiber? >>>> >>>> And I'm wondering what has happened to this idea of City of >>>> Eugene/EWEB >>>> making MetroNet independent? Acquiring info on any of these topics >>>> is quite >>>> difficult. The local media was all over the subject back at the >>>> start of the >>>> decade, but the subject does not appear to be discussed publicly >>>> any longer. >>>> >>>> Is anyone aware of a current local fiber map? Found a 5.5 year old >>>> version >>>> (produced in 2001 when the original push for MetroNet was underway) at >>>> http://cc.uoregon.edu/fiber/ >>>> >>>> BTW on an "unrelated" note, today accessing docs from the City of >>>> Eugene's >>>> public web server is like pulling teeth. Must be by-product of >>>> running on >>>> IIS with FrontPage Extensions. Or an Oregon IX or OWEN issue? >>>> Anyway local >>>> hop times over wcg.net (Williams) and nero.net are very sluggish >>>> today. See >>>> http://netfoo.nero.net/cgi-bin/netviewer.cgi?meta=partner&locale=CityEugene >>>> >>>> >>>> Darren >>>> >>> > ... > > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug > > > > _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
