On Oct 25, 2005, at 8:25 PM, David Hauser wrote:
The original CALEA was intended for voice circuits ONLY, data
circuits were left out intentionally (this was in 1994). The FCC
had the FBI and DEA on them for a while to do this, but it remains
to be seen if the FCC actually has the authority to modify CALEA
since it was a legislated act to begin with.
The NY Times story includes estimates that it could cost universities
$7 billion just to buy the equipment to comply with this ruling. Does
anyone think the U of M has that kind of money lying around right
now? (for more see http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog )
An observations on Mr. Hauser's comments (edited to meet the 10kb
size limit): He demonstrate how much knowledge the City of
Minneapolis could have drawn on had it simply held public hearings or
meetings on the network proposal. Chicago's wireless task force is
holding the last of four public hearings on its proposal next week -
before it makes a decision. Public input first, decision second. Not
complicated, but not what Minneapolis is doing.
Future technology: Wireless tech is going nuts in terms of
expansion right now... is it worth it to wait and see what happens,
see how the tech matures?
Agreed. Minneapolis and any other city considering this has to step
back and ask what they want to accomplish with wireless, whether
citywide wireless is the best way to accomplish it, and if it is urgent.
On the other hand, 802.11 technologies have come down so much in
price that a short payback period may not be unrealistic. This means
something could go in now, and be ready for replacement by the time
the new generation wireless technologies are commercially ready.
Past technology: Is there anything wrong with using DSL or cable in
a municipal setting? The infrastructure is already built, the big
hurdle is getting the corporations (Qwest, Frontier, Sprint, Time
Warner, Comcast, etc) that hold rights to those little bits of
copper to cede some power to the city or county. They could also
not cede anything and just give the municipality a deal on
connections.
Nothing at all wrong with wires. In fact the current RFP is looking
for wires. The background to the current wireless RFP is a protracted
argument with Time Warner over getting the city an institutional
network. That never happened, and it's part of the reason the City is
suing Time Warner.
From the RFP:
"Beginning in the mid 1980’s, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS has gradually
implemented evolving private networks... This private network is
currently an amalgam of numerous smaller networks and initiatives. It
includes fiber and point-to-point wireless technologies linking CITY
OF MINNEAPOLIS-owned parking facilities; CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Business
Information Services (BIS) managed fiber linking downtown facilities,
and other isolated fiber connections between dispersed CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS sites. The network currently deployed is not a closed
loop configuration. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS’ vision is to complete the
private network to yield a ubiquitous 72/72 strand high-speed fiber
ring that will maximize efficiency and connectivity to CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS facilities in the downtown Core Business District and
extend the network’s reach to approximately 345 additional CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS and Board sites (Public Safety Police and Fire, Public
Works, Schools, Parks, Libraries) across the City via fiber and/or
wireless connectivity as cost effectively as possible. Each site will
require a minimum of 3 Megabit on demand connectivity and the
potential of 100 Megabit on demand connectivity in the future."
Corporate Intrigue: Philadelphia and a few other cities have had
legal challenges from telecommunications companies like Verizon
regarding government vs private enterprise.
This is tough. On one hand, there is nothing in Minnesota or federal
law that prevents the city from doing this. On the other hand, we
don't want to expend limited resources fighting legal battles. One
way to address this is to treat the network, at least initially, as
something that is being built purely to provide municipal services.
Corpus Christi is one of many cities that have done this, and it is
facing no resistance.
There's never a guarantee of avoiding legal battles. Other cities
have gotten institutional networks in conjunction with the franchise
agreement with their cable franchisee, but Minneapolis has
nonetheless ended up in court over that and related issues with Time
Warner. The city's original cable franchise agreement was held up by
legal challenges even though Minneapolis was one of the last cities
to franchise. Qwest has made noise about filing suit against the city
even with the city's current proposal, which is for a privately owned
network with no city role beyond that of an anchor tenant.
Libertarian Ethic: While this may be a bit far-fetched, I think it
still holds merit. Do the benefits of entrusting your
communications infrastructure to a governmental body outweigh the
problems? ... Is the city ready to handle the amount of effort it
takes to run an ISP?
The flip side of this is the question of entrusting your
communications infrastructure to the very small number of nationally
dominant cable and phone companies. A municipal network would not be
a monopoly -- the cable and phone companies would keep their networks
-- it would add to competition.
I don't think many people would argue in favor of Minneapolis being
an ISP. I wouldn't. But we can own the infrastructure without being
an ISP.
The real question raised by the libertarian ethic, I think, is not
whether or not government bureaucracy would have a hard time running
an ISP, but whether or not the network infrastructure that is so
valuable to communications should be in government hands. To that I
ask, who is more likely to fight for your civil and free speech
rights, private companies or local governments?
Which brings us back to the CALEA. Time Warner happily began
complying with the CALEA back in 2004. Why? At least in part because
they like the law, which is easier for the cable companies to comply
with than it is for their VOIP competitors like Vonage and Skype.
A lawsuit has been filed against the FCC over its interpretation of
CALEA not by the telephone or cable companies, who like the law, but
by the American Library Association, the Association of Research
Libraries, and others.
While I would like to see a wonderful municipal wireless project
here, there are numerous potholes for it to fall into that I think
can be easily avoided by giving things a little bit more time.
What the city is now proposing is not municipal wireless. It is a
citywide private network. But I agree that the city should take a
little more time. Perhaps the time could be used to hold a public
meeting or two.
Becca Vargo Daggett
Seward
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
