Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good
counter-argument I've seen, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me.
Rob, anyone, does anyone know if any 4th amendment case law exists on muni-
owned networks?
Cheers,
-- jra
The challenge, here, is a classic 'natural monopoly' concern/argument. I don't know the right answer, here, but I think the frame for discussing it has a long history.
d/
Good question. Here is another thing to consider regarding SOME muni
network... (at least where private citizens/businesses subscribe to that
network)
When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a
proper court order, granted by a judge, after "probable cause" of some
kind of crime has been established, where they are not on a fishing
expedition. But, in contrast, if the city government owns the network,
it seems like a police detective contacting his fellow city employee in
the IT department could easily circumvent the civil liberties
protections. Moreover, there is an argument that the ISP being stingy
with such data causes them to be "heros" to the public, and they gain
DESIRED press and attention when they refuse to comply with such
requests without a court order. In contrast, the city's IT staff and the
police detective BOTH share the SAME boss's boss's boss. The IT guy
won't get a pat on the back for making life difficult for the police
department. He'll just silently lose his job eventually, or get passed
up for a promotion. The motivation will be on him to PLEASE his fellow
city employees, possibly at the expense of our civil liberties.
PS - of course, no problems here if the quest to gain information
involves a muni network that is only used by city employees.
PPS - then again, maybe my "log file example" doesn't apply to the
particular implementation that Jay described? Regardless, it DOES apply
to various government implementations of broadband service.
It would, if I were talking about a situation where the muni *was the ISP*,
supplying layer 3+ services. I'm not. I'm purposefully only talking
about layer 1 service (where the residents contract with an ISP client
of the muni, and that client supplies an ONT and takes an optical handoff)
or, my preferred approach, a layer 2 service (where the muni supplies the
ONT and the ISP client of the muni takes an aggregated Ethernet handoff
(probably 10G fiber, possibly trunked).
(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.)
Cheers,
-- jra
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good
counter-argument I've seen, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me.Rob, anyone, does anyone know if any 4th amendment case law exists on muni-
owned networks?
I don't, but I'd like to point out here that I've long believed
both sides of the muni-network argument are right, and that we the
people are losing the baby with the bath water.
I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to
be 100% clear about what I advocate here:
- Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A
big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers are
all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory terms.
Large munis will need more than one, no run from a particular MMR
to a home should exceed 9km, allowing the providers to be within
1km of the MMR and still use 10km optics.
- 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR space.
No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical
handoff inside the home.
- Fiber leased per month, per pair, on a cost recovery basis (to
include an estimate of O&M over time), same price to all players.
I do NOT advocate that munis ever run anything on top of the fiber.
No IP, no TV, no telephone, not even teleporters in the future.
Service Providers of all types can drop a large count fiber from
their POP to the muni-owned MMR, request individual customers be
connected, and then provide them with any sort of service they like
over that fiber pair, single play, double play, triple play, whatever.
See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
should be available.
At the same time, it is very ineffecient to require each provider
to build to every house. Not only is it a large capital cost and
barrier to entry of new players, but no one wants roads and yards
dug up over and over again. Reducing down to one player building
the physical in the ground part saves money and saves disruption.
Regarding your 4th amendment concerns, almost all the data the
government wants is with the Service Provider in my model, same as
today. They can't find out who you called last week without going
to the CDR or having a tap on every like 24x7 which is not cost
effective. Could a muni still optically tap a fiber in this case
and suck off all the data? Sure, and I have no doubt some paranoid
service provider will offer to encrypt everything at the transport
level.
Is it perfect? No. However I think if we could adopt this model
capital costs would come down (munis can finance fiber on low rate, long
term muni-bonds, unlike corporations, plus they only build one network,
not N), and competition would come up (small service providers can
reach customers only by building to the MMR space, not individual homes)
which would be a huge win win for consumers.
Maybe that's why the big players want to throw the baby out with the
bath water. 
Right, and a public-private partnership model is more common than having
the city actually operate the network at any layer.
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than
mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as clients
are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the fashion you
suggest?
(I concur with your 3-pair delivery, which makes this more practical on an
M-A-C basis, even if it might require some users to have multiple ONTs...)
Cheers,
-- jra
Is last mile infrastructure really considered "internet" ? If a GPON
system operates as layer 2, it provides no internet connectivity, no IP
routing and would/should not implement any IP use policies such as
throttling etc. About the only traffic management it would do is
provide separate garanteed bandwidth channel for VoIP. (or via QoS)
If the last mile is sold only as wholesale (as is the case for
Australian NBN), then it is up to each private service provider who buys
access to reach homes to implement IP policies and connect to the
internet, provide services such as DHCP etc.
Though I wouldn't pick GPON over home-run, yes, that's roughly the point I
and another poster were trying to make in earlier replies:
If you're at layer 1, and arguably at layer 2, then move-add-change on
physical patches / VLAN assignments is all you would need to log, since you
don't actually touch "real traffic".
One of the major arguments in favor of doing it that way.
Cheers,
-- jra
See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
should be available.
It has been my experience that the incumbents largely give small
cities the finger until a muni steps in, and makes a profitable go of
it. Then they are all about legislation to protect them from the
unfairness of it all. The large incumbents are basically a duopoly as
it is, and general are not offering anything innovative until they are
forced to.
Running an ISP is hard, and most munis have no experience in it. Then
only reason to do it, is because the incumbents refuse to provide
service. I don't think munis running networks is any sort of threat
to free enterprise. I see them more analogous to rural electric
cooperatives that provided electric service when incumbents refused
to. Legislating that option away, just lets the duopolies serve the
dense urban areas and ignore the less dense areas.
Elle Plato
From: "Elle Plato" <techgrrl@gmail.com>
[ attribution lost ]
> See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
> shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
> want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
> monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
> should be available.It has been my experience that the incumbents largely give small
cities the finger until a muni steps in, and makes a profitable go of
it. Then they are all about legislation to protect them from the
unfairness of it all. The large incumbents are basically a duopoly as
it is, and general are not offering anything innovative until they are
forced to.
Yup. In fact, late last year, it is my understanding that VZN FiOS
said *in public, on the record* that they were done with new buildouts;
if you didn't have it, tough luck -- canonizing the assertions we'd all
been making for a decade that they would cherry pick, even though they
claimed they would not.
They're a public corporation; they have no real choice.
This is why we grant utilities monopoly franchises, with teeth in them
to recapture the Public Good we want from them; none of this has been
news for 4 decades, but the fix was in.
And in fact, yes, VZN left behind state laws in several states forbidding
municipal ownership of communications facilities, which they, effectively,
purchased. (The laws, not the facilities)
Running an ISP is hard, and most munis have no experience in it. Then
only reason to do it, is because the incumbents refuse to provide
service. I don't think munis running networks is any sort of threat
to free enterprise. I see them more analogous to rural electric
cooperatives that provided electric service when incumbents refused
to. Legislating that option away, just lets the duopolies serve the
dense urban areas and ignore the less dense areas.
FWIW, the posting to which you're replying assumed that we were talking
about municipal service at layer 3+; we weren't, as we later corrected.
What we're talking about is acknowledging the high cost of fiber plant
buildout, and the natural monopoly it encompasses... and thus the
municipal involvement it encourages, in an open access design.
Cheers,
-- jra
One thing that is bothersome about carriers is that sometimes if they
have Tons of fiber to your building, they still will only offer
Layer2/3 services. If there's fiber there, I'd like to be able to
lease it in some fashion (even if expensive, but preferably not).
If a muni is making something that is good for the public, I think
they can and should offer Layer2 services, but also make the option to
directly get the fibers at a reasonable price .. even for Individuals
and small companies. I think services that are offered should also
provide the ability to order the subcomponents including Layer1.
That should encourage competition, usability, and fun. I'd totally get
a 10G from my work to home or whatever.
There's a really simple solution to this problem...
Let the muni provide L1/L2 network, and make sure that your L3 usage is
entirely run over encrypted channels between you and your (non-muni)
L3 service provider.
At that point, sure, the muni can see that you sent a lot of packets full of
gibberish back and forth to your ISP. And?
Owen
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
(at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good
counter-argument I've seen, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me.Rob, anyone, does anyone know if any 4th amendment case law exists on muni-
owned networks?I don't, but I'd like to point out here that I've long believed
both sides of the muni-network argument are right, and that we the
people are losing the baby with the bath water.I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to
be 100% clear about what I advocate here:- Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A
big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and providers are
all allowed to colocate their fiber term on non-discriminatory terms.Large munis will need more than one, no run from a particular MMR
to a home should exceed 9km, allowing the providers to be within
1km of the MMR and still use 10km optics.- 4-6 strands per home, home run back to the muni-owned MMR space.
No splitters, WDM, etc, home run glass. Terminating on an optical
handoff inside the home.- Fiber leased per month, per pair, on a cost recovery basis (to
include an estimate of O&M over time), same price to all players.
This is exactly what I have been advocating for years and is similar to
what is already available in Sweden and is being implemented in Australia.
(Or at least the intent of what is supposed to be in process there).
I do NOT advocate that munis ever run anything on top of the fiber.
No IP, no TV, no telephone, not even teleporters in the future.
Service Providers of all types can drop a large count fiber from
their POP to the muni-owned MMR, request individual customers be
connected, and then provide them with any sort of service they like
over that fiber pair, single play, double play, triple play, whatever.
IMHO, this is horribly more expensive and inefficient than it should be.
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment
directly related to providing service to customers reached via the MMR.
See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
should be available.
+1
At the same time, it is very ineffecient to require each provider
to build to every house. Not only is it a large capital cost and
barrier to entry of new players, but no one wants roads and yards
dug up over and over again. Reducing down to one player building
the physical in the ground part saves money and saves disruption.
Amsterdam had an interesting solution to the repeated digging problem.
As I understand it, if you want to trench something in there, you are
required to provide notice and anyone else that wants to put something
in the trench can join your build, but all comers share equally in the cost
of digging and repairing.
Regarding your 4th amendment concerns, almost all the data the
government wants is with the Service Provider in my model, same as
today. They can't find out who you called last week without going
to the CDR or having a tap on every like 24x7 which is not cost
effective. Could a muni still optically tap a fiber in this case
and suck off all the data? Sure, and I have no doubt some paranoid
service provider will offer to encrypt everything at the transport
level.
Exactly.
Is it perfect? No. However I think if we could adopt this model
capital costs would come down (munis can finance fiber on low rate, long
term muni-bonds, unlike corporations, plus they only build one network,
not N), and competition would come up (small service providers can
reach customers only by building to the MMR space, not individual homes)
which would be a huge win win for consumers.
The biggest thing blocking this is the entrenched interests of the current
monopoly providers and their very effective lobbying capabilities, IMHO.
Maybe that's why the big players want to throw the baby out with the
bath water.
Exactly.
Owen
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network.
It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own fiber, you haven't saved that much. If the fiber is lit, at L2, and charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous economies of scale. The examples that come to mind are campus and corporate networks.
Miles Fidelman
Jay Ashworth wrote:
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could and should populate its rights of way (Eugene's public
utility delivers water and power to residential customers) with
physical media.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many
service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network.
My guess is that if the offering to use municipal transport was made
to any access provider except those franchise incumbents (Comcast for
ip/cdn, Verizon, ip/ss7), they would sue, under some equity theory or
another, so the "last mile competitively neutral" really means the
City is paying to do a buildout the local duopoly franchies won't, and
the equity to access providers will be limited to the City owned
infrastructure, not the infrastructure the duopolies have built out in
the past under City granted franchise.
Well, got to read some pleadings and FCC filings related to Oregon law
and municipal authority to impose rights-of-way ("ROW") compensation
and management.
Eric
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54:26PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than
mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as long as clients
are *also* permitted to get a Layer 1 patch to a provider in the fashion you
suggest?
No, and there's good reason why, I'm about to write a response to Owen
that will also expand on why.
There are a number of issues with the muni running the ONT:
- Muni now has to have a different level of techs and truck rolls.
- The Muni MMR now is much more complex, requiring power (including
backup generators, etc) and likely 24x7 staff as a result.
- The muni-ont will limit users to the technologies the ONT supports.
If you want to spin up 96x10GE WDM your 1G ONT won't allow it.
- The optic cost is not significantly different if the muni buys them
and provides lit L2, or if the service/provider user provides them.
The muni should sell L1 patches to anyone in the MMR. Note, this
_includes_ two on-net buildings. So if your work and home are connected
to the same muni-MMR you could order a patch from one to the other.
It may now be max ~20km, so you'll need longer reach optics, but if you
want to stand up 96x10GE WDM you're good to go.
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment
directly related to providing service to customers reached via the MMR.
I'm not sure I agree with your point.
The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni
MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
requires PM, etc.
I fully support the muni MMR being inside of a colocation facility
run by some other company (Equinix/DLR/CoreSite, whatever) so folks
can colo "on site". I think it is also important someone be able
to set up a colo down the street and just drop in a 1000 strand
fiber cable to the actual MMR.
Why is this important? Well, look at one of the failure modes of
the CO system. When DSL was in its hayday, CO's would become full,
and no new DSL providers would be able to get colo space. Plus the
CO's could use space/power/hands time/etc as profit centers.
Muni-fiber should stay as far away from these problems as possible.
I think it's also important to consider the spectrum of deployments
here. A small town of 1000 homes may have MuniMMRREIT come in and
build a 5,000 sq foot building with 1,000 of that leased to the
muni for fiber patch panels, and the other 4,000 sold to ISP's by
the rack to provide service. On the other side consider a space
like New York City, where MuniFiberCo builds out 50,000 square feet
for fiber racks somewhere, and ISP #1 drops in 10,000 strands from
111 8th Ave, and ISP #2 drops in 10,000 strands from 25 Broadway,
and so on. In the middle may be a mid-sized town, where the build the
MMR in a business park, and 3 ISP's erect their own colos, and a colo
provider builds the fourth a houses a dozen smaller players.
In the small town case, MuniMMRREIT may agree to a regulated price
structure for colo space. In the New York City case, it would make
no sense for one colo to try and house all the equipment now and
forever, and there would actually (on a per strand basis) be very
minimal cost to pull 10,000 strands down the street. I'll argue
that running 10,000 strands (which is as few as 12 860 strand fiber
cables) a block or two down the street is far less cost than trying
to shoehorn more colo into an existing building where it is hard
to add generators/chillers/etc.
Basically, running fiber a block or two down the street opens up a
host of cheaper realestate/colo opportunities, and it doesn't cost
significanly more than running the fiber from one end of a colo to
another relative to all the other costs.
I would put it differently.
I believe that the entity (muni, county, state, special district, or whatever) should
be required to make dark fiber patches available.
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of various
forms.
I believe that they should be prohibited from engaging in L3+ services.
I believe they should be required to offer more than a MMR type facility in order to
enable cost-effective utilization by smaller providers. There are a number of ways
this can be accomplished without necessarily requiring the muni to get into anything
complicated.
Owen