Cloud Connection Centers Go Beyond Colocation

Companies considering a relocation of their IT assets from local data centers to colocation facilities have a new option to consider. It’s the Telx Cloud Connection Centers. Let’s have a look at what you can get in a cloud connection center that is above and beyond traditional colocation or carrier hotel services.

Traditional colocation offers cost savings and service enhancements based on economy of scale. The idea is that one larger environmentally controlled, highly secure and well connected data center is more efficient than hundreds or thousands of stand alone private data centers that have to meet the same requirements. This certainly makes sense. A server in your rack may be the same as the server in the colo rack, except they host hundreds or thousands of them. The backup generators at the colocation center aren’t hundreds or thousands of times larger or more expensive than the one you have in its own building out back. Nor is the fire suppression equipment, HVAC, or 24/7 staffing.

The other advantage that you find in colocation centers is connectivity. There is no way that multiple carriers are going to move into your company just to give you the option of connecting with them. They do just that at the colo. Carriers love to set up shop in colocation centers because they know that there are plenty of potential customers needing high bandwidth WAN connections. Once established, all that is needed is a simple cross connect to connect users and carriers.

In itself, this is a good reason for you to move to a colocation center. Even if you are perfectly happy with your infrastructure and technical staffing costs, how easy is it to get bandwidth? Well located business have many options to choose from. Companies that have built off the beaten path may find that fiber optic services are hard to come by or very expensive to bring in. There’s a strategic advantage in moving your high performance servers and bandwidth demanding public facing applications to a colocation facility. You can then use more modest bandwidth to communicate with your server farm.

Telx takes this to the next level with their Cloud Connection Centers. Telx is a major player in colocation services and carrier connectivity. This year, they’ve started offering a new service called cloudXchange that is a global community of providers and users of cloud services. Members colocate within the Telx facilities. Telx provides the cross connects and other interconnections to link users and providers.

Isn’t the whole idea of the cloud that it is “somewhere, out there” and you save money by buying cloud services on pay as you go basis instead of managing your own equipment? For smaller companies, especially those who don’t want to deal with technicalities, that’s a model that works. Larger organizations have found problems with this simplistic model. A big problem is latency and bandwidth in connection to the cloud. Other issues include the need for private as well as public clouds to ensure security and performance while reducing costs.

The whole movement to the cloud has become so important that Telx has rebranded their 15 colocation and connection centers as Cloud Connection Centers. Within those centers, you have easy access to cloud computing, storage and Software as a Service (SaaS) resources. You have an almost infinite array of options from running your own equipment to completely outsourcing to cloud vendors and any mix in-between.

How strong is this trend to everything in the cloud? Strong enough that Telx is breaking ground on a brand new 215,000 square foot data center in Clifton, N.J. to complement their existing Clifton facility and their New York City center at 60 Hudson St. A private fiber ring will connect 60 Hudson and Clifton to minimize latency.

Are you in the midst of doing private vs public vs hybrid cloud tradeoffs against traditional colocation and operating your own private data center? This would be a good time to explore additional options offered at a Cloud Connection Center to complete your cost/benefit analysis.

Stocks Going Ex Dividend the Second Week of December

Here is our latest update on the stock trading technique called 'Buying Dividends'. This is the process of buying stocks before the ex dividend date and selling the stock shortly after the ex date at about the same price, yet still being entitled to the dividend. This technique generally works only in bull markets. In flat or choppy markets, you have to be extremely careful, and may need to avoid the technique during those times.

In order to be entitled to the dividend, you have to buy the stock before the ex-dividend date, and you can't sell the stock until after the ex date. The actual dividend may not be paid for another few weeks. WallStreetNewsNetwork.com has compiled a downloadable and sortable list of the stocks going ex dividend during the next week or two. The list contains many dividend paying companies, all with market caps over $500 million, and yields over 2%. Here are a few examples showing the stock symbol, the market capitalization, the ex-dividend date and the yield.

Ameren Corporation (AEE) market cap: $7.6B ex div date: 12/5/2011 yield: 5.1%

Avery Dennison Corporation (AVY) market cap: $2.6B ex div date: 12/5/2011 yield: 4.1%

Cousins Properties Inc (CUZ) market cap: $560.1M ex div date: 12/5/2011 yield: 3.3%

Greenhill & Co., Inc. (GHL) market cap: $1.0B ex div date: 12/5/2011 yield: 5.2%

Regal Entertainment Group (RGC) market cap: $2.1B ex div date: 12/5/2011 yield: 6.2%

Gannett Co., Inc. (GCI) market cap: $2.5B ex div date: 12/7/2011 yield: 3.1%

Genuine Parts Company (GPC) market cap: $8.4B ex div date: 12/7/2011 yield: 3.3%

Kimberly Clark Corp (KMB) market cap: $27.1B ex div date: 12/7/2011 yield: 4.1%

The additional ex-dividend stocks can be found at wsnn.com. (If you have been to the website before, and the latest link doesn't show up, you may have to empty your cache.) If you like dividend stocks, you should check out the high yield utility stocks and the Monthly Dividend Stocks at WallStreetNewsNetwork.com or WSNN.com.

Dividend definitions:

Declaration date: the day that the company declares that there is going to be an upcoming dividend.

Ex-dividend date: the day on which if you buy the stock, you would not be entitled to that particular dividend; or the first day on which a shareholder can sell the shares and still be entitled to the dividend.

Monthly Dividend Stock List
Record date: the day when you must be on the company's books as a shareholder to receive the dividend. The ex-dividend date is normally set for stocks two business days before the record date.

Payment date: the day on which the dividend payment is actually made, which can be as long at two months after the ex date.

Don't forget to reconfirm the ex-dividend date with the company before implementing this technique.

Disclosure: Author did not own any of the above at the time the article was written.

By Stockerblog.com

Harmonica at Carnegie Hall

This video has nothing to do with stocks, bonds or investments, but I thought you would find it of interest, if you have any interest in music at all. See why there is a standing ovation at the end.

Hautelook for fashion ideas and giveaways

There are lots of shopping sites online where you can buy into the latest fashion and lifestyle trends in everything imaginable - clothes, shoes, bags, watches, accessories, travel, hotels and resorts, toys, beauty products, did I mention clothes. And the best part is, you can get them at great discounts! How would 50-75% discount grab you?

New shopping sites are getting on board all the time. The latest I just came across is HauteLook.com by Michelle Phan. Since it is just launched, when you sign up, you stand a chance to win $100 till Christmas and they are giving away $100 everyday!

Registration is needed in order to access the site. To enter, go to Hautelook.com. When you click on that link, Hautelook can track who is part of the contest. Winners will be announced here on http://www.facebook.com/MichellePhanOfficial

Watch video for more information..



Michelle Phan (in the video) is currently the #1 most subscribed woman on YouTube. Phan joined YouTube on July 18, 2005 and has created over 200 videos on beauty tutorials.

Phan's success on YouTube has produced attention from the media and people internationally and has been featured in many publications including Seventeen, Vanity Fair, St. Petersburg Times, Forbes and others. In 2010, Phan was hired by Lancôme. (Wikipedia)

This incident may be recorded for training purposes

LINK

Honey to the Bee

Money

Honey

In the famous song "Money Honey", written and composed by Jesse Stone, Elvis Presley laments different kinds of money troubles, from demanding landlords to stingy girlfriends and heartless gold diggers, culminating in the demand "I want money, honey!" Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC, which holds the economic rights in Elvis's estate, shares that sentiment and has been trying to get at the honeypots of Elvis Presley's German record company, Arista Music.

On 23 November, Landgericht München I (Regional Court of Munich I - yes, for whatever reason Munich has two of those, but copyright enthusiasts need not bother with the second one) handed down its judgment in the case. The claim was struck out, but apparently for different reasons than the ones I suspected in my previous post on the matter (see here). According to the suitably entertaining press release (as always, the written judgment will be some time coming), entitled "I want Money, Honey!" and available here, the claimant mainly relied on two arguments:

Additional Remuneration due to Extended Term of Protection

First, the German term of protection for sound recordings (protected under a neighbouring right, not copyright) was extended in 1990 from 25 to 50 years after first publication. Accordingly, the term during which money could be made (and presumably used to buy, among other things, honey...) suddenly doubled. The claimant argued that nobody had seen this development coming in 1973 and that in hindsight the remuneration Elvis received was therefore much too low. The claimant also pointed out that the new provisions explicitly introduced a right to additional remuneration because of the extension of the term of protection.

This claim refers to § 137f (4) UrhG, a transitional provision I admittedly overlooked in my previous post. The provision reads:

"If prior to 1 July 1995 an exploitation right concerning the subject matter of a neighbouring right that continues to be protected under this Act has been granted or assigned to another, in the event of doubt such grant or assignment shall be deemed to cover the period by which the term of protection has been extended. ²The application of sentence 1 shall be subject to payment of equitable remuneration.

It seems like rather a good idea to invoke § 137f (4) UrhG, but the court disagreed. It held that the 1973 buy-out contract between Elvis and the record company was valid. The wording of the contract explicitly covered any claims for additional payments arising out of any extensions of the duration of protection. The claim for additional remuneration that was introduced at the same time as the term extension did not lead to a different result. According to the court, the claim for additional remuneration is not mandatory and unwaivable. Contractual agreements that derogate from the provision are possible, and the contract between Elvis and his record company was such a contract.

Fairness Compensation

Secondly, the claimant argued that since 2002 there has been a legal obligation to pay additional "fairness compensation" if the consideration the artist received is strikingly disproportionate to the profits made from exploiting the work or performance, and that the requirements were met in the case at hand. That claim was based on §§ 32a, 79 (2) UrhG (also see previous posts here and here).

According to the view of the court, however, the provision governing the effects of term extension (§ 137f (4) UrhG) is lex specialis to the general duty of those who exploit the work to remunerate the artist adequately (§§ 32a, 79 (2) UrhG). In other words, §§ 32a, 79 (2) UrhG are not applicable.

Comment

The court's solution as apparent from the press release is certainly elegant, but I think there is a chance the OLG (court of appeal) or the BGH (Federal Supreme Court) might see things differently. I am not entirely sure that the right to equitable remuneration pursuant to § 137f (4) UrhG really could be waived in advance. In my opinion, there are good arguments for both sides, though, so I wouldn't bet any money (or honey) on claimant's chances.

However, I have difficulty seeing § 137f (4) UrhG as lex specialis to §§ 32a, 79 (2) UrhG. In any event, the claim should in my view still fail for he reasons given in my previous post. I would also be interested in some judicial insight as to whether the claimant actually had legal standing in the § 137f (4) UrhG claim - i.e. whether like the § 32a UrhG right the right to equitable remuneration pursuant to § 137f (4) UrhG is incapable of being waived or transferred in advance - because in that case Elvis's daughter would be the right holder, and not Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC.

The good news is that we may actually receive answers to any or all of these questions because counsel for claimant have already announced that they will appeal the judgment and take the case all the way to the BGH if necessary.


Honey Money here
Honey and the Money here
Honey to the Bee here
Pooh's Hunny Hunt here

SOS, it's SAS! But that's just a matter of opinion ...

The joys of Google Image:
a search conducted under
the name of the Advocate
General turned this up as
the first search result

Yesterday Advocate General Bot issued his opinion in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling from the Chancery Division of the High Court, England & Wales (for background click here).

In essence, SAS Institute Inc. developed analytical software the SAS System. This System was an integrated set of programs that let users carry out data processing and analysis tasks, especially statistical analysis. The core component of the SAS System was Base SAS, which let users write and run application programs to manipulate data, these applications being written in SAS Language. The functionality of Base SAS could be extended by the use of additional components, of which three -- SAS/ACCESS, SAS/GRAPH and SAS/STAT (referred to together with Base SAS as ‘the SAS components’) -- were relevant to this dispute.

Once upon a time the SAS Institute’s customers had no alternative but to take its licence to use the SAS components in order to be able to run their existing application programs in SAS language or to create new ones. Any customer wishing to change software supplier would have to rewrite its existing application programs in a different language, at considerable cost. For that reason, World Programming Limited (‘WPL’) had the idea of creating an alternative computer program, the World Programming System (‘the WPL System’), to let users run application programs written in SAS language.  WPL admitted that its intention was to emulate much of the functionality of the SAS components as closely as possible, so that the same inputs would produce the same outputs, since WPL wanted its customers’ application programs to run in the same way on the WPL system as it had on the SAS components.

SAS Institute sought an order that WPL’s actions infringed copyright in its computer programs. In two separate decisions, UK courts have ruled that it was not an infringement of the copyright in the source code of a computer program for a competitor of the right owner to study how the program functions and then to write its own program to emulate that functionality. SAS Institute, challenging that approach, has brought an action before the referring court and complaining that WPL has (i) copied the manuals for the SAS System published by SAS Institute when creating the WPL System, (ii) in so doing, indirectly copied the computer programs comprising the SAS components,(iii) used a version of the SAS system known as the ‘Learning Edition’, in breach of the terms of the licence relating to that version and the commitments made under that licence, and its copyright in that version, and (iv) infringed the copyright in the SAS Manuals by creating its own WPL manual.

Mr Justice Arnold stayed the proceedings and asked the Court of Justice for a considerable quantity of preliminary guidance:

"‘1. Where a computer program (“the First Program”) is protected by copyright as a literary work, is Article 1(2) [of Directive 91/250] to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for a competitor of the rightholder without access to the source code of the First Program, either directly or via a process such as decompilation of the object code, to create another program (“the Second Program”) which replicates the functions of the First Program? 

2. Is the answer to question 1 affected by any of the following factors:
(a) the nature and/or extent of the functionality of the First Program;
(b) the nature and/or extent of the skill, judgment and labour which has been expended by the author of the First Program in devising the functionality of the First Program;
(c) the level of detail to which the functionality of the First Program has been reproduced in the Second Program;
(d) if the source code for the Second Program reproduces aspects of the source code of the First Program to an extent which goes beyond that which was strictly necessary in order to produce the same functionality as the First Program? 

3. Where the First Program interprets and executes application programs written by users of the First Program in a programming language devised by the author of the First Program which comprises keywords devised or selected by the author of the First Program and a syntax devised by the author of the First Program, is Article 1(2) [of Directive 91/250] to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for the Second Program to be written so as to interpret and execute such application programs using the same keywords and the same syntax? 

4. Where the First Program reads from and writes to data files in a particular format devised by the author of the First Program, is Article 1(2) [of Directive 91/250] to be interpreted as meaning that it is not an infringement of the copyright in the First Program for the Second Program to be written so as to read from and write to data files in the same format? 

5. Does it make any difference to the answer to questions 1, 3 and 4 if the author of the Second Program created the Second Program by:
(a) observing, studying and testing the functioning of the First Program; or
(b) reading a manual created and published by the author of the First Program which describes the functions of the First Program (‘the Manual’); or
(c) both (a) and (b)? 

6. Where a person has the right to use a copy of the First Program under a licence, is Article 5(3) [of Directive 91/250] to be interpreted as meaning that the licensee is entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to perform acts of loading, running and storing the program in order to observe, test or study the functioning of the First Program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, if the licence permits the licensee to perform acts of loading, running and storing the First Program when using it for the particular purpose permitted by the licence, but the acts done in order to observe, study or test the First Program extend outside the scope of the purpose permitted by the licence? 

7. Is Article 5(3) [of Directive 91/250] to be interpreted as meaning that acts of observing, testing or studying of the functioning of the First Program are to be regarded as being done in order to determine the ideas or principles which underlie any element of the First Program where they are done:
(a) to ascertain the way in which the First Program functions, in particular details which are not described in the Manual, for the purpose of writing the Second Program in the manner referred to in question 1 …;
(b) to ascertain how the First Program interprets and executes statements written in the programming language which it interprets and executes (see question 3 …);
(c) to ascertain the formats of data files which are written to or read by the First Program (see question 4 … );
(d) to compare the performance of the Second Program with the First Program for the purpose of investigating reasons why their performances differ and to improve the performance of the Second Program;
(e) to conduct parallel tests of the First Program and the Second Program in order to compare their outputs in the course of developing the Second Program, in particular by running the same test scripts through both the First Program and the Second Program;
(f) to ascertain the output of the log file generated by the First Program in order to produce a log file which is identical or similar in appearance;
(g) to cause the First Program to output data (in fact, data correlating zip codes to States of the United States of America) for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it corresponds with official databases of such data, and if it does not so correspond, to program the Second Program so that it will respond in the same way as the First Program to the same input data. 

8. Where the Manual is protected by copyright as a literary work, is Article 2(a) [of Directive 2001/29] to be interpreted as meaning that it is an infringement of the copyright in the Manual for the author of the Second Program to reproduce or substantially reproduce in the Second Program any of the following matters described in the Manual:
(a) the selection of statistical operations which have been implemented in the First Program;
(b) the mathematical formulae used in the Manual to describe those operations;
(c) the particular commands or combinations of commands by which those operations may be invoked;
(d) the options which the author of the First Program has provided in respect of various commands;
(e) the keywords and syntax recognised by the First Program;
(f) the defaults which the author of the First Program has chosen to implement in the event that a particular command or option is not specified by the user;
(g) the number of iterations which the First Program will perform in certain circumstances? 

9. Is Article 2(a) [of Directive 2001/29] to be interpreted as meaning that it is an infringement of the copyright in the Manual for the author of the Second Program to reproduce or substantially reproduce in a manual describing the Second Program the keywords and syntax recognised by the First Program?’".

The Advocate General has advised the Court of Justice to rule as follows:

"1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250 ... on the legal protection of computer programs is to be interpreted as meaning that the functionalities of a computer program and the programming language are not eligible, as such, for copyright protection [No problem so far, since this seems to reflect the conventional understanding, ever since the days of the original software directive if not before, that functionality qua functionality was not copyright-protecte subject matter]. It will be for the national court to examine whether, in reproducing these functionalities in its computer program, the author of the program has reproduced a substantial part of the elements of the first program which are the expression of the author’s own intellectual creation. [Here the problems start, in so far as the AG appears to see a binary system in which a work, including a computer program, is either functional or the expression of individual creation: a trial judge is more likely to be presented with a continuum between two overlapping concepts]

2. Articles 1(2) and 6 of Directive 91/250 are to be interpreted as meaning that it is not regarded as an act subject to authorisation for a licensee to reproduce a code or to translate the form of the code of a data file format so as to be able to write, in his own computer program, a source code which reads and writes that file format, provided that that act is absolutely indispensable for the purposes of obtaining the information necessary to achieve interoperability between the elements of different programs. [Given the intention of the software as well as its actual provisions, this should not prove controversial] That act must not have the effect of enabling the licensee to recopy the code of the computer program in his own program, a question which will be for the national court to determine. 

3. Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250, read in conjunction with Articles 4(a) and (b) and 5(1) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the computer program [which the person having the right] is entitled to do’ relates to the acts for which that person has obtained authorisation from the rightholder and to the acts of loading and running necessary in order to use the computer program in accordance with its intended purpose. Acts of observing, studying or testing the functioning of a computer program which are performed in accordance with that provision must not have the effect of enabling the person having a right to use a copy of the program to access information which is protected by copyright, such as the source code or the object code. [Problem here for copyright traditionalists: the words "information which is protected by copyright" seem wrong unless you consider that copyright protects information, rather than the manner in which it is expressed -- which in turn takes us back to the old arguments about the protectability of expression which is the only manner in which an idea or information is capable of being expressed, which takes us back to all that lovely idea/expression dichotomy litigation in the United States back in the previous century ...]

(4) Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 ... on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society is to be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual, of certain elements described in the manual for another computer program may constitute an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if – a question which will be for the national court to determine – the elements reproduced in this way are the expression of their author’s own intellectual creation".

Dan Beebe Email States FOX/ESPN Working Against NBC and Comcast

Many feel the beginning of this year's college football season was over-shadowed by the explosion of conference realignment.  One reason for the recent realignment was the money involved with signed contracts between conferences and TV broadcast partners such as ABC-ESPN, CBS, NBC, and FOX for college football TV 1st and 2nd tier rights.

On April 13th 2011, the Big 12 Conference announced it had agreed to a new 13 year agreement with FOX Sports for it's 2nd tier football rights. 

The Big 12 and Fox Sports announced a 13-year deal Wednesday that officials say will ensure the long-term stability of every member of the league. The deal, which starts with the 2012 football season, will pay the league about $90 million a year when averaged over the length of the contract.

In addition, the Big 12 also has a deal with ABC-ESPN running through 2015-16 that will pay about $65 million a year.

This would mean that ABC-ESPN would continue to hold the conference's 1st tier rights and "partner" with FOX Sports in broadcasting all of the conference's upcoming college football contests for the next several seasons.

Less than a month later on May 3rd 2011, the then Pac-10 conference announced it had reached it's own deal with once again, ABC-ESPN and FOX.

The Pacific-10 Conference will start its own network on cable television in 2012, but will also sell most of its marquee football and basketball games to Fox and ESPN for about $3 billion over 12 years, more than quadrupling what the two companies have been paying.

It is the richest conference deal. The Pac-10, which is expected to announce the agreements Wednesday, is following the media model of the Big Ten Conference, which in 2007 created its own network and negotiated a 10-year, $1 billion deal with ESPN.

But a critical difference between the conferences’ deals is that the Pac-10 will retain full ownership of its network. Fox Cable Networks owns 49 percent of the Big Ten channel. 

With ABC-ESPN and FOX securing TV deals with two different conferences in less than a month time, were they working together to control the market?  

In an email obtained though a FOIA request from then Big 12 Conference Commissioner Dan Beebe to Big 12 athletic directors dated May 4th 2011, that does in fact appear to be the case.  Here in this email, Commissioner Beebe explains to conference athletic directors the significance of the deal as it relates to the Big 12, certain talking points for athletic staff to take up, and lets slip the fact that ABC-ESPN and FOX are seemingly working together to "keep NBC/Comcast from getting a significant stake in college athletics".

We find it comical that former Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe thought his conference could "generate per member revenue comparable to its peer conferences" in the future.

Also, remember this past summer ABC-ESPN and FOX were negotiating together to shuffle games onto the University of Texas' new Longhorn Network which was operated by ESPN.   Berry Tramel wrote this article in July about the troubling nature of the discussions:

The Longhorn Network is getting another game for its stash of content. Fox has allowed ESPN to move one of Texas’ conference games to the Longhorn Network.

The blame for this lies at the feet of ESPN and Fox Sports Net. ESPN hatched this idea, trying to build subscribers to the network and recoup its $300 million commitment. But Fox had to sign off. Fox owns the cable rights to Big 12 football; except for one game a year per school, which will almost always be against a rumdum opponent, ABC/ESPN and Fox own the rights to the games.

If a game is going to be on cable television, it’s going to be on Fox Sports Net, or FSN has to grant a waiver. FSN granted a waiver for the Longhorn Network.

FSN had its reasons. Sources say Fox in 2012 wants to move at least one game to big Fox — its over-the-air network, which televises the NFL and Major League Baseball. Big Fox long has been mentioned as a possible destination for Big 12 football; heck, I’ve been mentioning it myself for years. The Big 12 on Big Fox is an idea whose time has come.

Also last Sunday night, we released this email from Texas A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne from a rough draft of his Wednesday Weekly letters to fans that was then edited out about how ABC-ESPN and FOX were delaying the release of the 2011 Big 12 Conference football schedule due to their discussions of moving games to be aired on the Longhorn Network:

It's becoming easier to see that those discussions may have been easier than once believed if ABC-ESPN and FOX were really working together to obtain the TV rights of all conferences as the Dan Beebe email suggests.

But more importantly, what does it say for the current and future state of college football and athletics as a whole if ABC-ESPN has teamed up with FOX to drive NBC/Comcast and perhaps even CBS out of the market?

That's for smarter people than us to speculate and comment on. 

Special thanks to @spadilly for his attainment of the documents.

Troy Michigan Mayor: The Public Library is Our Meeting Place

Troy (MI) Mayor Joyce Daniels

Troy library to be open Saturdays, but not on Fridays, starting Jan. 7. (Detroit News, 11/29/2011)

Excerpt: Russ said Friday is the library's least busy day of the week. The average number of checkouts is 2,251 on Fridays. In comparison, Monday checkouts are 3,276 and 4,095 on Sundays, she said.

Councilwoman Maureen McGinnis said the Friday closure was the best among four options presented.
"I think everyone is happy," she said.

Mayor Daniels, however, was pushing for the approval of a separate proposal that would have reopened the library seven days a week, a move that would have required an annual subsidy of $1.3 million from the city's general fund.

"We don't have a downtown where we can go meet and gather, but we have a library. That's our meeting place," Daniels told council members prior to Monday's vote. "We all need to remember that the budget is a set of assumptions."

Bravo!  Thanks for speaking up for your community's library, Mayor.

Related posts:
A bright future for the Troy Public Library.  (8/4/2011)
After contentious millage vote, library focuses on providing services.  (8/4/2011)
Millage vote wrap-up.  (8/3/2011)
It's official.  (8/2/2011)
Biggest library story of the day, continued.  (8/2/2011)
Very early vote tally.  (8/2/2011)
Keep your fingers crossed for Troy Public Library.  (8/2/2011)
Kids speak up for the Troy Public Library.  (8/1/2011)
Partisan politics emerge in Troy Public Library vote.  (8/1/2011)
Residents to vote on library village on August 2.  (7/28/2011)
Patrons speak up for their library.  (7/24/2011)
Safeguarding American Families:  Vote yes to save Troy Library.  (7/14/2011)
Troy mayor is upbeat.  (7/14/2011)
Oakland Press editorial.  (7/14/2011)
Book burning listed on Detroit News events calendar.  (7/12/2011)
Troy Chamber supports millage request for library.  (7/10/2011)
A half-million dollar library collection up in flames?  Not gonna happen.  (7/9/2011)
I)s it just me or are things heating up in Troy Michigan?  (7/6/2011)
The battle lines are drawn.  (6/28/2011)
August 2nd a "This Is It" moment for the Troy Public Library..  (5/17/2011)
Working to keep the library open.  (5/10/2011)
Will there be a library after June 30th?  (4/20/2011)
Keep the Troy Public Library open:  Council members told to 'figure it out'.  (4/19/2011)
May Day!  May Day!  Two Michigan libraries set to close on May 1.  (4/17/2011)
Library to close on May 1.  (2/23/2011)
Troy Michigan (population: 80,000) still on track to close its library.  (2/8/2011)
Voters wave bye-bye to their library.  (11/3/2010)
Giving voters more choices than they need.  (8/13/2010)
Library threatened with closure, part 2.  (5/19/2010)
Library threatened with closure, part 1.  (4/25/2010)

Council President Able to Manitowoc Residents: It's not manna, folks

(OK, so I'm taking a few liberties with the "quote".)

If people are as uninformed as Able leads us to believe, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Manitowoc faces $5M revenue gap. Committee told of 2011 shortfall Tuesday night as it struggles with 2012 budget. (Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter, 11/29/2011)

Excerpt: Able said current and past council members and mayors have done a poor job at explaining to the public that the city services they have come to expect are directly tied to revenues appropriated for them.

Here's what is sorely lacking in today's K-12 curriculum:  civics education.  (Not to be confused with the social studies curriculum.)

But then it was sorely lacking when I attended the Warren (PA) School District in the late 1950s and 1960s.  Outside of the most rudimentary, shimmering city-on-a-hill overview of the 3 branches of the federal government, teachers zipped their lips and averted their eyes on the topics of Pennsylvania's state, county, and local government structures and operations.

Sadly, I can just imagine the political wrangling that would take place over any civics curriculum development today.

What can public libraries do?

As a starting point, the UK's Museums, Libraries and Archives Council provides a list of suggestions which, for the most part, can be easily adapted to U.S. public libraries.

Curiously, our own Institute for Museums and Libraries doesn't appear to offer such specificity when it comes to the topic of encouraging participation in civic life.  You'd think it would be addressed under the topic of the library as community anchor institution.

See also:
Civic Participation & E-Government.  (From American Library Association, which, in my opinion, should balance its emphasis on e-government with more personalized approaches, something along the lines of the "high-tech/high touch" concept described by John Naisbitt in Megatrends.)

Other Wisconsin county and municipal budget news.

Sheboygan City Attorney explains how a fee becomes a tax.  (11/29/2011)

City of Edgerton 2012 budget.  (11/23/2011)

No public comment before passage of 2012 Marshfield budget.  (11/23/2011)

Fond du Lac final budget restores $27,000 to library after initial cut of $91,000. (11/23/2011)

City of Sun Prairie 2012 budget.  (11/23/2011)

Reduced hours "possible" @ the Menasha Public Library.  (11/22/2011)

City of Beaver Dam 2012 budget.  (11/22/2011)
At this point, Sheboygan budget includes no cuts to Mead Library and Fire Department. (11/21/2011)
City of Milton 2012 budget.  (11/17/2011)
City of Whitewater 2012 budget.  (11/17/2011)
Sheboygan officials look to privatize cleaning services @ 3 city facilities.  (11/15/2011)
Stoughton residents speak up for their library.  (11/14/2011)
In addition to considering a garbage fee, Fond du Lac council restores a part-time library position.  (11/13/2011)
Marathon County's 2012 "No, No, No Budget".  (11/9/2011)
Let the aphorisms fly @ the Beloit City Council meeting.  (11/9/2011)
2012 Marshfield Public Library budget cut by 2.4%.  (11/8/2011)
Part time staff @ Beloit Public Library lose health-care benefits.  (11/7/2011)
Privatizing trash pickup would more than plug Sheboygan's $800,000 budget gap. (11/5/2011)
Portage County approves budget.  (11/4/2011)
Manitowoc's bond rating woes.  (11/4/2011)
Menasha mayor asks library board to cut $45,000 from 2012 budget.  (11/2/2011)
Fond du Lac councilman Ruedinger calls $91,000 cut to library "huge"  (11/1/2011)
Dimming the streetlights in Clintonvlile.  (10/27/2011)
Two Rivers' Lester Public Library looking at a 7% cut in 2012.  (10/26/2011)
Boost in taxes for Neenah residents.  (10/25/2011)
Apparently, Sheboygan alderman David Van Akkeren doesn't love and value libraries. (10/25/2011)
Crabby Appleton trumps League of Women Voters president in coverage of Outagamie County budget hearing.  (10/25/2011)
Black River Falls looks to cut $62,000 from 2012 budget.  (10/24/2011)
Shawano does the garbage fee math.  (10/19/2011)
Wisconsin Rapids:  Proposed McMillan Library 2012 budget cut $63,221.  (10/19/2011)
Racine mayor uses Packers analogy in budget address.  (10/19/2011)
Manitowoc mayor cuts budget 10%.  (10/18/2011)
Mayor proposes 5.1% cut to Fond du Lac Public Library funding.  (10/17/2011)
Racine County executive explains the various tax levies.  (10/16/2011)
Lake Geneva's 2012 budget dilemma.  (10/15/2011)
Rhinelander has a bigger hold to fill due to budget error.  (10/15/2011)
City of Ripon 2012 budget update.  (10/15/2011)
Shawano city administrator:  "Bleeding has stopped for the most part".  (10/14/2011)
Retirements?  Not worry, sez Sheboygan officials.  (10/14/2011)
FEE-fi-fo-fum in Ashland.  (10/14/2011)
Waupaca proposes no retiree access to city's health plan.  (10/13/2011)
Mayville retains wheel tax.  (10/13/2011)
Wheel tax proposed in Janesville.  (10/12/2011)
City of Marshfield 2012 budget update.  (10/12/2011)
City of Oshkosh 2012 budget update.  (10/12/2011)
City of Fond du Lac to eliminate assessor's office.  (10/12/2011)
Sheboygan officials no longer have the "headache" of maintenance of effort.  (10/11/2011)
City of Waukesha considers annual garbage fee.  (10/9/2011)
Brown County proposes cuts to employee benefits.  (10/9/2011)
Library salaries focus of debate at Sussex-Lisbon budget discussion.  (10/8/2011)
City of  Delavan administrator requests all department reduce operating budgets by 8%.  (10/8/2011)
Village of Waterford looks at across-the-board cuts.  (10/8/2011)
Ripon city administrator on 2012 municipal budget.  (10/8/2011)
4% cut to library funding in Appleton mayor's 2012 proposed budget.  (10/8/2011)
McMillan library staff reorganization saves Wisconsin Rapids $45,075. (10/5/2011)
Budget reduction forces cuts in hours, positions @ the La Crosse Public Library. (10/3/2011)
Marathon County cuts employee benefits to balance 2012 budget.  (10/3/2011)
City of Sheboygan 2012 proposed budget.  (10/3/2011)
2012 Brown County Public Library proposed budget.  (10/1/2011)
1.2% of Janesville residents get to wag the dog.  (9/30/2011)
Beloit Public Library proposed 2012 budget.  (9/30/2011)
Shawano City-County Library receives $13,000 cut (3%) in county funding.  (9/28/2011)
City of Rhinelander looking at a $200,000 decrease in revenue for 2012.  (9/27/2011)
Mayor Barrett's proposed 2012 budget increases hours, expands 3 educational initiatives @ the Milwaukee Public Library.  (9/26/2011)
Janesville:  Slight decrease in 2012 Hedberg Public Library budget.  (9/25/2011)
Fond du Lac faces $1.7 million deficit.  (9/23/2011)
McFarland wrestles with 2012 budget..  (9/22/2011)
Beloit to make deep cuts to police, fire departments.  (9/22/2011)
Wisconsin Rapids 2012 budget process underway.  (9/22/2011)
Oshkosh 2012 budget deficit projected to balloon to as much as $2.3 million.  (9/20/2011)
Facing $2.5 million shortfall, La Crosse considers a variety of fees.  (9/14/2011)
100 show up at Dodgeville budget hearing.  (9/12/2011)
Zero percent increase for Prairie du Sac department budgets.  (9/7/2011)
City of Ashland looks at projected shortfall of $329,000 in 2012 budget.  (8/26/2011)
Dodgeville city council to hold listening session on 2012 budget.  (8/26/2011)
Shawano budget deficit at $504,800.  (8/25/2011)
City of Ripon facing $110,000 budget deficit for 2012.  (8/25/2011)
Long list of cuts on table for Racine city services.  (8/25/2011)
Dodge County Administrator:  "Governor Walker does not speak for Dodge County".  (8/25/2011)
Longevity bonuses in Portage might become a thing of the past.  (8/24/2011)
Declining property values pose a challenge to Columbus budget development.  (8/24/2011)
Whitewater council looks at 0% tax levy increase.  (8/24/2011)
Janesville residents asked to make tough choices in online budget scorecard.  (8/24/2011)
Village of Darien officials ask for input on 2012 budget.  (8/24/2011)
City of Marshfield has some wiggle room in its 2012 budget development.  (8/24/2011)
Soglin on 2012 Madison budget:  "Every service we rely on is vulnerable".  (8/23/2011)
With a ballooning budget deficit, Marathon County considers a tax increase.  (8/23/2011)
Sheboygan's Strategic Fiscal Planning Committee to determine what city will look like.  (8/19/2011)
Brown County Exec looks at same tax levy, impact on services to be determined.  (8/18/2011)
City of Shawano wrestles with $128,000 deficit.  (8/16/2011)
Possible double whammy for Shawano City-County Library.  (8/15/2011)
Portage County Executive looks to "create a bridge to a new design, a way of functioning on less".. (8/15/2011)
Antigo cuts fire, police positions.  (8/15/2011)
Adding up the budget numbers in the Fox Valley.  (8/14/2011)
Sauk County officials ask for input.  (8/12/2011)
Marathon County ranks services to address $500,000 budget shortfall.  (8/12/2011)
City of Beloit faces a challenging budget process.  (8/8/2011)
Fond du Lac city manager sez Governor's tools not enough to offset cuts.  (8/2/2011)
Manitowoc mayor asks department heads for 10% budget cuts.  (8/2/2011)

Overdue Masterpiece Theater Promotes the KC Mobile Library

LINK

Harvey Pekar Library Statue

Widow hopes to install sculpture, desk of comic-book artist in public library. (Columbus Dispatch, 11/14/2011)

Excerpt:  Joyce Brabner, widow of the irascible artist Harvey Pekar, has started a campaign to raise money for a desk and sculpture to be installed in the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library.

The tribute is not a statue, but a functional desk that would be filled with paper and pencils for people to sit and write or draw comics at the library where Pekar liked to work.

The Smartest Card. Get It. Use It. Report It Stolen.

This fine is not so fine. (Lorain Morning Journal, 11/26/2011)

Excerpt:  Lorain Public Library patron Caprice Anderson got a big surprise at the main library Wednesday.

It was a bill for $322 in late fees. But she said she hadn’t been to the library in months and she never checked out the items for which her card was used.

“I’m actually a frequent book reader, but I normally buy my books,” said Anderson, 27, of Lorain. “I was going to go to the library and find something I haven’t read. That’s when I found out my card was used.”

Anderson doesn’t know who used her library card, and filed a police report after coming across the staggering late fees.

Bits and pieces

For those living outside the European Union, the prospect of pan-European copyright -- and pan-European licensing practice -- is intriguing. After all, there is a single market in which there is a dual system of national rights and pan-European rights in place for registered trade marks, registered designs and plant variety rights, and the pan-European patent right is now a matter of 'when', rather than 'whether', so what's holding up the pan-European copyright with its corollary, the pan-European licence. This makes even more sense where the licensed territory is exploited via the internet, a medium for which national borders were inappropriate ab initio and even more irrelevant as time marches on.  Anyway, a reader from outside the EU has written to me to ask about public performance rights in the EU:

"What is the current position regarding the regulated collection of royalties for public performances that are delivered over the internet in an integrated manner in the EU?"

Offhand, I couldn't think of a good answer, and ten minutes on my favourite search engine didn't leave me any better able to respond.  The question has a competition dimension to it as well as a copyright one. Can any reader suggest some worthwhile links and/or supplementary reading materials that will aid an "alien"?

Another reader, Sandra Alvera (Panasonic Europe), who has been closely following copyright levy issues, writes to draw our attention to Commissioner's Barnier's announcement about appointing Antonio Vitorino a mediator to address the process of stakeholder dialogue which, if we are lucky and he is successful, might just lead to the solution of some of the problems associated with copyright levies. Thanks, Sandra, for this link. The full text of the Commissioner's speech can be read here. He concludes with the following words:

"The fact that authors and other rightholders must receive fair compensation for the use of their work is not at issue. The issue is that all schemes used for the collection of this compensation should be organised in the most efficient way possible".

Fairness and efficiency make uncomfortable bedfellows, though, since efficiency has a deep and meaningful relationship with another powerful personality in the world of copyright -- arbitrary convenience.  Let's see how this troika works out ...

The ever-industrious Howard Knopf (Excess Copyright) has compiled a list of factums in the fair dealing cases which are currently before the Supreme Court of Canada: (i) SOCAN v. Bell et al (the “iTunes previews” case) SCC #33,800 and (ii) Province of Alberta et al v. Access Copyright (the K-12 “education” case) SCC #33,888. You can access them here.

From Andy Johnstone comes this link to a dispute between Singapore Press Holdings (publisher of The Straits Times) and Yahoo! in what he suspects might become "Singapore's Meltwater moment". Noting that the legislation has some similarities to the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 but also some notable differences, Andy prudently declines to call the odds on the outcome of this little spat over Yahoo!'s copying of editorial content into its aggregator: that's a job for one of our Singaporean readers (any volunteers?)

Extending Ethernet over MPLS Networks

Ethernet started out as a local area network protocol, but is quickly becoming the metropolitan area network protocol of choice. It offers easy interfacing to existing wired and wireless business networks, rapid bandwidth scaling without equipment changes, and a lower cost structure than traditional telecom services. If Ethernet is so great for the LAN and MAN, how about Ethernet for the WAN?

Ethernet WAN is enjoying a rising popularity, especially among companies with multiple business sites located across the United States and across international borders. You can get dedicated point to point wired Ethernet connections between any two locations, but a competing methodology that is gaining steam is Ethernet over MPLS.

Why use an MPLS network to transport your Ethernet traffic? The first reason is that MPLS networks are already in place and going where you want to send your traffic. Sure, you can custom engineer a dedicated private line service, but why re-invent the wheel? Ethernet is easily transported over MPLS networks using Pseudowire encapsulation that emulates the wireline it competes with. Which do you think is going to be less expensive? Paying for a custom point to point wireline connection or being one stream of traffic on a large MPLS network?

The way it tends to work out is that short haul Ethernet links have the cost advantage when implemented as dedicated lines. This is especially true if you are nowhere near an MPLS carrier node. Once you start looking at coast to coast transport or a situation where you want multiple Ethernet LANs connected in a transparent mesh network, MPLS networks gain the advantage. MPLS also has the edge when you want to cross international borders to include foreign sites on your corporate network.

Carriers may be muddying the water even further by offering Ethernet line services that consist of copper or fiber Ethernet access connections to their MPLS network core, where the long haul Ethernet transport really takes place.

There are several types of Ethernet services that are really popular right now. One is E-Line or Ethernet Private Line service. This is a standardized service specified by the MEF (Metro Ethernet Forum). It gives you a Carrier Ethernet connection that bridges two LANs. A variation is EVPL or Ethernet Virtual Private LIne. What EVPL does is let you use a single physical Ethernet port to connect to multiple Ethernet private lines going to out to geographically diverse locations. This is something you could use to replace a star network built on independent wireline connections to those same remote locations.

Another popular service is E-LAN or Ethernet LAN service, also called VPLS or Virtual Private LAN Service when implemented on an IP/MPLS network. While Ethernet Line Service replaces dedicated point to point telecom lines, Ethernet LAN is a meshed network service that interconnects multiple locations on an any-to-any basis. With VPLS, you bridge your multiple LANs so that they act as one giant LAN network. That’s true even if you have a hundred or thousand sites in the U.S. and and equal number spread out over the globe.

What carrier can offer this level of MPLS networking? Actually, there are several to choose from. If one can’t serve all your sites, multiple carriers can share traffic through a E-NNI or Ethernet Network to Network Interface to reach all locations with VPLS or E-Line connections. If you need this type of connectivity, you may be surprised by how affordable it has become recently. Get Ethernet over MPLS service prices now and see how far your network can really reach.

London's iconic bus makes a comeback - the Routemaster

Commuters in London will get a much smoother ride early next year when the new Routemaster buses go on the road and in time for the Olympics. More..Return of the Routemaster: London's iconic bus makes a comeback

Check out how cool it is..

Full Version of Jeff Toole's "Knucklehead" Email and Other Posts

On Sunday night, we released to you several emails obtained though a FOIA request to Texas A&M to show you the raw thoughts of Texas A&M's Athletic Department on the University of Texas' Longhorn Network, what was believed to be the agreement of 3rd tier rights between the Big 12 and other member institutions, and how much of a perceived role the athletic department played during conference realignment.

One of the emails we showed you was a response from Jeffrey Toole, Senior Associate Athletic Director and Aggie Athletic CFO, to A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne in which Byrne forwards an email he received from what we believe to be a fan/booster with the title "RE: What is going on.....".  As we mentioned on Sunday night, during the time of this email Byrne was traveling with the A&M Men's Basketball Team in Switzerland as they played several European national teams and appeared to be out of the loop of what was occurring back in Aggieland involving Texas A&M's possible conference affiliation. The email we released is below:

When we released this email, we didn't think much of it other than to show you an example of how much confusion there was within Texas A&M's own athletic department at the time, just like there was on message boards and in social media between Texas A&M fans.  It's purpose was also to show you just how dependent the athletic department was on information form outside sources. 

After releasing our documents, several comments were made to us that this appeared to be the most "disturbing" email of the bunch as someone within the athletic department was referring to either website moderators (which we believe in fact to be the case) or even A&M message board posters/fans as "knuckleheads".  Could this really be what A&M athletic department administration think of supporters, boosters, and/or possible season ticket purchasers?  Again, we played that notion off as simple, lighthearted commentary between closely associated parties. 

However on Monday night, drama continued to play out on an A&M fan website/message board TexAgs.com, when several posters contended that the poster under the username "UtayAg" was in fact Mr. Toole, the subject of our released controversial email.  Posters then brought up several of Mr. Toole's previous conversations under the anonymous username where he discredits current Texas A&M University President R. Bowen Loftin referring to Dr. Loftin as a "puppet" and proceeds to call him names such as a "putz". Texas A&M beat reporter Brent Zwerneman of the San Antonio Express-News reported on the story earlier today. In this post, "UtayAg" claims he is the CFO of the athletic department on May 11th, 2010: (Note: the red box has been added to highlight his claim)

Here is the exchange Mr. Toole had with a poster BQ07MM where he claims Dr. Loftin is a "puppet" and a "putz":

The Midnight Yell tonight has found several more posts by Mr. Toole from TexAgs.com.  In this thread started by "SpreadsheetAg", the original poster asks if he should email Dr. Loftin or Bill Byrne to suggest changes to the gameday environment of Kyle Field: (Note: other posts in these threads have been cut out to conserve space for your reading)

Here, the same poster "SpreadsheetAg" starts a thread on Dr. Loftin's suggested performance during Texas A&M's conference realignment:

Finally, we have learned that it is highly possible TexAgs.com was not the only Aggie related website Mr. Toole visited, created an alias known as "UtayAg", and posted on.  Here is a thread from Agtimes.com in which "djsaggie" states his opinion on the performance of Texas A&M head football coach Mike Sherman. Although it is unverified Mr. Toole is posting under this same username on this website as well, here is the response. 

Notice it says "UtayAg" joined in November of 2002 and is located in Houston, Texas.  Before his current employment with the Texas A&M Athletic Department, Mr. Toole was a managing partner at Rice Sangalis Toole & Wilson based in Houston.


What might be even more disturbing than his remarks to A&M fans/boosters is that after Brent Zwerneman published his story, Mr. Toole continued to post on TexAgs.com under the same alias for a short period.  Here are his posts from this afternoon. 

 We hope these views did not affect your work Mr. Toole.  We have documented evidence that says Mr. Toole was in direct contact with Dr. Loftin through email during conference realignment that provided critical data to possible conference affiliation.

Back to our original story, his "knucklehead" email.  Here is the full email between Mr. Toole, Bill Byrne, and Penny King (Deputy Director of Aggie Athletics) titled "RE: What is going on.....":

The reason we want to show you this in full is for a couple of reasons:

1) It appears Mr. Toole was the only one in the athletic department "inner circle" who frequented such A&M message board sites.  Notice Mrs. King made the comment she can not access the content because it's a "private page".
2)  If in fact Mr. Toole was the only one in the athletic department who accessed such content and then forwarded it or discussed it with Bill Byrne, what kind of perception was he giving Byrne on the current situation unfolding, or even worse yet, the current viewpoint of Texas A&M Athletic fans/boosters on not just conference realignment, but all subject matters? 

In his duties, Jeffrey Toole shouldn't have posted such negative comments about the current Texas A&M president, or any such employee of Texas A&M for that matter.  While as a former student of Texas A&M and athletic booster, he is certainly entitled to his opinions and his first amendment rights of free speech.  But not to that degree without casting a black eye not only on his employer but the entire Texas A&M University Network and Family. 

The question still remains what role did such message board discussions and viewpoints by Mr. Toole have on internal athletic department conversation and decisions, if any at all?  And if certain members of the Texas A&M athletic department share the same outlook as Mr. Toole on Dr. Loftin and other Texas A&M employees, what does that say about current divisions between the two sides?  In any case, differences and divisions between the two parties need to come to an end and work towards the same goal of Building Champions at Texas A&M through the betterment of student-athletes and satisfying the fans/ boosters who they in fact serve, not to ridicule in such a public display.