An incomplete PQ answer

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <006301c8f6d1$adc0ca70$e57ea8c0@Jinja>, James Firth
<james2@jfirth.net> writes

>Ian Batten wrote:
>> So each grant is of the order of 700 grand.   It depends on if the
>> grants are capex one-off, capex on a depreciation basis or capex+opex,
>> but for half a million quid a year over three years you could buy and
>> operate a substantial fraction of a petabyte of disk in a MAID arrays,
>> and a few hundred terabytes of conventional RAID (the power would get
>> you).
>
>I think it's fairly safe to assume the grants are not just for storage.
>This leaked BT network diagram on The Register (re: Phorm) shows Passive Tap
>devices, which I assume would be used for legal wiretap of an IP steam and I
>can't see the ISPs stumping up for the cost of this architecture themselves.

interception capability is paid for under s14 of RIP 2000 -- and I am
not aware of any published figures about that...  or indeed whether the
conventions would allow a PQ on the topic

>http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/02/29/architecture.jpg

the impression has been given that Phorm is paying for the installation
of kit at the ISPs (if indeed it is still plural!) -- so these numbers
will be private (except of course Phorm's published accounts may give an
indication...)

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBSJgms5oAxkTY1oPiEQL1uwCgulW4gf711RMc6C/YKVMTL1bF7C0AoIzj
h0M7+4JxnrfPfVWyV6Zvf8nP
=7mTB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----