Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEAand WISPs...
How would anyone know who has who for a customer anyways? In past situations we've been in, it starts with a request for information. Who is this IP? If they asked my upstream, my upstream could ask me. Or they could ask me a particular persons ip, if they somehow knew the name to begin with. Not sure if it is viable, but it would be an easy solution for some small isp's. I just want to know how they going to figure out free open hotspots... George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: The upstream doesn't know what customer has what IP addy. I don't know how that would work George... marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEAand WISPs... That was an excellent thing to do Marlon. Big pat on the back :) I would hate to be the person that believes they don't have to file because of a post on a list. The only way I would NOT file something is if my attorney who I knew had direct contact with their attorney(s) told me he received in writing an opinion that we did not have to file. if the attorney I used a couple months ago on a contract thing told me I didn't have to file, I wouldn't believe him. It's too serious and the fines are just too stiff. Very scary stuff. But I would like the group that goes to DC this next trip to specifically ask: If an ISP hands out static Public IP's to every customer and his upstream is calea compliant, is he covered, assuming no voip is involved. George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I hate confusion and unanswered questions. So I sent this thread (names removed) to the HEAD of the CALEA group at the FBI. I've already been talking to Maura so I thought this appropriate. Anyway, the word from the top is that if you are a facilities base provider you fall under CALEA just like you do the 477 and 445 at the FCC. I'll let folks know more when I know more. laters, marlon - Original Message - To: 'Marlon K . Schafer 982-2181' ; 509 Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... Hi Marlon, First, sorry I missed your folks last week. Unfortunately I was stuck in Albany, NY for several days because of a blizzard. Second, thanks for sending this email to me. I can see that there is some confusion about who must comply. It's hard for me to tell from the email trail what services the WISP member is providing. As we talked about before, if a provider is offering Broadband Internet Access or VoIP to the public then that provider must be CALEA compliant by May 14, 2007. I'd be happy to meet with folks from WISP in the next couple of weeks so we can talk through these issues. Thanks, Maura On Wed Feb 21 10:29 , "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" sent: Hi Maura, At the risk of seeming silly, and in the hopes that this gets no one in trouble, I thought that you should see this thread from a public mailing list. I'd like your comments on the accuracy of what we've been told here. The basic thrust of this is that we, as small rural wisps, won't have to be calea compliant for various reasons. I'd like to get our meeting with your team rescheduled as soon as it makes sense. A couple of weeks down the road should give me time to find people in the area that can attend. Assuming that something has been lost in the interpretation here, we really really need to get a wisp/small operator standard in place before the final deadline. Thanks! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... > > >> Yes. I told them I had a T1 to my location and provided wireless >> broadband connections to customers. >> >> He told me the FBI side of CALEA was only interested in the VOIP >> carriers. He said he had many calls >> to make for the forms filed by those that didn't need to. >> >> He did say and I did mention, this call was only for the FBI side and >> that the FCC still has their side >> of this requirement and send a letter to me after if they are not >> interested in us. >> >> His phone number 703-632-6163, I don't remember his name, I was driving >> when he called. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20,
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEAand WISPs...
The upstream doesn't know what customer has what IP addy. I don't know how that would work George... marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEAand WISPs... That was an excellent thing to do Marlon. Big pat on the back :) I would hate to be the person that believes they don't have to file because of a post on a list. The only way I would NOT file something is if my attorney who I knew had direct contact with their attorney(s) told me he received in writing an opinion that we did not have to file. if the attorney I used a couple months ago on a contract thing told me I didn't have to file, I wouldn't believe him. It's too serious and the fines are just too stiff. Very scary stuff. But I would like the group that goes to DC this next trip to specifically ask: If an ISP hands out static Public IP's to every customer and his upstream is calea compliant, is he covered, assuming no voip is involved. George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I hate confusion and unanswered questions. So I sent this thread (names removed) to the HEAD of the CALEA group at the FBI. I've already been talking to Maura so I thought this appropriate. Anyway, the word from the top is that if you are a facilities base provider you fall under CALEA just like you do the 477 and 445 at the FCC. I'll let folks know more when I know more. laters, marlon - Original Message - To: 'Marlon K . Schafer 982-2181' ; 509 Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... Hi Marlon, First, sorry I missed your folks last week. Unfortunately I was stuck in Albany, NY for several days because of a blizzard. Second, thanks for sending this email to me. I can see that there is some confusion about who must comply. It's hard for me to tell from the email trail what services the WISP member is providing. As we talked about before, if a provider is offering Broadband Internet Access or VoIP to the public then that provider must be CALEA compliant by May 14, 2007. I'd be happy to meet with folks from WISP in the next couple of weeks so we can talk through these issues. Thanks, Maura On Wed Feb 21 10:29 , "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" sent: Hi Maura, At the risk of seeming silly, and in the hopes that this gets no one in trouble, I thought that you should see this thread from a public mailing list. I'd like your comments on the accuracy of what we've been told here. The basic thrust of this is that we, as small rural wisps, won't have to be calea compliant for various reasons. I'd like to get our meeting with your team rescheduled as soon as it makes sense. A couple of weeks down the road should give me time to find people in the area that can attend. Assuming that something has been lost in the interpretation here, we really really need to get a wisp/small operator standard in place before the final deadline. Thanks! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... > > >> Yes. I told them I had a T1 to my location and provided wireless >> broadband connections to customers. >> >> He told me the FBI side of CALEA was only interested in the VOIP >> carriers. He said he had many calls >> to make for the forms filed by those that didn't need to. >> >> He did say and I did mention, this call was only for the FBI side and >> that the FCC still has their side >> of this requirement and send a letter to me after if they are not >> interested in us. >> >> His phone number 703-632-6163, I don't remember his name, I was driving >> when he called. >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... >> >> >>> What I'm reading is you told them you are NOT a carrier. >>> >>> Key word is CARRIER. >>> >>> Did you tell them that you bought your internet from an upstream >>> provider and installed your own equipment such as radio transmitters and >>> routers and sold service to the public across you
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEAand WISPs...
I would think that just having a CALEA compliant upstream would not satisfy the requirement. Some traffic would be untraceable. Here's the logic: Target to be monitored is at 10.0.0.10. Your EMAIL server is inside YOUR network at 10.0.0.100 Your upstream gets told to trap and tap all information going to or from 10.0.0.10 All of 10.0.0.10's email would go from 10.0.0.10 to 10.0.0.100. Then the email would go out to your upstream with IP address 10.0.0.100 sneaking right past the traps set at the upstream. Of course, the aforementioned mail transit problem is something that is going to happen and you as the end ISP won't be able to trap that traffic either unless you place the trap between the client and the email server. Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEAand WISPs... That was an excellent thing to do Marlon. Big pat on the back :) I would hate to be the person that believes they don't have to file because of a post on a list. The only way I would NOT file something is if my attorney who I knew had direct contact with their attorney(s) told me he received in writing an opinion that we did not have to file. if the attorney I used a couple months ago on a contract thing told me I didn't have to file, I wouldn't believe him. It's too serious and the fines are just too stiff. Very scary stuff. But I would like the group that goes to DC this next trip to specifically ask: If an ISP hands out static Public IP's to every customer and his upstream is calea compliant, is he covered, assuming no voip is involved. George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I hate confusion and unanswered questions. So I sent this thread (names removed) to the HEAD of the CALEA group at the FBI. I've already been talking to Maura so I thought this appropriate. Anyway, the word from the top is that if you are a facilities base provider you fall under CALEA just like you do the 477 and 445 at the FCC. I'll let folks know more when I know more. laters, marlon - Original Message - To: 'Marlon K . Schafer 982-2181' ; 509 Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... Hi Marlon, First, sorry I missed your folks last week. Unfortunately I was stuck in Albany, NY for several days because of a blizzard. Second, thanks for sending this email to me. I can see that there is some confusion about who must comply. It's hard for me to tell from the email trail what services the WISP member is providing. As we talked about before, if a provider is offering Broadband Internet Access or VoIP to the public then that provider must be CALEA compliant by May 14, 2007. I'd be happy to meet with folks from WISP in the next couple of weeks so we can talk through these issues. Thanks, Maura On Wed Feb 21 10:29 , "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" sent: Hi Maura, At the risk of seeming silly, and in the hopes that this gets no one in trouble, I thought that you should see this thread from a public mailing list. I'd like your comments on the accuracy of what we've been told here. The basic thrust of this is that we, as small rural wisps, won't have to be calea compliant for various reasons. I'd like to get our meeting with your team rescheduled as soon as it makes sense. A couple of weeks down the road should give me time to find people in the area that can attend. Assuming that something has been lost in the interpretation here, we really really need to get a wisp/small operator standard in place before the final deadline. Thanks! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:00 PM > Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... > > >> Yes. I told them I had a T1 to my location and provided wireless >> broadband connections to customers. >> >> He told me the FBI side of CALEA was only interested in the VOIP >> carriers. He said he had many calls >> to make for the forms filed by those that didn't need to. >> >> He did say and I did mention, this call was only for the FBI side and >> that the FCC still has their side >> of this requirement and send a letter to me after if they are not >> interested in us. >> >> His phone number 703-632-6163, I don't remembe
