On another subject
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the ma
- Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Ralph,
My apologies for the confusion.
I think we are more or less on the
eloped (for *nix or Windows) ...
... and here's an interesting document I found linked to from the Mikrotik
threads:
http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc ...
Adam
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'
ot;
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
marlon
I think you missed my point, Marlon..
magestream have to hope that
our hardware provider will come up with a way, too.
Aren't we really on the same page, here?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subje
We're close guys. Just waiting to get a doc fine tuned and double checked.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
Mark,
Right in time.
WISPA will be having elections in the very near future.
Now is the time to join WISPA and be eligible to cast your vote or run
for a board seat.
Membership is a very low 250.00 per year.
And you get to vote!
Try the new automated sign up:
http://signup.wispa.org/wispa-n
Inline
wispa wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide t
Sounds vagely familiar,
Like I said, from my opinion, wispa would not be an industry association
Remember once had a guy selling jock straps with the wispa logo thinking
that was a good idea too.
Blair Davis wrote:
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membershi
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membership
contingent on their position on these issues.
But, I do recall a discussion, on this list, 'Dealing with bad players',
starting on Feb 8, that basically proposed requiring the use of
stickered equipment to be a memb
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
> I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
>
> Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
>
> Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
> country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements).
> They
Blair Davis wrote:
Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same
opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have
our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely
And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of individ
Blair,
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of
the mem
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Hello Clint.
You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers,
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country
in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to
the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to
There are 3rd party vendors, like IP Fabrics with CALEA compliance gear.
For data it shouldn't be that big of a deal since the Edge Router
(connecting your WAN with your upstream) should be able to be tapped, if
you use what I will call a brand name (Cisco, Juniper, Redback, blah,
blah and soon
] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise,
although assistance fro
Clint Ricker wrote:
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router.
Wouldn't it be cool, and cheap, if it was just that easy?
Here's your encrypted access to xxx customers radio / port, it's yours
to monitor...?
Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
> Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
> need to--or wan
Mark,
Enough with the analogies.
CALEA is law - not once but twice - 1934 and 1996.
Courts have upheld the FCC decision on what CALEA covers.
The same laws that give the DOJ the right to wiretap, gives the FCC the
right to create guidelines.
I don't like it, any more than I like AT&T letting
ds
http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=results&sid=723d81c229563812d900d2
0b3a31a900
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote
> Mark,
>
> Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various
> agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they
> empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in
> the blan
at we should
follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag
decades ago.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of wispa
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compl
ot;WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
>> Mark,
>>
>> CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have
>> been upheld by courts.
&g
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
> Mark,
>
> Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it
> or not.
>
> As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
>
> "Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications
> Act and its implementing reg
ver they want out of my own
pocket.
>
> I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of
> the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a
> technical standpoint.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
> - Original Message -
>
The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get
ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to
comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then
we're ahead of the game.
Think positive!
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Mark,
Wireless provi
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
"Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act
and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the
CALEA proceeding to apply
tandpoint.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R.
one has any point of view about any of the
compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical
standpoint.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message -
From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
Sent: T
I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
Our Canadian brothers and sisters are going to be dealing with their
version of CALEA soon. This is a first reading of a bill in the Canadian
legislative body.
At least they address the issue of cost to ISPs; unfortunately, they
also don't believe in un
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
> Mark,
>
> CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have
> been upheld by courts.
YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying.
>
> CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching
> (like say the Patr
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
> Mark,
>
> wispa wrote:
> > I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
> > this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC,
where
> > it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld
by courts.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-AT&T wiretapping / surveillance.
It is part of the 2 big
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
> Mark, your info is 3 years old
>
> We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
> marlon
>
I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the
government is a reliable source of information about what the go
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote
>
>
> A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access
> service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services,
> including those classified as "information services" such as email and visit
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote
> Hi,
>
> As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the
> postings about CALEA from the past few weeks.
>
> Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all
> customer IP traffic passes through at least one Ci
Hi,
As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings
about CALEA from the past few weeks.
Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP
traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to
any other customer or rout
40 matches
Mail list logo
