----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Forrest, let me get back to the very old conversation about why WISPA should > organized at least 1500 filings to the FCC by every WISP they could get to > act, to say "This cannot be done". > > Before they even bothered to read half of them, the FCC would have been in > the process of asking INDUSTRY how to do this, but no, WISPA folks had to > play pussyfoot and now we're stuck with an enormous boondoggle, FOR NO > BENEFIT TO ANYONE. In spite of people's best efforts at character > asassination, I have never once objected to being required to help law > enforcement do what it needs to do, so could we dispense with the silly > nonsense already? "Unless a party files a special petition pursuant to CALEA ยง 107(b), the Commission does not get formally involved with the compliance standards development process. CALEA also does not provide for Commission review of manufacturer-developed solutions. Entities subject to CALEA are responsible for reviewing the Commission's regulations and analyzing how this regulation applies per their specific network architecture." http://www.fcc.gov/calea/ Frank -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
