On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:55:18 -0500, Sam Tetherow wrote > Peter R. wrote: > > During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ > > clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA > > compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. > > > > Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's > > and ISP's have ever done: > > Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. > > > > You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. > > But this is not a one-way street. > Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we > don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we > don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing > the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. > > If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to > everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more > time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that > can and will provide that access. > > I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent > ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage. If this CALEA > crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end > I doubt I will. I'll probably just be looking to sell out if > possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened. I can try > raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond > well to raising prices.
Let me quote www.askcalea.com "Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs? A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs." Theoretically, we have their word that it won't cost us, or require us to reengineer our networks. But from almost EVERYONE's conversations, we get "we have to redesign", unless some people can use existing equipment's ability to mirror traffic from a particular IP. As of now, I see people talking about using PCAP, Cisco's internal system, managed switches at the gateway, etc. None of this makes a bit of sense if all we're supposed to do is capture VOIP packets! I have been attempting to make this point, that CALEA doesn't work for broadband internet, and I fail to see any relevance to broadband, since SUPPOSEDLY VOIP has to be tapped where it connects to the PSTN. I said that pending the outcome of people talking to the FBI and DOJ, that I am probably going to file that I am NOT and cannot be made compliant. Gee whiz, I expect that in 6-9 months, my network will have either 2 or 3 physically separated gateways to the 'net. In no place on my network, is there either software, or physical connections that allow me to do anything of the kind they envision. Nor am I willing to redesign my network's fundamental concept in order to "comply". You get the distinct impression that while CALEA talks about nothing other than intercepting phone calls, that they want to tap broadband for "everything else". If VOIP providers are compliant, why tap our networks? If htey aren't, then what do they expect to get? > > > > To get you have to give. > > You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. > > You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad > > guys - without the bad guys knowing. > I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping > the authorities catch the bad guys. I have seen Mark protest > footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority > of government agencies attempting to regulate his business. > > I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust > regulation as an industry. I would really like to hear a legal > person's opinion on Mark's objections. I've repeated that I absolutely intend to help, in any way possible, law enforcement's efforts to catch bad guys. I'll do what I can, and I don't consider that any imposition... but if I have to pay someone to do something for them, I expect them to pay the bill. Any help in capturing data will have to come from my upstream, as I have no central physical NOC to do this at... and never expect to. Unlike someone's mischaracterization of what I said here, CALEA is improperly applied to ISP's. They need to go back to congress, get Congress to vote on tapping internet connections, and then come back to us to ask US how best to do this. And let Congress ante up the money for doing so. That's nothing different than how CALEA was concieved and written for Telco's. And the half billion Congress voted to fund reimbursement was the same thing... Absolutely required. What they're trying to do to us, is no different than if the cops stopped you and demanded you fill up their cruiser with fuel and buy them new tires, "so we can catch the bad guys". This is not a "cost of doing business" as some are trying to imply. This is a federal mandate for public purpose, mostly applied to individuals and small business. But you say "there's already a lot of those". So? This isn't the forum to debate those. This is teh forum to debate WISP's and mandates. And we need to look out for US. There's nobody else to fight for us, we MUST do it ourselves, whether it's resisting mandates or defending our ability to conduct business freely. If the government wants us to deliver services in a ubiquitous fashion, and we need spectrum that works that way, it is UNRELATED to this issue, entirely. Pandering to them in one matter won't buy you 2 seconds of consideration in another. And what if it did? What are you willing to trade on MY behalf to get what YOU want? And what right have you to do that? As I mentioned to Marlon... What you say in DC will have to speak for me. he knows my thoughts. And what people offer to comply to will be offered for all, from their viewpoint. I speak for me, and me alone. We can agree or disagree. But let's not see any more of this "his opinions aren't valid for this industry" crap. That's the fastest way I know of to kill an organization trying to put diverse people together and get them to try to work together or agree on something. > > The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim > the authority to do something invasive. I seem to remember that > they felt CARNIVORE was legal and justified. > > Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm > betting he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a > Republican run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security. I'm not being partisan, here. I don't talk about socialism, communism, political parties, or anything else. Just ideas, and how they affect us. Is it political or practical? I doubt anything in dealing with government is not political in some way. Mostly, I just look at the bottom line of the "risks vs opportunity" column and note those things that aren't going my way. And I further note that some people who claim to be my friend are rather in favor of some stuff that's solidly in "risk" column, and there's NO corresponding "opportunity" to offset it. No matter how cynical we might be about politics or political issues, THAT equation is not one any of us deem irrelevant. > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
