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 CALEA
obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers,
including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the
provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of
CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, which is embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted,
“CALEA--unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . .
(requiring telecommunications carriers to enable ‘the government’ to
conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of
which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted ‘[f]or the
purpose of
regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and
radio’ . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably
differs from its interpretation of the 1996 Act, given the differences
between the two statutes.”121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate
statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose
purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination
that mobile wireless
broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA
statute.122"
Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
wispa wrote:
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.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has
yet
to write a law that says we have to do squat.
Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your
recent post?
http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf
As quoted from the press release mentioned above;
"Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement
community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic
surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new
telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic
surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's
ability to ensure national security and public safety."
Also quoted from the same press release;
"Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that
formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both
law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA
obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because
disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over
whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests
[WINDOWS-1252?]> the FCC find “broadband access” and “broadband telephony” to
be
subject to CALEA."
Ok... here's an old joke.
What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and
says "you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food,
take care of all my needs... You must be a god!".
The cat looks at you and says "you give me everything, provide me with home,
care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!".
We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read
up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely
addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing
else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even
EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it?
It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on
trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must
apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd.
Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's
shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment
worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made
it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought
it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle.
Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are
NOT "telecommunications services" or providers. Now, it suddenly says we
ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on
anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the
law didn't apply to us, it doesn't pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for.
The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along comes
the FCC and says WE have to pay for it.
I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most egregious
demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for it), in order to
ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since they weren't inclined to
continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So, instead of defending what was
defensible, they sidestepped and tossed the mess in our laps, and we're just
sitting here taking it without so much as a word of protest. Gee, we must
look like real shmucks to them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES
back when they do stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people
for objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES!
Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every possible way
they can think of!
Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight would
have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on very firm ground
I am sure.
The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO THE
LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just because they
WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense.
You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it has to
debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it. If we, the
people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police would just stop us
and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new tires, tune it up,
repaint their cars, use OUR building for their office, provide them internet
for free, the list goes on and on and on. After all, we have to have cops
and they have to catch the bad guys, right?
If that last sentence (which EVERYONE who is defending this FCC ruling is
citing almost verbatim) were justified, then all the nonsense preceding it
would be too.
I stand on VERY firm ground with this. I found numerous examples of industry
commentators, industry executives, legal analysis and so on, which was
published a few years back, already reading the writing on the wall and
wondering why the lawsuits weren't flying. Do the finding. These opinions
are not some radical eastern Oregon's WISP's lone thoughts. I found them
published starting in the mid 90's forward in a wide array of places.
Just because DOJ wants something, or the FBI wants something, doesn't mean
they have ANY right to it at our individual expense. If it costs a single
dollar, then we have both the right and OBLIGATION to demand that Congress
write the law, vote to spend the money for them to have it.
The telcos spent big time to protect this principle back in the 90's, by
ensuring the regulators that an unfunded mandate would NOT fly with them.
They won.
We're undoing 100% of that and setting the precedent that whatever the DOJ
and FBI want, with the concurrence of the FCC, we're going to give them,
period. Don't think it stops with this. The list WILL grow, and we have all
but completely discredited our own defense by failing to object ALL ALONG.
Once the deadline for implementation passes and we fail to object to having
to spend even a single dollar, we're sunk. We will have given them the green
light for ANYTHING they want, and they WILL come and take it.
Once we've accepted it without objection, the next time will require a whole
busload of lawyers. Since we did not object collectivley, that burden will
then fall on us individually, and not a single one of us has the SLIGHTEST
ability to change their minds or influnce the course of the federal
government. Nor have any of us the money to hire the busload of lawyers,
either. The government already has them, because it expects us to fight back.
The fact that even a single one of you could CONSIDER spending even a dollar
is absurd.
But nope, we're filing promises to do ANYTHING they tell us, without a clue
what the cost will be. Once they cross that line, you have no defense.
We've already been sold, and the price wasn't a single thing. Just a
nebulous notion that if we roll over for them now, the screwing won't be as
bad next time, and that's coming from OUR side, not them. They'll never even
hint that's true. (and it isn't)
Got any links for these other places you speak of?
I learned a long time ago that providing links in an argument about ideas
merely changes the topic to attacking the source, not the topic itself.
If I can't sell you on the idea, and you haven't already looked to see what
other arguments are out there, then you're not really interested in any other
opinions and this whole link thing is futile.
Below is a link to the latest report about CALEA and the
reclassification of Wireless Providers as information services in
case anyone is interested in reading. Page 18 and 19 make for some
interesting reading. ;-)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf
--------------------------------------------
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/