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 blanks. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that 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 compliance methods 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 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 [WINDOWS-1252?]> embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, "CALEA- > -unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . [WINDOWS-1252?]> (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable 'the government' to > conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of [WINDOWS-1252?]> which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted '[f] or the > purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in [WINDOWS-1252?]> communication by wire and radio' . . . . The Commission's > interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation [WINDOWS-1252?]> 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 Dawn, respectfully... But, please understand my point. Tomorrow, the FCC COULD reverse it's opinion and we'd be exempt. JUST LIKE THAT, without a single court decision, without a single sentence from Congress, etc. In fact, WE WERE EXEMPT until 2006, when the FCC changed its mind. So, what kind of law applies ... or doesn't... Depending on the whim of unelected beaurocrats? CALEA isn't that vague. It's just misapplied. I maintain that the FCC is in error in it's interpretation of what is a "telecommunications" provider and we should be shouting it at them at 36dbm and 102 decibels. In fact, EVERY ISP, NSP, etc, organization should be snowing the FCC under in objections. And maybe some legal efforts, too. -------------------------------------------- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
