On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to
impliment calea and they have a solution for that.
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried
to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take
this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have
heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very
difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the
misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Peter R. wrote:
*Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*
CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that
term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an
application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ
pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief)
with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or
deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section
109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more
of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation
of at least one particular solution that would comply with a
particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably
achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1)
petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section
109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the
solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then
either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.
If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is
deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and
services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition
until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or
otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are
replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major
modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA
compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1)
order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the
replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA
compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with
all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a
section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional
reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements.
No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.
Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC
decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to
criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are
encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel
before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of
$5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1)
petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section
109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,”
and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf>
for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope
of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).
More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
