Re: [WISPA] WISPA task
OK, It's the second real item down the center of the page. http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ Jason George Rogato wrote: Please post that link, if we all filled out the form, we would get some kind of recognition. Jason wrote: Gang, Congress.org has a spot to enter your zip and then takes you to a form to email all the elected officials in your district. I found it when I was googling Rep Bart Stupak + CALEA because someone else had already wrote their reps asking them for endorsement! So I did too. Jason Travis Johnson wrote: Yes! There is a job for WISPA. Gather all the email addresses for all the congresspeople in all the states and post the list to this mailing list. Then everyone can write their reps with little or no effort. It was a little short sighted for Marlon to say The time for changing minds is past, wasn't it? ;) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: Maybe we should all ask our lawmakers to endorse this bill. Blair Davis wrote: FYI Rep Bart Stupak's (D-MI) request for a CALEA waiver for small broadband company's is currently expected to be endorsed by my congressional Rep Fred Upton (R-MI) Thought some would like to know. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Tim Kery wrote: Examples of these types of establishments may include some hotels, coffee shops, schools, libraries, or book stores. DOJ has stated that it has no desire to require such retail establishments to implement CALEA solutions, DOJ Comments at 36, and we conclude that the public interest at this time does not weigh in favor of subjecting such establishments to CALEA. So, Starbucks doesn't need to comply with CALEA but the service provider that provides bandwidth to Starbucks does. Hope this helps. Tim Kery BearHill Security, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Starbucks doesn't, but T-Mobile, the actual ISP does. Joe's Cup-a-Joe does have to , but the ISP providing the service does. SOME schools don't have to be because it is defined as a private network (see the ACE PDF on exemptions here: www.rad-info.net/fcc/ACE_CALEA_sum.pdf) Commercial offering of Internet access means you need to be compliant. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
David E. Smith wrote: The FCC wrote: we conclude that establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers Hm. It'd be one heckuva stretch, but by reading the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of that paragraph, many smaller WISPs would automatically be exempt. I know my office has acquired broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider (our upstream ISP) and we're enabling our customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments (i.e. our customers pay for Internet at their homes or offices). By the letter of that paragraph (and, to be fair, I haven't read all the context surrounding it) most any single-homed WISP would be exempt, as they could just say go talk to our upstream. (I doubt it'd work for multi-homed ISPs, as that would require multiple upstreams to be tapped and somehow synchronized, which is probably technically annoying.) David Smith MVN.net Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? Susan Crawford, Kris Twomey, Chris Savage, Jim Baller, and the offices of Cole, Raywid Braverman have written opinions that if you operate a router or switch and commercially sell internet, you must be CALEA compliant. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door, but the ISP's who will see the most warrants are Residential ISP's. (Not much child porn or terrorrism happening at the work place). So, roll the dice. Call an attorney for advice Or get on the call with Chris Savage of DWT on May 9. -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ok, here's my CALEA statement, and farewell.
Sam, If you are a Christian you know there is no such thing as a living Saint, we only make them Saints after they are gone. O:-) You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Sam Tetherow wrote: Gee Marlon, this sounds a lot like the debate between you and Travis except you are on the other side ;) Quite honestly I don't blame Mark K at all. He has been trying to do here what everyone has been whining at him to do but no one seems to want to listen to it. He has been trying to rally the members of this list and WISPA to stand up to what he feels is an unjust ruling by the FCC. He has tried to oppose it on several levels, from a it's not fair to the little guy standpoint such as you are attacking here, to a it's not constitutional standpoint which gets him called a paranoid anti-government crackpot. For the most part he has been answered by personal attacks despite his taking the high road in trying to argue the issues. People have even gone so far as suggest a limit on posting and that he has ruined the usefulness of the list. Yet it seems to me that both Jack Unger and Matt Liotta do understand the unfair to the little guy standpoint and have posted about it without all the uproar that Mark gets. As for me, I'm taking a pragmatic approach. I have utilized the deal that WISPA worked with Kris T and I plan to comply to the best of my ability with any legal subpeona. If what I am able to do is not good enough I'll fire the customer, which I assume will get me in trouble, be fined $10K a day and go out of business. I honestly don't see any other alternative for someone of my resources and I am sure there are plenty of us out here in this boat. Marlon can make all the guarantees about the FAQ he wants but until the law reads in agreement with the FAQ it is just a handshake deal with people from the FBI and FCC who don't have power to set policy anyway. If we were talking about POP agreements I don't think anyone on this list would think it would be acceptable business practice to rely on a verbal agreement for access to a tower, yet this is what the FAQ really is. I'm not trying to put down what the CALEA team did or that the FAQ is useless, but when non-compliance becomes an issue it is not the FAQ that is going to stand in a court of law, it is the CALEA rules and regulations. I for one agree almost 100% with everything Mark has said, but then again I am a right wing extremist crackpot who believes in much the same things the founding fathers did. I look forward to having this debate over beers at ISPCON this spring with anyone who wants to have it. Yes, through the generousity of Peter R who provided me with a full conference pass, those going will have to put up with me ;) Sorry to see Mark K. go if he really does leave. He has had some very good ideas and I've looked forward to reading his opinion on many of these topics as I have come to value his insights. (Sorry this post was so long, there was plenty more I had to say but I hate long winded posts, thanks for reading this far...) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Mark, not picking on you here. But. If you were to quit typing out reams of emails and worked on getting more customers you'd be able to deal with the problem better. OR, if you, like sometimes happens to us, are outgrowing your cashflow, go get a part time job to help fund your business. Many of us here have done side work. Heck, some of us still do! All of this has been a fun discussion but it's pointless beyond a certain point (probably days ago :-). You can whine about it all you want. Still gotta do it. Go get a job, fund your business and grow bigger and faster. Whining to us feels good but it fixes nothing. And, it's preaching to the choir. Most of us here AGREE with your point, however, the fact remains that we have to do certain things so that's where the effort is going. The time for changing minds is long past. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: [WISPA] Ok, here's my CALEA statement, and farewell. I hereby declare that I am NOT a facilities based provider, since I do not have any physical point on my network that can be tapped, mirrored, probed, or otherwise possible to intercept. I have no equivalent to a switched network. There you have it. We're putting my network your mouth is, folks. Continually, there is the statement that nobody will be requied to change their network.
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
Well done Sam, move to the top of the class. Notice when you do it to someone else(England) it is ok, but do it to your own goverment it is breaking the law? Weren't Laws made to be broken :-\ You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Sam Tetherow wrote: You probably should have then. Last I checked treason was just that, which is what the founding fathers did when they declared their independance from England over unjust taxation (a law) which they refused to pay (ignored/disobeyed it). Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless J. Vogel wrote: ... I wish now that I had paid more attention in History classes Which of the founding fathers said something to the effect that the proper response of the citizenry to an unjust law was to ignore/disobey it? John Vogel Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2007, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Changing the laws happens MUCH quicker if a mass of people openly oppose it. Your country was founded on that very principle. Yes it does (sometimes). Open opposition to a law and advocating criminal action are not the same thing. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
When I had to get my citizenship I had to pass a language test, so I remember that it is eh, eh. 8-) You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha George Rogato wrote: eh? I thought it was aye Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: The proper phrase is: yeah but, wait right here, eh? Always end with a question, eh? Lonnie -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] quote of the day
The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. -Walt Disney -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Florida's First Responders Get New Digital Network
from TelecomWeb http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/23033.html Hall County, Fla., continues to boast about its new sales-tax-funded, $16 million radio system built for law enforcement, firefighters and medics to replace equipment that in some cases was 50 years old. Voters approved funding for the radio system in a 2004 sales tax referendum, and it's taken three years to design and build. According to local news reports, the 800 MHz digital trunked system supports 64 channels, repairs myriad blackout spots where coverage was hit-or-miss in the county and provides static-free reception. The $16 million went toward building or acquiring eight tower sites throughout the county and purchasing some 1,100 radios for county employees in all fields, from public safety to public works. The Motorola radios (and Florida /is/ a Motorola state) cost between $1,100 and $2,400 each. Each radio reportedly has its own identifying imprint, allowing dispatchers and other public-safety workers to know immediately who is talking when the microphone is activated, a feature could prove useful in cases of an officer in distress. In the future, the network also may be GPS-enabled. The six repeater towers have eliminated a lot of the cross talk that choked public-safety channels in the past, and more bandwidth and channels now allow different agencies to communicate together (otherwise known as interoperability), something that has been on the front burner since 9/11. That option was tested last month when high winds damaged dozens of homes in the area, and first responders switched over to a designated tactical channel to talk. The new system has thwarted scanner enthusiasts, though, because of its digital encryption, but the cops say this is just fine, because it knocks the criminals off their listening posts as well. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
In my opinion, I don;t think it will fly because of NAT. The law inforcement agrency needs to be able to differenciate what customer traffic is comming from, and if you use NAT for any of your customers, the facilities based upstream provider would have no way to identify the end user, and the WISP would become the customer and be liable. To many degrees of seperation at the upstream for the captured data to be meaningful. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question The FCC wrote: we conclude that establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers Hm. It'd be one heckuva stretch, but by reading the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of that paragraph, many smaller WISPs would automatically be exempt. I know my office has acquired broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider (our upstream ISP) and we're enabling our customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments (i.e. our customers pay for Internet at their homes or offices). By the letter of that paragraph (and, to be fair, I haven't read all the context surrounding it) most any single-homed WISP would be exempt, as they could just say go talk to our upstream. (I doubt it'd work for multi-homed ISPs, as that would require multiple upstreams to be tapped and somehow synchronized, which is probably technically annoying.) David Smith MVN.net -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question ... fees
Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. Design a web page to explain the fee clearly and concisely. Point all questions about CALEA to the FCC or FBI. Emphasize it is a law; it is for homeland security; it is about child porn and terrorism - and it is to protect you. All providers must follow these rules. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Tilting at Windmills
I've got a township in PA that is eager to have us expand to their area, which is typically quite hilly. They're asking me if we could mount on wind mills, which they are apparently already encouraging. Anyone have any experience with this? I can imagine problems (like vibration), but my imagination often runs wild... Thanks! Chuck -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills
I would think there would be an issue with the gigantic spinning pieces of metal. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills I've got a township in PA that is eager to have us expand to their area, which is typically quite hilly. They're asking me if we could mount on wind mills, which they are apparently already encouraging. Anyone have any experience with this? I can imagine problems (like vibration), but my imagination often runs wild... Thanks! Chuck -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills
if the blades are composite or fiberglass you may get through, but the receive jitter will probably drive the radio card nuts. If there is enough room under the blades to see what you want to see it should be great. A piece of foam on your board and lil rubber on antenna mounts should give you all the vibration dampening you will need. Don't forget to reground the antenna with a wire. There may be an unused tower too. Also over here there are standard 25g's scattered around to transmit the controller information. Good Luck Chuck Profito CV-Access, Inc 209-988-7388 Quoting Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would think there would be an issue with the gigantic spinning pieces of metal. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills I've got a township in PA that is eager to have us expand to their area, which is typically quite hilly. They're asking me if we could mount on wind mills, which they are apparently already encouraging. Anyone have any experience with this? I can imagine problems (like vibration), but my imagination often runs wild... Thanks! Chuck -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Yup, lemmings
It seems that what we really have is mis-placed priority. Apparently it is more of an outrage to wear fur, than to target an immature industry and push it into extinction. kudos to digg they stood firm with their constituents and re- allowed posting of the hd code crack. http://digg.com/tech_news/Why_posting_the_HD_DVD_key_could_land_webs ites_in_big_trouble kudos to the millions world wide whom have realised the real dangers of DCMA and are fighting it. I ask you guys and gals this... The traffic of interest. What are its characteristics? If it is someone trafficking illegal content to the world at large via encrypted p2p, then obviously that traffic will route and terminate via a core facility at some point. I have toured Broadwing's photonic backbone facilities and there are tap points in place for diagnostic / maintenance / LEA access purposes. That said, it's a moot point to capture traffic off your network if it such that it will ride to any of the core routers. So the focus of the traffic request must be of a more local nature in order for there to be a need to involve you as a network operator. Well, if the LEA has established that 'suspect x' (yes suspect, not guilty till proven guilty remember?) is gaining connectivity via your network, they have either determined this via financial or data capture investigatory methodology. If their concern is to tap the packets of said suspect, why not deploy a team with wireless intercept? It is not outside of their technical capacity, after all, America is the master if sigint/comint. It would NOT be very expensive in equipment nor training to present each LEA with this capacity. Then they could go intercept and sift the materials themselves. The forces at play are much more sinister I think. By placing the onus upon us as business owners, they are shirking both their financial and civil liabilities. Rest assured that the current posture of applying calea to our networks is really pretty much bunk. The very need for the tap to be local to my network means that they are interested in traffic which is both originating and terminating on my network. As such, I say that if they want the data, go park a van and intercept the frames, and do what you need to, but do so with your finances paying for it and put the legal burden and liability of such activity where it belongs... with the LEA themselves. For instance, in my area there are 5 wifi network operators. Rather than each of us operators going to the expense, why net let the 2 or 3 local LEAs purchase and train personnel to handle the intercept? Why create a regulatory burden / liability upon myself as a small operator? The LEAs should be responsible for carrying out their investigations and dealing with the determination of what information is applicable to warrant, not me. Operating as a CLEC we actually have a regulatory affairs department which handles reviewing subpoena, making determination of application, and then (after information specifics are approved) it is handed off to tech department for CDR collection, and/or tap activation and portal access activation. Its really sad to see people bashed for standing up for their rights. I am especially proud of our veterans whom have undertaken the ultimate responsibility of maintaining these rights. Civil disobedience is completely appropriate with regard to this. carry on, be proud, be free! XXX -- Click here to find single Christians that want to meet you today http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1VY4cGXTnqMSKvrVGRVaGCmc8R/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Motorola Powerline
Hi, Has anyone used the Motorola Powerline products? How did it work for you? Thoughts? Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] CALEA Question
A few years ago, I added a line item to my invoices as follows... Surcharge for Bellsouth, FCC and other regulatory compliance fees and costs. This added fee is based on what I think it cost me to comply with reporting to the FCC, licensed links, and 'hidden' fees that the phone company itemizes inexcess of the actual circuit costs. This is no different than airlines and trucking companies adding 'fuel surcharges' and the quick lube business charging me an 'environmental disposal fee' when I have my oil changed. I added $2.97 per month, at the time it was the same that Bellsouth was charging for the USF on their 'itemized invoices.' I didn't loose one customer, but did have to explain the reason to two and they completely understood. That additional $3 for each DSL and wireless user was worth those two explinations. I don't charge the fee for hosting or dialup plans. There is nothing wrong raising your prices to be competitive with the 'big boys!' :) Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-MS-SIGNATURE:YES N;LANGUAGE=en-us:LeBoeuf;Cliff FN:Cliff LeBoeuf ORG:Computer Sales Services, Inc. TEL;WORK;VOICE:(985) 879-3219 ADR;WORK;PREF:;;1162 Barrow Street;Houma;LA;70360;United States of America LABEL;WORK;PREF;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1162 Barrow Street=0D=0A= Houma, LA 70360 X-MS-OL-DEFAULT-POSTAL-ADDRESS:2 URL;WORK:www.cssla.com www.triparish.net EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MS-TEXT;CUSTOM1:Computers - Copiers - Internet PHOTO;TYPE=JPEG;ENCODING=BASE64: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAeAB4AAD/2wBDAAYEBQYFBAYGBQYHBwYIChAKCgkJChQODwwQFxQY GBcUFhYaHSUfGhsjHBYWICwgIyYnKSopGR8tMC0oMCUoKSj/2wBDAQcHBwoIChMKChMoGhYa KCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCj/wAAR CABQAEsDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAA AgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkK FhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWG h4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl 5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEAAwEBAQEBAQEBAQECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREA AgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSExBhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYk NOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElKU1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOE hYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk 5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD0/U7ybXRqGt6xqFzZ6HaSy29vbW07RLME J+Z8dWOG74xjivKNS+JfhW0vJIU811U9ftRqT4x3MsHwd0xYm2iS8ugw9eDXzb4X0G/8Ta5b
Re: [WISPA] Yup, lemmings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP I ask you guys and gals this... The traffic of interest. What are its characteristics? If it is someone trafficking illegal content to the world at large via encrypted p2p, then obviously that traffic will route and terminate via a core facility at some point. I have toured Broadwing's photonic backbone facilities and there are tap points in place for diagnostic / maintenance / LEA access purposes. That said, it's a moot point to capture traffic off your network if it such that it will ride to any of the core routers. For my current network setup over 95% of all traffic external to my network appears to come from a single IP address, so this would be unusable with my customers. So the focus of the traffic request must be of a more local nature in order for there to be a need to involve you as a network operator. Well, if the LEA has established that 'suspect x' (yes suspect, not guilty till proven guilty remember?) is gaining connectivity via your network, they have either determined this via financial or data capture investigatory methodology. If their concern is to tap the packets of said suspect, why not deploy a team with wireless intercept? It is not outside of their technical capacity, after all, America is the master if sigint/comint. It would NOT be very expensive in equipment nor training to present each LEA with this capacity. Then they could go intercept and sift the materials themselves. The forces at play are much more sinister I think. By placing the onus upon us as business owners, they are shirking both their financial and civil liabilities. Rest assured that the current posture of applying calea to our networks is really pretty much bunk. The very need for the tap to be local to my network means that they are interested in traffic which is both originating and terminating on my network. As such, I say that if they want the data, go park a van and intercept the frames, and do what you need to, but do so with your finances paying for it and put the legal burden and liability of such activity where it belongs... with the LEA themselves. This brings up an interesting point. If it is traffic between two customers on your network, aren't you really providing a private network and if so, doesn't this fall outside of CALEA? If that is not the case then doesn't every private network need to be CALEA compliant? For instance, in my area there are 5 wifi network operators. Rather than each of us operators going to the expense, why net let the 2 or 3 local LEAs purchase and train personnel to handle the intercept? Why create a regulatory burden / liability upon myself as a small operator? The LEAs should be responsible for carrying out their investigations and dealing with the determination of what information is applicable to warrant, not me. As a citizen I'm not sure I would like this. Sounds to me like asking the fox to guard the hen house. If the warrant is for a specific type of traffic that is all they should have access to. Again, this is my citizen view, by no means construe this as support for CALEA regulation of data networks. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Operating as a CLEC we actually have a regulatory affairs department which handles reviewing subpoena, making determination of application, and then (after information specifics are approved) it is handed off to tech department for CDR collection, and/or tap activation and portal access activation. Its really sad to see people bashed for standing up for their rights. I am especially proud of our veterans whom have undertaken the ultimate responsibility of maintaining these rights. Civil disobedience is completely appropriate with regard to this. carry on, be proud, be free! XXX -- Click here to find single Christians that want to meet you today http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1VY4cGXTnqMSKvrVGRVaGCmc8R/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills
Because these aren't built yet, the image in my mind is for us to stick up above the blades...meaning the windmill tower itself would be higher than it normally would be, or we'd add an extension to make it so. Well, maybe that's an unrealistic daydream. Chuck At 12:59 PM -0700 5/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the blades are composite or fiberglass you may get through, but the receive jitter will probably drive the radio card nuts. If there is enough room under the blades to see what you want to see it should be great. A piece of foam on your board and lil rubber on antenna mounts should give you all the vibration dampening you will need. Don't forget to reground the antenna with a wire. There may be an unused tower too. Also over here there are standard 25g's scattered around to transmit the controller information. Good Luck Chuck Profito CV-Access, Inc 209-988-7388 Quoting Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would think there would be an issue with the gigantic spinning pieces of metal. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills I've got a township in PA that is eager to have us expand to their area, which is typically quite hilly. They're asking me if we could mount on wind mills, which they are apparently already encouraging. Anyone have any experience with this? I can imagine problems (like vibration), but my imagination often runs wild... Thanks! Chuck -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Motorola Powerline
I used the netgear version of this. It seems to work well. The advantage that I saw in teh motorola was that it has a device that connects all 3 phase of electricity to the same network. The Linksys could not do that. FYI - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] Motorola Powerline Hi, Has anyone used the Motorola Powerline products? How did it work for you? Thoughts? Travis Microserv -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Sounds good thanks Sriv. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills
The wind turbines we have here in town are 300ft tall poles with 100ft blades. The center hub is only 20 feet below the top of the tower. Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because these aren't built yet, the image in my mind is for us to stick up above the blades...meaning the windmill tower itself would be higher than it normally would be, or we'd add an extension to make it so. Well, maybe that's an unrealistic daydream. Chuck At 12:59 PM -0700 5/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the blades are composite or fiberglass you may get through, but the receive jitter will probably drive the radio card nuts. If there is enough room under the blades to see what you want to see it should be great. A piece of foam on your board and lil rubber on antenna mounts should give you all the vibration dampening you will need. Don't forget to reground the antenna with a wire. There may be an unused tower too. Also over here there are standard 25g's scattered around to transmit the controller information. Good Luck Chuck Profito CV-Access, Inc 209-988-7388 Quoting Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would think there would be an issue with the gigantic spinning pieces of metal. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tilting at Windmills I've got a township in PA that is eager to have us expand to their area, which is typically quite hilly. They're asking me if we could mount on wind mills, which they are apparently already encouraging. Anyone have any experience with this? I can imagine problems (like vibration), but my imagination often runs wild... Thanks! Chuck -- --- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished. -- 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/ -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Sample letter to your representatives
Ty Carter Lightwave Communications wrote: This is a sample copy of what I just sent my representative Use it, edit it, discard it... just send something... Thank you. Done. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Yup, lemmings
On Thu, 3 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that what we really have is mis-placed priority. It seems to ME that what we have is someone who is spineless and wants to hide in anonymity. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
If you decide to take advantage of companies that have solutions in place, you'll have to do what you have to do. Know, however, that you do NOT have to follow anyone's standard! You just have to be able to give the LEA the data they MAY ask for. I've rounded up folks that know how to get the stream off of my routers and folks that know how to program the server to store the data till LEA can download it. I have to pick up a managed switch or two but other than that, I'll cross my fingers and hope that I don't have to spend money complying till the WISPA effort is approved. marlon - Original Message - From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Read the FAQ. In some cases they may have to sort through ALL data to get at what they want. marlon - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question In my opinion, I don;t think it will fly because of NAT. The law inforcement agrency needs to be able to differenciate what customer traffic is comming from, and if you use NAT for any of your customers, the facilities based upstream provider would have no way to identify the end user, and the WISP would become the customer and be liable. To many degrees of seperation at the upstream for the captured data to be meaningful. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question The FCC wrote: we conclude that establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers Hm. It'd be one heckuva stretch, but by reading the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of that paragraph, many smaller WISPs would automatically be exempt. I know my office has acquired broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider (our upstream ISP) and we're enabling our customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments (i.e. our customers pay for Internet at their homes or offices). By the letter of that paragraph (and, to be fair, I haven't read all the context surrounding it) most any single-homed WISP would be exempt, as they could just say go talk to our upstream. (I doubt it'd work for multi-homed ISPs, as that would require multiple upstreams to be tapped and somehow synchronized, which is probably technically annoying.) David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
We have a line item of: Surcharge to cover the cost of a sales tax being charged against our fiber connection. Or words to that effect. We don't call it a tax, we specifically call it a surcharge. I think that several out here do something similar. We also charge a $10 trip charge anytime gas is over $2.50 per gallon in this area. If it hits anywhere close to $4 I'll likely raise that to $15. People don't like it but they do understand. Especially when nearly everyone else out here has also put on fuel charges. The only good thing about current gas prices is that crop prices are also way up. I'll take $3 fuel with $6 wheat any day :-) marlon - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
gas 3.20 per gallon here. $95.00 to fill my truck yesterday. Sheesh Marlon K. Schafer wrote: We have a line item of: Surcharge to cover the cost of a sales tax being charged against our fiber connection. Or words to that effect. We don't call it a tax, we specifically call it a surcharge. I think that several out here do something similar. We also charge a $10 trip charge anytime gas is over $2.50 per gallon in this area. If it hits anywhere close to $4 I'll likely raise that to $15. People don't like it but they do understand. Especially when nearly everyone else out here has also put on fuel charges. The only good thing about current gas prices is that crop prices are also way up. I'll take $3 fuel with $6 wheat any day :-) marlon - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( David Smith MVN.net -- 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/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Yes and up here is $350.00 oer month for a 1MB Business connect. Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net - Original Message - From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:00:17 -0800 Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question gas 3.20 per gallon here. $95.00 to fill my truck yesterday. Sheesh Marlon K. Schafer wrote: We have a line item of: Surcharge to cover the cost of a sales tax being charged against our fiber connection. Or words to that effect. We don't call it a tax, we specifically call it a surcharge. I think that several out here do something similar. We also charge a $10 trip charge anytime gas is over $2.50 per gallon in this area. If it hits anywhere close to $4 I'll likely raise that to $15. People don't like it but they do understand. Especially when nearly everyone else out here has also put on fuel charges. The only good thing about current gas prices is that crop prices are also way up. I'll take $3 fuel with $6 wheat any day :-) marlon - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble with the FTC if not approved as a legitimate added government fee (just my opinion, nothing to base this on other than my gut). Your fuel and electricity have jumped considerably I am sure. I am considering a rate increase over these added costs also. I see no way around it. I have never raised my rates in 10 years. Times are changing I am afraid. Scriv Ross Cornett wrote: I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk upon themselves by not becoming compliant. It appears that it is time to start charging a homeland security fee. Since we cannot authorize taxes, we can charge fees that will allow us to mange these cost. By my figures, I will have to charge at least $1.53 per month per customer. Since this doens't include dialup customers, my broadband customers will have to incurr this burden alone. What are you thougths on this. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Peter R. wrote: Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing? That'd be my boss's department. :D I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air. Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife or any other LEA officer does not knock on your door I'd encourage Barney Fife to knock on my door, I wouldn't mind having his autograph. Remember him from Three's Company? Edit: Apparently Don Knotts died last year. Now I'm sad. :( -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
