Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- 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 Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
Dear cw, Thank you for your opinion. I respectfully disagree. There's nothing wrong with admitting that small local providers can't afford to comply with the same requirements that big carriers like ATT can comply with. That's the problem here; small local businesses are being asked to shell out more money than they can afford just so the FBI/DOJ/ATF/CIA/NSA/DHS can quickly and conveniently wiretap. As to whether the big carriers have provided input to the FCC (FBI/DOJ/ATF/CIA/NSA/DHS) on this issue; the jury is out on that question for the moment. jack P.S. - The issue of obtaining more spectrum from the FCC will be moot once the ranks of the small, local license-free spectrum users are thinned much further. In short, no one will be around to need any more spectrum. cw wrote: My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
I believe the feds have secret deals with the telcos so they can do what ever they want besides calea. Just like I pointed out that fiber att wiretapping deal in the very first days of wispa calea discussion. This is where I see the imbalance, The little guys carry the weight and the big guys get gravy secret contracts that help shoulder the burden. I will still do what I have to do to be compliant. But there is a reality to the even handedness of this. George Jack Unger wrote: Dear cw, Thank you for your opinion. I respectfully disagree. There's nothing wrong with admitting that small local providers can't afford to comply with the same requirements that big carriers like ATT can comply with. That's the problem here; small local businesses are being asked to shell out more money than they can afford just so the FBI/DOJ/ATF/CIA/NSA/DHS can quickly and conveniently wiretap. As to whether the big carriers have provided input to the FCC (FBI/DOJ/ATF/CIA/NSA/DHS) on this issue; the jury is out on that question for the moment. jack P.S. - The issue of obtaining more spectrum from the FCC will be moot once the ranks of the small, local license-free spectrum users are thinned much further. In short, no one will be around to need any more spectrum. cw wrote: My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- 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 Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide internet to the hinterlands themselves. There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a $7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a tight geographical area since response times on execution of certain parts of CALEA is shorter than an overnight shipment. As for getting more spectrum, quite honestly I will believe it when I see it. The FCC is far more interested in the cash that spectrum sales bring in than it is interested in providing the best use of the spectrum for the American public. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless cw wrote: My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- 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 Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
Uh Sam, you do remember the 5.4 gig band right? 255 mhz of NEW spectrum, made available last year. There's also 24ghz and 60ghz available. We just need people building the new toys at price points that will work for us. Know what I want? A 15 or 20 meg $1500 to $2000 60 gig solution good for a mile or two. marlon - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide internet to the hinterlands themselves. There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a $7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a tight geographical area since response times on execution of certain parts of CALEA is shorter than an overnight shipment. As for getting more spectrum, quite honestly I will believe it when I see it. The FCC is far more interested in the cash that spectrum sales bring in than it is interested in providing the best use of the spectrum for the American public. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless cw wrote: My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- 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 Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
You do have a point on the 5.4 Marlon, although it was otherwise unsellable spectrum. The power restrictions along with DFS requirements limited it to something I doubt many would be willing to pay for. Not saying we can't use it though. I'm eagerly awaiting affordable gear since it fits my model quite well. Most of my customers are within 3 miles of my towers. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Uh Sam, you do remember the 5.4 gig band right? 255 mhz of NEW spectrum, made available last year. There's also 24ghz and 60ghz available. We just need people building the new toys at price points that will work for us. Know what I want? A 15 or 20 meg $1500 to $2000 60 gig solution good for a mile or two. marlon - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide internet to the hinterlands themselves. There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a $7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a tight geographical area since response times on execution of certain parts of CALEA is shorter than an overnight shipment. As for getting more spectrum, quite honestly I will believe it when I see it. The FCC is far more interested in the cash that spectrum sales bring in than it is interested in providing the best use of the spectrum for the American public. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless cw wrote: My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements. Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475 forms. You can build a unix box for five hundred dollars that will do the job for you. Or you can buy a turnkey box with support for seven thousand. I've seen it suggested people pool their funds and share a $7000 turnkey box. If you can't do any of these things, then you can't provide required services. I don't like or trust government but I don't think they're out of line requiring providers be CALEA compliant. This one ain't special interests motivated. - cw Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- 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 Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
Thank you Jack. I am glad to see someone doing something for their beliefs instead of kicking WISPA in the chins for not doing it for them. WISPA is here for all of you to interact and decide what and how you want to represent yourselves and your industry. Jack knows that means he can do something and is doing something. Way to go Jack. It is usually only 4 or 5 of us within WISPA who actually do something to light a fire under people's butts. I am glad to see you take the step this time. That's called leadership people. Jack showed you how its done folks. If you want change then make it happen. This was less work than complaining about the problem and is infinitely more productive toward getting something done about the issues that many have been talking about here with regard to fears of inability to meet the demands of CALEA. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: Dear Representative Stupak, I'm writing to support your request on March 14, 2007 asking that the FCC Commissioners consider a waiver from CALEA regulations for small broadband providers. In a nutshell, the costs of complying with the CALEA provisions are far in excess of what small broadband providers can afford to pay. It is poor government policy to allow the costs of CALEA compliance to literally put small broadband providers out of business thereby denying broadband Internet access to many rural Americans. Do you plan to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reconsider their regulations and to consider the compliance costs when regulating small Internet access providers? Please advise me how I can further support your effort to retain broadband Internet access service for rural Americans. Thank you for your time, interest, and efforts. Sincerely, Jack Unger P.S. - I am copying this email to the general email list maintained by the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA.org) to help as many small ISPs as possible learn about and support your efforts in their behalf. I will forward your response to this list. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
