Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
We use a DLINK hotspot router that emails me every connect and disconnect from our hotels. The FBI could take that log and compare it to room number and date of stay and they can find their man that way... FYI - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question There will likely be cases where that's impossible. Lets say that I have a customer that's a hotel. They, at first, only know the ip addy or mac addy. A subpoena comes to me looking for info on the user in question. There's no way to use the hotel's Linksys hardware to do the tap to find the specific think that LEA is looking for. Can't change the network because any action on our side tips off the suspect. In some cases it won't be possible to filter out all info. Especially if we don't know what we're looking for (which we won't and shouldn't) as far as specific data goes. I talked to the head of the FBI's CALEA group for about an hour again yesterday. They know full well that there are just some things that can't be done. At the end of the day, the just need our help when and where we can give it to them. There are far too many possibilities to deal with every single possible situation, we know that, they know that. As long as we make a real effort to help I don't think we have to worry about getting in trouble. It's those that thumb their noses that will run enforcement risks. I was told that there has NEVER been an enforcement issue occur. laters, 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: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Marlon, I was under the impression the providers are only supposed to send the LEA the data covered in the subpoena and no more. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I don't think this is covered anyway, unless the guy is a permanent resident at the hotel. The subpoena will cover the suspect and any known IP or MAC info and I believe would cover a particular physical location. I was told that a subpoena cannot simply say anything, anywhere. It has to get fairly specific, and traffic from a Motel is not very specific. Lonnie On 5/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There will likely be cases where that's impossible. Lets say that I have a customer that's a hotel. They, at first, only know the ip addy or mac addy. A subpoena comes to me looking for info on the user in question. There's no way to use the hotel's Linksys hardware to do the tap to find the specific think that LEA is looking for. Can't change the network because any action on our side tips off the suspect. In some cases it won't be possible to filter out all info. Especially if we don't know what we're looking for (which we won't and shouldn't) as far as specific data goes. I talked to the head of the FBI's CALEA group for about an hour again yesterday. They know full well that there are just some things that can't be done. At the end of the day, the just need our help when and where we can give it to them. There are far too many possibilities to deal with every single possible situation, we know that, they know that. As long as we make a real effort to help I don't think we have to worry about getting in trouble. It's those that thumb their noses that will run enforcement risks. I was told that there has NEVER been an enforcement issue occur. laters, 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: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Marlon, I was under the impression the providers are only supposed to send the LEA the data covered in the subpoena and no more. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Marlon, I was under the impression the providers are only supposed to send the LEA the data covered in the subpoena and no more. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 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
There will likely be cases where that's impossible. Lets say that I have a customer that's a hotel. They, at first, only know the ip addy or mac addy. A subpoena comes to me looking for info on the user in question. There's no way to use the hotel's Linksys hardware to do the tap to find the specific think that LEA is looking for. Can't change the network because any action on our side tips off the suspect. In some cases it won't be possible to filter out all info. Especially if we don't know what we're looking for (which we won't and shouldn't) as far as specific data goes. I talked to the head of the FBI's CALEA group for about an hour again yesterday. They know full well that there are just some things that can't be done. At the end of the day, the just need our help when and where we can give it to them. There are far too many possibilities to deal with every single possible situation, we know that, they know that. As long as we make a real effort to help I don't think we have to worry about getting in trouble. It's those that thumb their noses that will run enforcement risks. I was told that there has NEVER been an enforcement issue occur. laters, 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: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question Marlon, I was under the impression the providers are only supposed to send the LEA the data covered in the subpoena and no more. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 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/ -- 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] 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/
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] 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 aVpMXm3U5wATgKByST2AFU207I56dOM4KUlds97u
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] 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/
[WISPA] CALEA Question
As I am finding myself back into sales, I have a question concerning CALEA. I just read this blurb: The “facilities-based” terminology was meant to include providers offering connectivity infrastructure between end users and the Internet. However, establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are excluded. The FCC explicitly exempted retail providers such as those offering hot spot WiFi (News - Alert) service where the actual Internet connectivity is obtained from another provider From this site: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm This would indicate to me that if you are a retail provider, i.e. you buy your broadband from someone else and resell it to your customers, that you are exempt. This would suggest that the onus is on your provider to monitor your T-1 or other connection to them in the event of a need for a tap. Any clarity on this would be great. WirelessGuys David Peterson Senior Wireless Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 207 W. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 300 Moorpark, CA 93021-1862 tel: 800-945-3294 mobile: 979.224.4192 AIM: ultramesh inc Skype ID:nexuswirelessusa No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, (or authorized to receive for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments and contact the sender by reply email or telephone (800) 945-3294. -- 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
As I understand it anyone who runs a router has to be CALEA compliant. Call the FCC ... these guys will answer your question and call you back: www.fcc.gov/calea Or ask a Legal Professional like Kris Twomey. Chris Savage or KC Halm from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP will take your questions about CALEA on May 9th (http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/05/attorney-call-for-calea.html) - Peter David Peterson wrote: As I am finding myself back into sales, I have a question concerning CALEA. I just read this blurb: The “facilities-based” terminology was meant to include providers offering connectivity infrastructure between end users and the Internet. However, establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are excluded. The FCC explicitly exempted retail providers such as those offering hot spot WiFi (News - Alert) service where the actual Internet connectivity is obtained from another provider From this site: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm This would indicate to me that if you are a retail provider, i.e. you buy your broadband from someone else and resell it to your customers, that you are exempt. This would suggest that the onus is on your provider to monitor your T-1 or other connection to them in the event of a need for a tap. Any clarity on this would be great. WirelessGuys David Peterson Senior Wireless Engineer -- 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
Well, everybody gets their Internet from someone else. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:57 PM Subject: [WISPA] CALEA Question As I am finding myself back into sales, I have a question concerning CALEA. I just read this blurb: The “facilities-based” terminology was meant to include providers offering connectivity infrastructure between end users and the Internet. However, establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are excluded. The FCC explicitly exempted retail providers such as those offering hot spot WiFi (News - Alert) service where the actual Internet connectivity is obtained from another provider From this site: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm This would indicate to me that if you are a retail provider, i.e. you buy your broadband from someone else and resell it to your customers, that you are exempt. This would suggest that the onus is on your provider to monitor your T-1 or other connection to them in the event of a need for a tap. Any clarity on this would be great. WirelessGuys David Peterson Senior Wireless Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 207 W. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 300 Moorpark, CA 93021-1862 tel: 800-945-3294 mobile: 979.224.4192 AIM: ultramesh inc Skype ID:nexuswirelessusa No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, (or authorized to receive for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments and contact the sender by reply email or telephone (800) 945-3294. -- 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
Hmmm, Well during the dial up days, Jokingly, I was thinking about starting a new internet business. Internet on a disk! . Each week we send you a new disk. We start you off with disk labeled, beginning internet a-ab, next week it will be ac-ad. This way the sites will be fast loading and won't tie up your telephone lines, nor will you have to buy a fancy high speed internet line. No more connection issues. Well I did ell a couple of my subs this, and they wanted to know what would be cheaper grin Mike Hammett wrote: Well, everybody gets their Internet from someone else. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:57 PM Subject: [WISPA] CALEA Question As I am finding myself back into sales, I have a question concerning CALEA. I just read this blurb: The “facilities-based” terminology was meant to include providers offering connectivity infrastructure between end users and the Internet. However, establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are excluded. The FCC explicitly exempted retail providers such as those offering hot spot WiFi (News - Alert) service where the actual Internet connectivity is obtained from another provider From this site: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm This would indicate to me that if you are a retail provider, i.e. you buy your broadband from someone else and resell it to your customers, that you are exempt. This would suggest that the onus is on your provider to monitor your T-1 or other connection to them in the event of a need for a tap. Any clarity on this would be great. WirelessGuys David Peterson Senior Wireless Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 207 W. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 300 Moorpark, CA 93021-1862 tel: 800-945-3294 mobile: 979.224.4192 AIM: ultramesh inc Skype ID:nexuswirelessusa No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57 PM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for the use of the designated recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, (or authorized to receive for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments and contact the sender by reply email or telephone (800) 945-3294. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA Question
David, Regarding your question, the FCC was referring to Retail Establishments and not Retail Providers. The FCC defines facilities based as follows: facilities-based meant entities that provide transmission or switching over their own facilities between the end user and the Internet Service Provider (ISP) So if your customer traffic traverses over a router, switch or bridge that you own, and your offering exceeds 200Kbps in either direction in the last mile, then you meet the commissions definition of a facilities-based broadband service provider. The FCC did exclude some retail establishments from the CALEA requirement. Specifically, in the FCC's First Report and Order and NPRM (05-153), pg 19. paragraph 36 states: Finally, in finding CALEA's SRP to cover facilities-based providers of broadband Internet access service, 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 subject to CALEA under the SRP.99 We note, however, that the provider of underlying facilities to such an establishment would be subject to CALEA, as discussed above. Footnote #99 on the same page further clarifies: 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] [WISPA] CALEA Question David Peterson DPeterson at Wirelessguys.com mailto:wireless%40wispa.org?Subject=%5BWISPA%5D%20CALEA%20QuestionIn-R eply-To=e702557f0705021144t38638587y585f4544732c9b6d%40mail.gmail.com Wed May 2 13:57:48 CDT 2007 * Previous message: NOW: CALEA Waiver Request WAS: [WISPA] Ok, here's my CALEA statement, and farewell. http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/035125.html * Next message: [WISPA] CALEA Question http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/035173.html * Messages sorted by: [ date ] http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/date.html [ thread ] http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/thread.html [ subject ] http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/subject.html [ author ] http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-May/author.html As I am finding myself back into sales, I have a question concerning CALEA. I just read this blurb: The facilities-based terminology was meant to include providers offering connectivity infrastructure between end users and the Internet. However, establishments that acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based provider to enable their customers to access the Internet from their respective establishments are excluded. The FCC explicitly exempted retail providers such as those offering hot spot WiFi (News - Alert) service where the actual Internet connectivity is obtained from another provider From this site: http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea1.htm This would indicate to me that if you are a retail provider, i.e. you buy your broadband from someone else and resell it to your customers, that you are exempt. This would suggest that the onus is on your provider to monitor your T-1 or other connection to them in the event of a need for a tap. Any clarity on this would be great. WirelessGuys David Peterson Senior Wireless Engineer DPeterson at WirelessGuys.com http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 207 W. Los Angeles Avenue, Suite 300 Moorpark, CA 93021-1862 tel: 800-945-3294 mobile: 979.224.4192 AIM: ultramesh inc Skype ID:nexuswirelessusa http://www.bearhill.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 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/
