Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
LAES = lawfully authorized electronic surveillance Frank Muto Co-founder WBIA www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. LAES is a delivery protocol, not data format. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. Not true. http://www.opencalea.org/. There is a company (not gonna mention a name) that is currently working to have an open source, freely available WORKING solution that can be installed on your linux server. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. LAES is a delivery protocol, not data format. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. Not true. http://www.opencalea.org/. There is a company (not gonna mention a name) that is currently working to have an open source, freely available WORKING solution that can be installed on your linux server. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Rick Smith wrote: Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still "under discussion" at the FBI... The exact format and method of delivery has not been decided. There are several people working on this exact question. More will be known after March 22. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
Sam Tetherow wrote: Peter R. wrote: During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. Well, that's the way DC works - you do for me and I do for you. The CLEC's did not learn that lesson. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
LAES stands for; lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. Frank Muto WBIA www.wbia.us P.S. Also a supporting WISPA vendor. - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still "under discussion" at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA "compliance" requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be "compliant". Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be "compliant", too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them "THERE IS NO WAY" we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of "intercept" is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY "NO!". It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki &
RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:10 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote The question is... if we're not providing VOIP service, doesn't this apply to the VOIP provider, and not me? > How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming > immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf > . . . j o n a t h a n Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:55:18 -0500, Sam Tetherow wrote > Peter R. wrote: > > During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ > > clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA > > compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. > > > > Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's > > and ISP's have ever done: > > Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. > > > > You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. > > But this is not a one-way street. > Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we > don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we > don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing > the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. > > If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to > everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more > time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that > can and will provide that access. > > I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent > ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage. If this CALEA > crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end > I doubt I will. I'll probably just be looking to sell out if > possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened. I can try > raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond > well to raising prices. Let me quote www.askcalea.com "Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs? A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special "deficiency" petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added to the standard. The FCC may refuse to order a change in a standard on many different grounds. For example, a capability may be rejected because it is too costly. Therefore CALEA already contains protections for industry against paying undue compliance costs." Theoretically, we have their word that it won't cost us, or require us to reengineer our networks. But from almost EVERYONE's conversations, we get "we have to redesign", unless some people can use existing equipment's ability to mirror traffic from a particular IP. As of now, I see people talking about using PCAP, Cisco's internal system, managed switches at the gateway, etc. None of this makes a bit of sense if all we're supposed to do is capture VOIP packets! I have been attempting to make this point, that CALEA doesn't work for broadband internet, and I fail to see any relevance to broadband, since SUPPOSEDLY VOIP has to be tapped where it connects to the PSTN. I said that pending the outcome of people talking to the FBI and DOJ, that I am probably going to file that I am NOT and cannot be made compliant. Gee whiz, I expect that in 6-9 months, my network will have either 2 or 3 physically separated gateways to the 'net. In no place on my network, is there either software, or physical connections that allow me to do anything of the kind they envision. Nor am I willing to redesign my network's fundamental concept in order to "comply". You get the distinct impression that while CALEA talks about nothing other than intercepting phone calls, that they want to tap broadband for "everything else". If VOIP providers are compliant, why tap our networks? If htey aren't, then what do they expect to get? > > > > To get you have to give. > > You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. > > You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad > > guys - without the bad guys knowing. > I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping > the authorities catch the bad guys. I have seen Mark protest > footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority > of government agencies attempting to regulate his business. > > I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust > regulation as an industry. I would really like to hear a legal > person's opinion on Mark's objections. I've repeated that I absolutely intend to help, in any way possible, law enforcement's efforts to catch bad guys. I'll do what I can, and I don't consider that any imposition... but if I have to pay someone to do something for them, I expect them to pay the bill. Any help in capturing data will have to come from my upstream, as I have no central physical NOC to do this at... and never expect
RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:08 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still "under discussion" at the FBI... -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
Peter R. wrote: During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. Not sure what you mean here Peter. Are you implying that if we don't go along with anything that the FCC comes up with then we don't deserve any more UL spectrum? This, as an argument for filing the 477 I understand, but to use it for any FCC mandate is BS. If the FCC is really all that interested in providing broadband to everyone they should spend less time bitching about Bush and more time figuring out how to get spectrum into the hands of those that can and will provide that access. I'm not quite sure how the FCC thinks overburdening the independent ISP/WISP is going to narrow the gap in coverage. If this CALEA crap ends up costing any real amount of money to implement on my end I doubt I will. I'll probably just be looking to sell out if possible or shutdown down when a fine is threatened. I can try raising prices to cover the cost but this industry doesn't respond well to raising prices. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. I don't think I have ever seen Mark mention a reluctance to helping the authorities catch the bad guys. I have seen Mark protest footing the bill to do so and I have seen him protest the authority of government agencies attempting to regulate his business. I think it IS our responsibility to protest undue or unjust regulation as an industry. I would really like to hear a legal person's opinion on Mark's objections. The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim the authority to do something invasive. I seem to remember that they felt CARNIVORE was legal and justified. Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm betting he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a Republican run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security. Sam Tetherow Sandhills 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 - what will we need to provide ?
u got it. Verizons of the world are out there saying $100k for a way to stop terrorism ? NO PROBLEM! "Those little guys must be sucked up and put out of business, so we can prevent another 9/11" argh what a crock of $**7! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply. A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they need to make to allow it to be easy to conform. DOJ doesn't concern itself with "HOW" to conform, they aren't ISPs and knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our capabilties. I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their competitors to comply to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote >> During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ >> clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA >> compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. > > Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it > were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice > transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and > that's the truth. > >> >> Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that >> CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. >> That's not how it works. > > If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was > wrong. > >> >> You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. >> But this is not a one-way street. > > I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out > it's > assigned duties? Hell no! > >> >> To get you have to give. >> You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. >> You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad >> guys - without the bad guys knowing. > > Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I > don't > get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require > US > to pay for what they want. Period. > > Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, > to > fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW > LAW. > > Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no > reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They > don't > write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The > FCC has misapplied via "opinion" that it does, when it does not. > >> >> Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill >> out a poll or a form. > > Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. > >> >> When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking >> chairs, he is almost accurate. >> (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this "industry"). >> >> The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. >> But typically they can ruin it for the lot. > > RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing > is > going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the > emperor's cheering squad. > > Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to > have ANY interest in your future at all. > > > > > > Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc > Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains > 541-969-8200 > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
I see little benefit to protesting the Calea/DOJ judgement, as compliance is a mute point, if it were easy and cost effective to comply. A preferred method to proceed is to lobby for what changes in standards they need to make to allow it to be easy to conform. DOJ doesn't concern itself with "HOW" to conform, they aren't ISPs and knowledgeable in our business. Its our job to educate them on our capabilties. I'd argue that its teh TELCOs, that are the enemies on this issue, that have been very involved with the officials on this matter, and probably purposefully did not lobby for standards that would be easy for their competitors to comply to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ? On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via "opinion" that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this "industry"). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
As a matter of fact, to give Peter R. some pay back for helping us. Do you guys know that he is " the man" to get you great pricing on bandwidth, just about anyplace in the country. So there is a plug for Peter R. and his ability to help you buy better. George George Rogato wrote: Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry. One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee that would promote wisps in their market place. Sounds good? Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help. Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the most giving. and he's not a wisp. Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to benefit wisps. So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you. Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to be active in wispa. Thanks George George Rogato wrote: Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
Also what wispa really needs is some wisps that want to be active in wispa and set some programs up that would serve them and the industry. One such program that we tried to get going was a promotional committee that would promote wisps in their market place. Sounds good? Only two wisps bothered to participate, myself and Tom DeReggi, but yet there was 3 non wisps who wanted to do something to help. Peter R. who is like a gold mine when it comes to that stuff was the most giving. and he's not a wisp. Dawn and probably Ken were contributers, as well as Brian Webster the mapping guy who's now working with Earthlink to try to find a way to benefit wisps. So please, consider all that us few have done to date while we try to run our own companies and make wispa into something good for you. Time is all it really costs, just a few hours a month is whats needed to be active in wispa. Thanks George George Rogato wrote: Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
Peter R. wrote: You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. It's very lonely out here, wish more wisps would get past the 250.00 and join wispa so that we can make things happen. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
wispa wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. You don't think this rule came down from the Bush Admin to the FCC? Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. This isn't knee-jerk. This is what I have found over the last 7 years. You guys do complain loudly but do very little action. It is left to the few to fight for the many. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! Where in the constitution does it say anything about this??? Wiretap is law. Has been since 1934. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. You want to be a bank, you have a laundry list of regs you have to implement. You want to be a public company, bang 2 years ago SOX rules are applied and now public companies spend billions to comply. You want to be a healthcare provider, you better be HIPAA compliant at your cost. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via "opinion" that it does, when it does not. The same way any agency applies law. But this one was held up in federal court. Where does it say in the act of 1934 that you can have UL spectrum??? Where in the law - since there was no law, right? This is the FCC opinion - does it say $500M? You said there was no law. So how did $$ get appropriated? In the CALEA Act of 1994 there was probably money, but it has probably been spent too. This review states that providers had to pony up. http://www.is-journal.org/V02I03/g-park.pdf For data, it doesn't appear that bad. You have to have a CALEA compliant router at egress. Cisco is compliant. The standard is ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new). You just need to capture IP traffic at the point of egress and VPN it to the FBI transparently. For VoIP, it is much more difficult. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this "industry"). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. How is complying with the law brown nosing? How is yelling on a public forum that I'm not going to comply helpful? You think that will get YOU any where??? Have you taken any steps to share your thoughts directly with your Congress Critter, the FCC, or the Feds? Did you activate your million person network to complain? WISP's want more spectrum. You can't get it if you don't play the game. CLEC's did not learn a lesson in the last 10 years. It took me 6 to figure out what the game was. Another helpful document from Verisign on CALEA: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518176688 Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote > During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ > clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA > compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. > > Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that > CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. > That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. > > You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. > But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! > > To get you have to give. > You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. > You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad > guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via "opinion" that it does, when it does not. > > Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill > out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. > > When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking > chairs, he is almost accurate. > (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this "industry"). > > The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. > But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Your statements take us back to all the "lobbying efforts" that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this "industry"). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. BTW, this from SS8's presentation at the VPF: Other standards in common use in the U.S.: J-STD-25A –Punchlist J-STD-25B –CDMA2000 wireless data PacketCable –VoIP for Cable networks T1.678 –VoIP for wireline, PTT, PoC ETSI 33.108 –GPRS wireless data ATIS –T1.IPNA –ISP data (brand new) Regards, Peter wispa wrote: There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA "compliance" requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. -- 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 - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote > Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to > provide ? > > I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still "under > discussion" at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA "compliance" requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be "compliant". Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be "compliant", too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them "THERE IS NO WAY" we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of "intercept" is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY "NO!". It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still "under discussion" at the FBI... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/