How would anyone know who has who for a customer anyways?
In past situations we've been in, it starts with a request for information.
Who is this IP?
If they asked my upstream, my upstream could ask me.
Or they could ask me a particular persons ip, if they somehow knew the
name to begin with.
Not sure if it is viable, but it would be an easy solution for some
small isp's.
I just want to know how they going to figure out free open hotspots...
George
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
The upstream doesn't know what customer has what IP addy. I don't know
how that would work George...
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to
CALEAand WISPs...
That was an excellent thing to do Marlon.
Big pat on the back :)
I would hate to be the person that believes they don't have to file
because of a post on a list.
The only way I would NOT file something is if my attorney who I knew
had direct contact with their attorney(s) told me he received in
writing an opinion that we did not have to file.
if the attorney I used a couple months ago on a contract thing told me
I didn't have to file, I wouldn't believe him.
It's too serious and the fines are just too stiff.
Very scary stuff.
But I would like the group that goes to DC this next trip to
specifically ask:
If an ISP hands out static Public IP's to every customer and his
upstream is calea compliant, is he covered, assuming no voip is involved.
George
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Hi All,
I hate confusion and unanswered questions.
So I sent this thread (names removed) to the HEAD of the CALEA group
at the FBI. I've already been talking to Maura so I thought this
appropriate.
Anyway, the word from the top is that if you are a facilities base
provider you fall under CALEA just like you do the 477 and 445 at the
FCC.
I'll let folks know more when I know more.
laters,
marlon
----- Original Message ----- To: 'Marlon K . Schafer 982-2181' ; 509
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEA and
WISPs...
Hi Marlon,
First, sorry I missed your folks last week. Unfortunately I was
stuck in Albany, NY for several days because of a blizzard. Second,
thanks for sending this email to me. I can see that there is some
confusion about who must comply. It's hard for me to tell from the
email trail what services the WISP member is providing. As we talked
about before, if a provider is offering Broadband Internet Access or
VoIP to the public then that provider must be CALEA compliant by May
14, 2007. I'd be happy to meet with folks from WISP in the next
couple of weeks so we can talk through these issues. Thanks, Maura
On Wed Feb 21 10:29 , "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" sent:
Hi Maura,
At the risk of seeming silly, and in the hopes that this gets no
one in trouble, I thought that you should see this thread from a
public mailing list. I'd like your comments on the accuracy of what
we've been told here.
The basic thrust of this is that we, as small rural wisps, won't
have to be calea compliant for various reasons.
I'd like to get our meeting with your team rescheduled as soon as
it makes sense. A couple of weeks down the road should give me time
to find people in the area that can attend.
Assuming that something has been lost in the interpretation here,
we really really need to get a wisp/small operator standard in place
before the final deadline.
Thanks!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEA and
WISPs...
>
>
>> Yes. I told them I had a T1 to my location and provided wireless
>> broadband connections to customers.
>>
>> He told me the FBI side of CALEA was only interested in the VOIP
>> carriers. He said he had many calls
>> to make for the forms filed by those that didn't need to.
>>
>> He did say and I did mention, this call was only for the FBI
side and >> that the FCC still has their side
>> of this requirement and send a letter to me after if they are
not >> interested in us.
>>
>> His phone number 703-632-6163, I don't remember his name, I was
driving >> when he called.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- >>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEA and
WISPs...
>>
>>
>>> What I'm reading is you told them you are NOT a carrier.
>>>
>>> Key word is CARRIER.
>>>
>>> Did you tell them that you bought your internet from an
upstream >>> provider and installed your own equipment such as radio
transmitters and >>> routers and sold service to the public across
your own network which you >>> own and operate?
>>>
>>> I think there would be quite a few more questions to be asked
before I >>> would assume I was clear that "I" did not have to file.
>>>
>>> It's easy to take the first NO answer and run with it, but due
diligence >>> would require that you have a very indepth and
revealing conversation >>> with them.
>>>
>>> The fines are mighty stiff and if your right, which I would
hope you >>> are, I would want to be 1000000% right.
>>>
>>> I doubt I could afford a lawyer to get me out of this sort of
mess with >>> a huge beaurocracy like the FBI-Justice Dept.
>>>
>>> Just trying to be carefull.
>>>
>>>> Yes, here is what happened.
>>>>
>>>> Prior I was told by Mr. McCain to file the forms on time
because he >>>> didn't think he could get answers
>>>> quick enough.
>>>>
>>>> Today I received a call from the FBI CALEA group in Arlington
County, >>>> Virginia telling me I did not have
>>>> to worry about being CALEA compliant for them because I was
not a >>>> carrier. I did not provide VOIP,
>>>> (Not the same as re-selling) If I was not the carrier of the
VOIP I was >>>> not required to be CALEA compliant
>>>> for the FBI. Even if I re-sold VOIP services, I was not
required to be >>>> compliant for CALEA on the FBI side
>>>> the actual carrier was. Vonage, Packet8 etc..
>>>>
>>>> They did tell me they could not send me the letter that I was
not >>>> required to be compliant, that the FCC still
>>>> had to do their part of the CALEA. The FBI only receives a
copy of the >>>> form, The FCC also has their part for
>>>> the filing. It's a two agency FCC & FBI form share. I have to
wait for >>>> them to send a note to the FCC they
>>>> do not require me to be compliant and then the FCC should send
me >>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> But as far as the FBI was concerned, I have nothing more to
worry about >>>> for them. I filed the form even that
>>>> I had nothing on the form but the business name and my contact
number, >>>> I filed on time. That's all that was
>>>> required. They can not fine you if you don't know how to fill
out the >>>> form. It's up to them to decided if they
>>>> want any more. The phone call lasted about 5 minutes, and that
was it. >>>> They made a note of the phone call.
>>>>
>>>> One down and Two to go.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps a few.
>>>>
>>>>
FLAGS (\Seen))
=
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
