On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:22:57 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: > > >While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please > >consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are > >deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what > >they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set > >a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept > >it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant > >standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in > >the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it > >won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You > >will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not > >choose this in ANY way. > > Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is.
Yes, the law is what it is. It was NEVER written to apply to ISP's nor internet services. Those are additions to the law that the FCC tacked on at a whim. The FCC has no authority to write law, only Congress can do that. This is why the FCC now holds contradictory views on whether an ISP is an "information service" or a "telecommunications service". Depending on the issues, like taxes vs CALEA, we are, or we are NOT a "telecommunications service". Understand? We are and we are not, all at the same time, so that it's convenient to require CALEA, but they can exempt us from other regulations, because we're not. THIS WILL BE RESOLVED, and not likely in our favor unless we begin arguing back! You > will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to > follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. > Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. > I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, > you are intent on NOT following it.... Actually, I am following the law, it's the FCC that playing games here, attempting to cross a chasm in two leaps. This is why I keep saying we MUST object. > > >I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. > >However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I > >have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I > >cannot and will not comply, period. > > Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only > purchase one more CPE....Hope you charge enough at install time to > get the next one. You don't need to worry about my business issues, Butch. Trust me, we're in very sold shape. > > >If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do > >so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, > >local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take > >over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's > >no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct > >all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be > >no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in > >irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I > > Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your > (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office "more grief...than > they can handle"? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something > isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. Yeah, you missed a lot, Butch. Like how fast the FCC is buried just by "frivolous applications for 3650 STA's...??? Remember Patrick's comments... understaffed, underbudgeted...... > > >know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be > >activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they > > Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems > to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides > stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws > established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you > don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would > be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for > it). You'd not like me in politics. I'm always this defensive of principle and always this blunt. > > >I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my > >estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly > >the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without > >the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it > > And just who is doing the "feeding", Mark? Marlon? The FCC? > WISPA? One must sit back and ask himself, who stuck our collective heads up in front of the regulators, asked for stuff, and then never even said "boo" when the FCC started making capricious rulings? > > >and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint > >efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a > >right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and > >overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? > >WISPA's just bleating and going along like blind sheep. > > Mark...You are speaking of things you haven't a clue about. What > makes you thing WISPA is "bleating and going along like blind > sheep"? The fact that we (I'm working with them to help create the > standards) are trying to create a standard to provide LEAs with > information that they need? Is that what it is? I'm > confused...someone is feeding you to the wolves and WISPA is a group > of sheep. Perhaps you can clear this up for me. You. You're not ojbecting. You're going along with this like it's the right thing. IT IS NOT. > > >I STILL cannot believe we're walking into this without a single > >official objection from WISPA or the other organizations supposedly > >on "our" side. I guess I should not be surprised. Expedience has > >become the religion of our times. Like rolling over and playing > >dead is going to earn us brownie points and favors later? Don't > >count on it. > > Objection to WHAT? You aren't making ANY sense! Butch, you and I have argued enough about stuff for you to be rather bright in my estimation, so I'm not quite sure why you're asking this. CALEA, as it came from Congress, was NOT an "unfunded mandate on private business". CALEA also required COMPENSATION to anyone who was asked to provide information to law enforcement. CALEA contained funds from Congress to pay ALL of the regulated industries expenses in regards to CALEA compliance. This happens tobe a fundamental Constitutional issue. Congress may not pass laws which transfer government burdens and functions to private industry and force them (be it entities or INDIVIDUALS) to bear the cost. That is OUR SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DEFENSE AGAINST RUNAMOCK government. > > >compromises my security or their security, costs me significantly, > >or is in my view, unconstitutional (which is pretty much anyting > >done ahead of time). That, as a citizen, is my duty. If that costs > >me my future and business, it's a small price to pay for what > >people have given their lives before me to preserve. If I can > >preserve that for a few people for while... I WILL DO IT. > > Mark, I'm going to state some TRUTH here. You'd be wise to read > carefully and remove the lens through which you are viewing these > things. > > 1. The FCC, at the request of the FBI (and possibly other LEAs), has > ruled that the CALEA laws WILL apply to us as transport providers. This is your first mistake. We're NOT. The FCC calls us that ONLY for purposes of CALEA. In every other instance, WE ARE NOT. How long do you think this contradictory stand will last? And do you think that unless we turn into CAT HERDING TYPE OF RESISTANCE they will do anything but reverse the OTHER opinions so that we fall FULLY under their thumb so as to regain some legal consistency? > > 2. There is currently NO STANDARD method to provide the LEAs with > the information they need. This means that there is no estimate on > how much (or how little) it will cost to be compliant. If it costs dollar one, it's a violation of the Constitution. Sorry. The people cannot be required to carry out and bear the expenses of such things ahead of time. And, we MUST be compensated when we're required to do so. Nothign else is legal. Nothing else is RIGHT, either. > > 3. WISPA has formed a committee (comprised of various people, > including WISPs) to help CREATE that standard. The folks on the > committee are working diligently to create a low cost way for the > WISP industry to be compliant. yeah, we're walking in like sheep, trying to get ourselves shorn. WE ARE NOT OBJECTING TO SOMETHIGN PATENTLY AND OBVIOUSLY WRONG!!!!! > > 4. Several people are going to Virginia out of their own pocket in > order to make this happen. As much as that's appreciated, some phone calls not so long ago to the FCC demanding they reverse their ruling would probably have spared us this whole mess in the first place. > > 5. We are NOT going to change the law. It is what it is. Also, > YOUR are NOT going to change the law. You can try, but you are > barking up the wrong tree by attacking those that are doing this > work in this list. There's no need to change the law, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO US. You already admitted that it's merely the FCC's inconsistent reclassification that puts us in this in the first place! > > 6. If I have my way in all of this, MOST WISP networks are going to > be either already capable of compliance, or will be able to be > compliant with VERY LITTLE expense. So? Once you agree to fund the government's wish list without objection, you think the list will remain small? If so, I have some wonderful real estate to sell you. > > NOW, having said that much, I will move over to my opinion of the > law. > > 1. I think it is important for LEAs to be able to gather data from > various sources in order to prosecute criminals. Oh, absolutely. NO objection from me. > > 2. I think it is important for me, as a citizen, to provide that > data to them if it is within my power to do so. Of course. They must provide a court order, and they MUST compensate you for your costs in doing so, otherwise it is unconstitutional. And unconstitutional in such a way it would laughed out of small claims court. > > 3. I believe that the burden of cost, as it relates to compliance > with CALEA, should be on the LEAs, but as a citizen and business > owner, I have a duty to provide information if I can. Then stick up for your beliefs, Butch. Stop being a worm to be stepped on or a sheep waiting to get shorn. Geeze, man. > > 4. I think that saying on a public mailing list that "I will not > comply" is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Nope, I said I'd tolerate up to $100 of expense, as a minimal intrusion. Anything more, or taking more than 2 hours of my time, I turn the FCC and say "COME AND GET ME COPPERS!!!" very publicly and then I go to the EFF other legal foundations to establish a lawsuit when they try to enforce it on me. Yeah, it might ruin my life. Small price to pay for doing the rig ht thing. Too bad the sheeple who are supposed to talk tothe FCC for me wouldn't even bother to object, much less tell the FCC that we're happy to fund their wish list and we'll sit down and try to work out a way to make it "nice" for both of us. DAMN THAT MAKES ME ANGRY every time I think about it! > > > Damn, people, STAND UP FOR ONCE. > > Again I must ask, "stand up and do what?". Should we go to the FBI > and say, "we don't like this law, and therefore we are not going to > follow it. Good bye."? What is it you expect from those that are > trying to do something besides spout nonsense on a public list? You already understand, but just don't realize why we're in this mess. CALEA did not apply to us, and contained funds to compensate ALL the targets for compliance issues. AFTER t hat money was gone, the DOJ got upset at the FCC's ruling that we did not fall under CALEA, which was correct. The FCC then COMPROMISED with the DOJ and FBI and wrote a rather obtuse and ridiculous ruling that WE would have to comply as well, AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. If we'd had brain cell one we, collectively, as internet services providers, wouild have SUED the FCC, who would have immediately gone back to the DOJ and FBI and said "we're sorry, we cannot do this, it's unconstitutional" and would have been exempt as we're supposed to be. They wrote it in such a way as to make it legallyl challengable from a whole MYRIAD of angles, and almost nobody objected. > > I have been an ISP for a LONG time. In all the time I've been in > this business, I've worked to provide information for a total of 14 > subpeonas. These were all before CALEA required it. All CALEA will > do is provide a standard interface for the LEAs. It's not the > "wolf" you fear... Geeze, Butch. You got served, you provided, you got compensated for expenses. That's right, correct, and constitutional. I will and would do the same, with no real objection. But think about this... Skype is being required to comply. A peer to peer voice service. They have to fundamentally change the way the whole network works to comply. Skype is probably going to go away as we know it. Every other P2P type application that carries voice has to be re-written and re-structured in order to comply. You call that "no big bad wolf"? I don't care if it costs Skype $5 to do it. It is WRONG, and if the government wants it, they DAMN WELL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. I have posted links to articles that lay this out in absolutely clear and detailed form from very respected and respectable industry commentators and executives. Did you not read this? Are we all guilty of NOT reading, like I was until about 2 months ago? -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
