Mark and Butch,
I want to thank both of you.
I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a
negative turn but I WAS WRONG.
I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications to
the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable. I'd like
to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment and the
courage to share your opinions in this open forum.
Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my mind.
Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well.
Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each
other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule of
Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct.
Thank you again.
jack
wispa wrote:
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
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
