Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods

[Blair Davis]

Inline wispa wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote I've been watching this discussion for a bit. Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark. Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to require every auto in the country to have a GPS and cellular modem in it. So the DOT mandates this, but doesn't provide any funding for it. Instead, they expect the auto owners to pay for the equipment and the cellular company's to provide the service for free. Just how many of you will go for this? Do you think the cellular company's will go for it? The example above is EXACTLY the same as the CALEA requirements being applied to us. Pretty good analogy, except that it would be more like having the cellular providers provide BOTH the equipment and service, but that's just quibbling around the edges. If they want to pay for it, fine. For my network, they can expect to pay about $40K to replace my MESH based AP's for me.... And, I don't know how much it will cost to fix my automated sign-up system for mobile and hot-spot users, (because it works with the MESH AP's only). I'm not even sure that hot-spots can EVER be made compliant. What about my 30min per day free stuff for tourists to check their e- mail? Right now, I can locate a person to a tower. Not to an individual CPE. And I see no way to do so without wholesale equipment replacement. I'll bet there are others in the same spot..... I know that at least 10 to 20% of my customers have wireless AP's in their home. over 50% for me.  We set them up for free if they buy them from us or if they have it there at the time of the install. No way can I gaurantee that traffic I intercept is actually from or to the individual in question. I don't think we're being asked to do this, mind you, My reply to this is.... Yet..... but it leads to the question of whether LEA should be attempting to bend network operations to their notion of what surveillance is, or should they change what they see as serveillance to how the services work. Again, this whole mess is a result of the FCC applying a PHONE SERVICE INTERCEPT law to a service that is NOT analogous and doesn't work the same way. Again, not directed at you, Mark, but to all.... what about hot spots? On another subject.... Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? Let me state up front, that I argued for the formation of WISPA. I still believe in the idea of a trade organization for the industry I am in. I don't believe that was a mistake. WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. I agree.  And, I'm not advocating anything like that. Some time ago, I formally cancelled my membership, and made it clear that when I believe that the leadership will make some effort to represent what I consider the interests of their myriad small members, I will again at least financially support WISPA. I was planning on joining.  I'd discussed it with my partner, and he had agreed.  But, now, I'm not sure that WISPA is for the small WISP. Does the stated leadership's stand on this reflect the the majority / minority of the member's views? I don't know. I don't really know WHAT the WISPA membership in general thinks. I don't know what the WISP industry in general thinks. Neither do I know this.  I'd like to. Unfortunately, I really don't think that the volunteer leadership has the time or energy or resources to dig deep, engage in informed debate, and make sure that all views and ideas are well heard, and then get some kind of consensus of the views of the industry or membership. But, if I'm going to support WISPA with my $$, I will have to know that they represent MY best interests when they speak to the gov.  Don't really worry about anything else they do, but want to be sure that they don't mis-represent me to the gov. That's just the nature of the beast, for a startup organization that's small and driven by volunteers. Thus, WISPA has represented in DC what the views of the individuals are that both can and have gone to DC in our behalf. Being a volunteer driven organization, the only people who can serve are those who have the time, the money, and the drive, to become leadership. That leaves the vast majority of us out - me included. Peter suggested that people run for leadership of WISPA with contrarian views. I'm not really sure that's the "solution". With the way it operates now, we'd just end up with a leadership bitterly divided within itself, and still probably not understanding or knowing the real "guts" of the industry itself, and still not really representting the industry. I do not see leadership of WISPA as being a tool for activism or agendas. For the most part, the WISPA leadership has asked the membership for input on much of what it has done. Sometimes, even important stuff doesn't get more than a handful of responses in the past. Just on this issue, it seems that WISPA leadership hasn't really reacted. The only response is "be quiet, it's not an issue we have any input on", other than to go to WAshington DC and ask nicely how to comply. Not that I think it should be done rudely. I have personally met only two of the WISPA leadership. Both of them, in my view, are men of decent character. I don't think we would advance WISPA by removing either of them. So that leaves us with this moment. Join, not join? That's going to have to be up to you. Does joining endorse something you disagree with? Perhaps. But can and will WISPA do things that benefit us as an industry, I really do think so. So does joining endorse those future actions? Perhaps. The debate at this moment is part of what has to happen. People need to voice their opinions and make WISPA leadership aware of what everyone thinks. Will it change how they represent us? I don't know. WISPA wasn't formed and did not elect the current leadership to poll us and go with the wind. It was elected to continue to build the organization. They have had some success in that. The reason I supported the formation of WISPA, was that in my view, the other ( no names on purpose ) organizations appeared to me to not exist to serve me, but to serve the financial and political ambitions of those at their head. Will WISPA be that way? I hope not, but I would guess that a lot of the hesitation people have in joining is related to that question. They're waiting for this question to be answered. Exactly right. How the leadership responds eventually makes up their minds. -- Blair Davis West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 -- 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/