John, the reason I don't buy it, is as has been said...we're days from the deadline, and we have nothing.
And, further, we don't know what's being worked on. There's a whole LOT of issues. There's extraction. There's picking out what's required. There's storage, there's VPN to the LEA, the list just goes on and on and on. Nobody can build a single device or program that can be applied to even the majority of networks. Not even a single point passthrough device that caches everyting (think solera) is going to work, if we have mutliple gateways in physically diverse locations. No solution is going to be universal. We all have such diverse ways of doing things that I'd say that any single solution won't even apply to the majority. There's the data format requirement, and the list goes on and on. What particular aspect is being worked on? The part that converts data to what they want? What about the tools to get the right information? What about a handbook that explains what data is required by the babble that shows up as acronyms or legalese? What about LEA's VPN's? What standard do they follow? Once you start down the road analyzing what you have to do after looking at the requirements, the 'assurances' here, at least, leave more questions than before. Without knowing what WISPA's doing, or anyone else is doing, we don't even know what parts won't work for us and we need to try to synthesize in two weeks. I have many hours of reading everything I can find, starting with the rules published by the FCC. Much of what is being said on this list by WISPA CALEA project people appears to conflict with what I read from the FCC itself. Once you start through the process they outline, you will FULLY comply, or you will exit the business, and that "FULLY" comply requires a lot of things that have been pooh-pooh'ed publicly here. Now, not to pick a fight, which I don't want to do. Nor to argue the merits of ANY of this, I consider myself reasonably bright and at least somewhat capable of running a WISP... And yet I cannot, seriusly, cannot figure out what I really have to do and not do. Much of what's being discussed here and elsewhere is VERY confusing. For instance, I keep reading that if you follow the industry standard, then you only have to do what's in the standard. But if you don't, then you have to do everything they ask. How the heck can the standard be acceptable if it doesn't do everything they want? If we must capture all the traffic, then it must be done at the client end. If we can't, then we really ARE NOT compliant. What's the point in working on something that's obviously deficient in the first place? Mostly, a lot of us just understand in our guts, that they have all the power, and absolutely NO hesitation in destroying us individually. Washington DC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS. Learn this, accept it, it is the definitive truth. Reassurances that "they're not out to get us" is nothing more than the attitude of a few political types in DC that have talked to WISPA people. We won't be dealing with them. Their assurances are... worth less than the ink required to print them out. The only hesitation they have, is if they get painted badly in the evening news. And we'll never make the news. The fact is, the people enforcing the rules are going to go by the letter. The absolute letter, bent as far as possible in the direction they want it bent. And that won't be our favor. Enforcement won't be impressed by "but I was assured you won't put me out of business". We're just a number and name, and not even a face. They'll do what government does... hand out fines as agressively as they can justify. And since none of us can individually mount a defense of any kind, we ARE gone and dead. Why WISPA did not say in first response "This CANNOT BE DONE, I have no idea. But you spoke for us and said you thought it ws a good idea. You killed us without any more consideration, apparently, than DC has for us. I say this to the people who communicated / filed / responded to the FCC and FBI. Frankly, I suggest we collectively hire some legal counsel to find some way of just stepping around it or a solid strategy for dealing with the fallout. Some real legal eagle shark type stuff. I suspect whether we do our utmost or ignore it, we're mostly going to end up in the same shoes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance > > >I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite > >simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any > >additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to accept > >it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market > >opportunity is lost if you aren't CALEA compliant. I firmly believe every > >service provider should have plans for being CALEA compliant or have plans > >for exiting the business. This one is different than E911; the liability > >will be staggering. > > > >-Matt > > > > > Matt, > We look forward to proving that this thinking is wrong. What part of > CALEA compliance is it that makes you think we cannot develop a low cost > and reasonable solution which will not break the bank? > Scriv > > > -- > 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/
