North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Donelan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 8:39 PM > To: Hannigan, Martin > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > Sean, the capacity requirements aren't as straightforward as you > > are interpreting them. > > You are absolutely correct, they are not that straightforward. You > should consult a telecommunications attorney with expertise > in this area > for legal advice. It's a law that has technical requirements co mingled so you need both lawyers and engineers. > > If you are a CLEC and you cover a full five state > > area in the Northeast, you probably are subject to a county > aggregate > > of a capacity requirement of 1500. > > No. The FBI is very clear, if you are a CLEC and cover a > full five state > area in the Northeast, you are subject to the CUMULATIVE > capacity require > for every county in those five states. > > See the www.askcalea.com web site for full details. I have. And I continue to disagree. [snip] > Individual carriers must provide sufficient capacity so that law > enforcement has the ability to simultaneously conduct any number of > call content interceptions, pen registers, and trap and > trace devices, > not to exceed the estimated actual and maximum > requirements (which are > based on historical interception activity) at any location within a > county. > Appendix A of the Final Notice of Capacity (63 Fed Reg 12217, > 12238) Which is what I defined. Sufficient capacity with capability to increase if needed. > > However, there is an exception, no single switch is required > to support > more than 386 simultaneous pen registers and trap and trace devices or > 75 simultaneous call content interceptions. What is a "switch?" That's what the federal register notice I pointed you at said. And in come cases, a single switch can carry a five state area. Softswitch comes to mind. > > http://www.askcalea.com/docs/capsecg.pdf > > Individual carriers can take the legal gamble and use other network > deployment strtegies, such as making assumptions of how many pen > registers, trap and trace and intercepts will occur on their network > versus a competitors network. Assume 95% of the court orders will go > to your competitors, so you only need to provide 5% of the capacity > in the county. But you can't escape the penalties by depending on your > competitor's capacity. You can't service a competitors legal orders so I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're almost saying "every carrier should have one DS0 for every single dialup user". > > The obligation to satisfy the capacity requirements in a > cost-effective andreasonable manner is the responsibility > of all carriers that operate within a given geographic area. > > How often do you see all the competitors in an industry sit down in a > room and decide how they will divide up the costs and > establish pricing? What has pricing intercepts have to do with concurrent intercepts? CLECS are not going to make money servicing legal orders. I doubt RBOCS make money doing it either. > > It's complicated, but noone is subject to a straight 1200+ capacity > > required. There were 1,442 NON FISA oral and electronic > intercepts in > > the entire United States last year. > > Actually, they are expected to provide far more than that. They're expected to have the capability. So let me rephrase. They are subject. The actual and historic are relevant. > As you know, > the Wiretap report does not include pen registers. There is no public > source for the number of pen registers in the US, but some industry > sources estimate it at 70,000 to 75,000 per year. I'll check on the pen-register comment. You keep saying talk to a lawyer, but quoting legalese. Are you an attorney? Not being smarmy. Just curious. Hypothetical. How many bankrupt CLEC's do you expect to see this year complying with CALEA and providing, as an example, a fully loaded 1200 concurrent session infrastructure in a < 100 a year historically survielled area? N0TE: I am speaking from experience on the LEC side, nowhere else.