RE: RE: CALEA for co-lo transit providers?

Here's an excerpt of the discussion I had with a consultant some time ago.
This should be not be construed as legal advice but a discussion of the
matter.

 

 

Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: <company> and CALEA

Frank sorry for the delay the phone has been busy today.  Your quote below
is correct.  However, the FCC further clarified this by the following
footnote 80 page 18 in the same order:

 

80 We clarify that some entities that sell or lease mere transmission
facilities on a non-common carrier basis,

e.g., dark fiber, bare space segment capacity or wireless spectrum, to other
entities that use such transmission

capacity to provide a broadband Internet access service, are not subject to
CALEA under the Substantial

Replacement Provision as broadband Internet access providers. Under such a
scenario, the entity procuring the

transmission capacity via the sale or lease and using it to provide
broadband Internet access service (e.g., a satellite

earth station licensee) would be considered the facilities-based broadband
Internet access service provider and thus,

the entity subject to CALEA under the Substantial Replacement Provision.

 

I think this applies to <company>.  <company> is providing transport and
bandwidth.  It does not provide service to any end users and is not a common
carrier.  However, the <company> members do serve end users, are common
carriers and therefore are the entity that must comply.  So the burden of
CALEA is on the retail service provider (the ILECs) who have the direct
service relationship with the end user and not <upstream provider> or
<company>.  Lets discuss more if you would like.  Give me a call.  Thanks.

  _____  

Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: <company> and CALEA

 

Doug:

 

I have read very little of the wholesale versus common carrier distinction,
but I did a bit of reading, and page 2 of this NPRM
(http://www.techlawjournal.com/agencies/calea/20040809nprm.pdf) says this:

(1) Congress intended the scope of CALEA's definition of "telecommunications
carrier" to be more inclusive than that of the Communications Act; (2)
facilities-based providers of any type of broadband Internet access service,
whether provided on a wholesale or retail basis, are subject to CALEA;

As for intercept on a telco, if <company> does not need to be CALEA
compliant, does that pass the burden of tapping the packet data traffic of a
<company> telco onto <upstream company>?  For example, let's say that <we
were> involved in a financial racket and one of the executives was chatting
with another co-conspirator party in another state? or another <company>
member?

 

Kind regards,

 

Frank Bulk

  _____  

Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: <company> and CALEA

In the attached FCC Order from 1999 you will generally see on pages 6-14
that only common carriers who provide retail services to end users (who
would be the target of a tap) are required to comply.  Wholesale carriers
are not - they are not considered common carriers.  

 

>From your responses it appears that <company> is just a wholesale provider
not covered by CALEA.  You raise a very interesting question about an
intercept on a telco, but that would be a tap by the telco's CALEA
equipment/solution and not <company>.

 

  _____  

Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: <company> and CALEA

 

Doug:

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

If you don't consider <company> members to be 'end user subscribers', then
yes, there are no end-user subscribers.  <company> members do buy the
bandwidth from <company> on a pro-rated basis, but costs are assigned and
billed.  I guess my concern is that if the LEA wants to investigate <us> or
<associate>, who do they talk to?  <company>'s router are the first L3 hop
point.

 

I don't understand the nuances of wholesale versus end-user subscribers in
relation to CALEA, which is why we're looking for your insight.

 

Kind regards,

 

Frank Bulk

 

  _____  

Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: <company> and CALEA

Frank if <company> does not provide broadband services directly to end user
subscribers it does not need to file Form 445 just the <company> members
would file Form 445.  I am not aware that <company> directly serves
customers does it?  It just provides wholesale bandwidth to LECs correct?

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: CALEA for co-lo transit providers?

 

I refuse to offer any legal opinions.. I get confused just doing my

taxes..  but for the answer to your questions I would suggest heading

right over to http://www.askcalea.net .

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [email protected]

> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Todd

> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:48 PM

> To: [email protected]

> Subject: CALEA for co-lo transit providers?

> 

> 

> I'm sure someone knows this off the top of their heads, so

> I'll ask the non-lawyers here for some clue before I wade

> into the documentation...

> 

> I know that CALEA applies to all "service providers" for

> broadband access and VoIP application services here in the

> United States.

> However, does CALEA apply to co-location transit

> providers?(*)  In other words: facilities that have no

> end-users or end-user circuits

> in them, but only large arrays of application servers?   I'm asking

> about IP transit, and not about physical layer.  Equinix, as an

> example: with their Equinix Direct product (blended transit

> inside their facilities) are they subject to CALEA?

> 

> My gut instinct is "no" after doing some reading, but it's

> not entirely clear.  Opinions welcome, and referenced facts

> even more so.

> 

> 

> (*) Of course, one always must comply with a court order, but that is

> not what I'm asking about - I'm talking about the "built-in"

> intercept functionality that many equipment vendors are now

> integrating into equipment, and pre-event access configuration that

> may be requested by LEAs.

> 

> JT

> --

> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi

> [email protected] is the human contact address.

> [email protected] is the list posting address.

> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:

> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list

> 

--

Eat sushi frequently. - Avi

[email protected] is the human contact address.

[email protected] is the list posting address.

See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:

http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list

-- 
Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
[email protected] is the human contact address.
[email protected] is the list posting address.
See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list