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

    Visit www.freeandclear.com


Quoting Frank Bulk <[email protected]>:

> 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
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

-- 
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