Re: CALEA for co-lo transit providers?

this has nothing to do with this list..spammer.

[email protected] wrote:
> 
>    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.
> 

-- 
Registered Microsoft Partner

My "Foundation" verse:
Isa 54:17
-- 
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