RE: [[IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]

From: Sean Donelan []
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]

> 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
> 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 web site for full details.

I have. And I continue to disagree.


   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
  Appendix A of the Final Notice of Capacity (63 Fed Reg 12217,

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.

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.[2]

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.


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.