Update on CALEA | EDUCAUSE

Created by Wendy Wigen (EDUCAUSE) on August 26, 2004

I attended a meeting yesterday to review the NPRM with other concerned organizations. The general feeling around the table was:

The FCC has based their ruling on "weak" legal arguments that are challengeable.
The FCC is extending CALEA compliance to the Internet but only so far as the rules of the original statute still apply, such as, in the original only "common carriers" (commercial telecom providers) were subject therefore only commercial broadband access providers would be subject to it under the new ruling
The definition and use of the "substantial replacement" clause in the original CALEA Statute is at best difficult to understand and at worst so huge that it literally pulls in all broadband service providers including possibly the higher education community. It focuses not on the "voice" aspect as much as the fact that broadband now replaces dial-up Internet access. (I will get more on this as I attempt to understand it)

On a positive note: The FCC read our comments and made note of them in the NPRM: "We note that establishments acquiring broadband Internet access to permit their patrons to access the Internet do not appear to be covered by CALEA (assuming they were otherwise "telecommunications carriers" under CALEA). Examples of these entities include schools, libraries, hotels, coffee shops, etc. See e.g., American Association of Community Colleges et al. Comments at 15-20 (discussing the deterrent effect and cost of potential CALEA obligations)" (Pg 29 Footnote #133 of the NPRM) BTW: We are referred to as the American Assoc... because they were the first in the list of our 13 coalition partners.

What this means for us: EDUCAUSE will be filing additional comments with the legal assistance of Al Gidari. They will reinforce our previous comments and build on the "do not appear to be covered..." statement in the above footnote. We need to remain active in the process to insure our ineligibility in the final ruling. The legal arguments facing the FCC could mean this moves over to Congress as we originally had hoped for... but that depends on how strongly the opposition is willing to fight; many of the ISPs seem already resigned to compliance.

Policy and Law

Wendy's blog
Login or register to post comments
4414 reads

		Update on CALEA Created by Wendy Wigen (EDUCAUSE) on August 26, 2004 I attended a meeting yesterday to review the NPRM with other concerned organizations. The general feeling around the table was: The FCC has based their ruling on "weak" legal arguments that are challengeable. The FCC is extending CALEA compliance to the Internet but only so far as the rules of the original statute still apply, such as, in the original only "common carriers" (commercial telecom providers) were subject therefore only commercial broadband access providers would be subject to it under the new ruling The definition and use of the "substantial replacement" clause in the original CALEA Statute is at best difficult to understand and at worst so huge that it literally pulls in all broadband service providers including possibly the higher education community. It focuses not on the "voice" aspect as much as the fact that broadband now replaces dial-up Internet access. (I will get more on this as I attempt to understand it) On a positive note: The FCC read our comments and made note of them in the NPRM: "We note that establishments acquiring broadband Internet access to permit their patrons to access the Internet do not appear to be covered by CALEA (assuming they were otherwise "telecommunications carriers" under CALEA). Examples of these entities include schools, libraries, hotels, coffee shops, etc. See e.g., American Association of Community Colleges et al. Comments at 15-20 (discussing the deterrent effect and cost of potential CALEA obligations)" (Pg 29 Footnote #133 of the NPRM) BTW: We are referred to as the American Assoc... because they were the first in the list of our 13 coalition partners. What this means for us: EDUCAUSE will be filing additional comments with the legal assistance of Al Gidari. They will reinforce our previous comments and build on the "do not appear to be covered..." statement in the above footnote. We need to remain active in the process to insure our ineligibility in the final ruling. The legal arguments facing the FCC could mean this moves over to Congress as we originally had hoped for... but that depends on how strongly the opposition is willing to fight; many of the ISPs seem already resigned to compliance. Policy and Law Wendy's blog Login or register to post comments 4414 reads
		© Copyright 1999-2010 EDUCAUSE Need Help? \| Feedback \| Privacy Policy
	Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members.