IP: Don't you love regulatory law talk -- Definition of information access - does it fit ?)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:42:40 -0400
> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the 
> Internet              <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> Sender: Telecom Regulation & the 
> Internet              <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> From: Chris Savage <chris.savage () CRBLAW COM>
> Subject:      Re: CALEA and (Re: Definition of information access - does 
> it fit
>               ?)
> To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Sharp [mailto:chsharp () CISCO COM]
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:37 AM
> > To: CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM
> > Subject: CALEA and (Re: Definition of information access -
> > does it fit?)
> >
> > So if access to ISPs is "information access" this would imply
> > that ISPs are "Information Service Providers" and therefore CALEA does not
> > apply to them, even if they do happen to be providing a VoIP, no?
>
> Well, not quite.  IIRC, the FCC ruled in an 8/99 (?) CALEA order that the
> requirements of CALEA apply to carriers, which it defined as essentially
> entities meeting the common law test for being a carrier (see NARUC v. FCC
> from, I think, 1982 or so; also some FCC decisions under the "Norlight"
> name).  So the question is whether an ISP doing VoIP meets the common law
> definition of "carrier."
>
> Note in this regard that the '96 Act defined the term "telecommunications
> carrier" and related terms in such a way as to make clear that an entity can
> be doing a lot of things, only some of which are "carrier" things, and that
> carrier-like regulation only applies to the "carrier-like" things they are
> doing.  This is good, in that it makes clear that a non-regulated entity
> getting into the carrier business will not be thoroughly regulated by virtue
> of that choice; only the carrier activities will be regulated.  OTOH it
> opens the possibility that an ISP might be happily and totally non-regulated
> as to all of its activities *except* VoIP, if its VoIP activities otherwise
> meet the "carrier" criteria.
>
> Now, that said, it may well be that something in the actual order on this
> point will lend aid and comfort to one side or another of the VoIP debate.
> But the mere fact that dial-up connections to ISPs are now, apparently, this
> new thing called "information access" leaves that debate as murky as ever.
>
> Chris S.
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
> privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the
> message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission
> and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
> ***************************************************************************



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/