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

["Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan () verisign com>]

Sean, the capacity requirements aren't as straightforward as you
are interpreting them. 

If you are a CLEC and you cover a full five state
area in the Northeast, you probably are subject to a county aggregate
of a capacity requirement of 1500. You would then look at your
historicals, refer to the Federal Register for the actual maximum,
and adjust your capacity as required to meet your own historicals 
and averages -- that also should take into consideration other 
RBOCs/CLECs operating in the same five state region as the orders
will more than likely be broken out by access line % per carrier 
unless a single carrier dominates in a traditionally active area.

In New York City and Los Angeles, the two most active areas, there was
a mean average of .035 active electronic/oral intercepts per day.

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]

I have the Federal Register Notice if you want a copy. Let me know.


[1] Federal Register Volume 63, No. 48 - March 12, 1998 NOTICE 12231
[2] 30 APR 2004 Press Release, Admin office of US Courts 

-M







--
Martin Hannigan                         (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc.                          (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV                       Operations & Infrastructure
hannigan () verisign com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Sean Donelan
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:24 PM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin
> Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] 
>
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > There's a lot more to it than that -- there's also access without
> > involving telco personnel, and possibly the ability to do many more
> > wiretaps (have you looked at the capacity requirements lately), but
> > funding is certainly a large part of it.  From Section (e) of
> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html :
> >
> >     Any provider of wire or electronic communication service,
> >     landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities
> >     or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the
> >     applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such
> >     facilities or assistance.
>
> That is not part of CALEA.
>
> Carriers found to be covered by CALEA must provide certain 
> capabilities
> to law enforcement.  For telecommunication equipment, facilities or
> services deployed after January 1 1995 the carrier must pay 
> all reasonable
> costs to provide the capabilities.
>
> The capacity requirements are interesting.  In some cases, 
> the carrier is
> required to have more law enforcement tapping capacity than customer
> capacity.  The government sets the capacit requirements without any
> regard for the cost of maintaining the capacity.  If there 
> are multiple
> competitive carriers in the same area, all of the carriers 
> must have the
> same capacity. If you have a single customer in Los Angeles, you must
> provide the capacity for at least 1,360 simultaneous 
> interceptions.  How
> many SPAN ports do you have?
>
> As I mentioned, the wiretap acts and CALEA are really independent.