[VoiceOps] CALEA for the small fry operator

[Joshua Goldbard]

Nathan,

You have the same setup that most everybody that runs FreeSWITCH or Asterisk does. Virtually none of the operators of your size become victims of a lack of CALEA enforcement but if you're really worried about it, call your lawyer.

Operators who aren't CLECs and who aren't running significant (5m+ mins a month) traffic will likely never (or rarely) run across law enforcement requests. I would be very interested if someone can find an example of a small operator who fell victim to persecution for not setting up surveillance tech. I believe the letter of the law is ambiguous at best.

But if you're reallllllly stressing, call your lawyer.

Cheers,
Joshua

Joshua Goldbard
VP of Marketing, 2600hz

116 Natoma Street, Floor 2
San Francisco, CA, 94104
415.886.7923 | j at 2600hz.com<mailto:j at 2600hz.com>

[cid:A04A0B25-B1C5-459F-BDCE-0E90D89EA979 at 2600hz.com]

On Jan 18, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Nathan Anderson <nathana at fsr.com<mailto:nathana at fsr.com>>
 wrote:

For the purposes of USF and the 499 A/Q filing process, the FCC does not restrict "interconnected VoIP" carriers to those who have actual interconnection agreements with LECs and the facilities necessary to carry out those interconnections.  Otherwise, again, we could get away with never filing a 499A or Q again or paying into USF (right now we are still "de minimis" but I expect that will probably change within the next year or two).

We get our DIDs from a partner CLEC local to the area and they trunk calls to those numbers to us via IP/SIP over the public internet.  We currently terminate outbound calls via Flowroute.  For E911, we use 911ETC, which resells iNetwork's platform (f.k.a. "dash carrier services").

--
Nathan Anderson
First Step Internet, LLC
nathana at fsr.com<mailto:nathana at fsr.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:24 PM
To: voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] CALEA for the small fry operator

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Nathan Anderson <nathana at fsr.com> wrote:


Furthermore, I don't think the section you quoted makes mention of LECs.  It says "Facilities-Based BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS Providers".  So they aren't necessarily even talking about LECs here (although some LECs -- ones that have an ISP arm or division -- would be a subset of that group).  I don't think "facilities-based" is a term with a specific legal definition that means "telecom company with their own switch".  They are referencing "facilities-based" (that is, non-resellers/"white-labelers") ISPs (such as us), and "interconnected" VoIP providers (VoIP services that "interconnect" with the PSTN and use NANP TNs, such as Vonage, and now us).



The "interconnected" part could bear some refinement.  We no longer directly connect to any carriers using traditional telephony methods.  We only connect to other carriers via SIP.  Technically, we aren't "interconnected" as we ourselves don't facilitate connectivity between IP and the PSTN.  We facilitate connection between IP and IP.  That may or may not be too fine a point.

How do you connect to the PSTN?

--

Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003

_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130118/ca7e4f76/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 98320 bytes
Desc: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130118/ca7e4f76/attachment-0001.tiff>