Subject: [NEXTEL-1] RM-10865- CALEA On Push-To-Talk Dispatch Service and Packet-Mode Technology

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:50:44 -0400

RM-10865 -CALEA On Push-To-Talk Dispatch Service and Packet-Mode
Technology

In the Matter of
United States Department of Justice, Federal ) RM-10865
Bureau of Investigation and Drug
Enforcement Administration

Joint Petition for Rule making to Resolve 1
Various Outstanding Issues Concerning the
Implementation of the Communications 1
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

<SNIP>

D. Push-To-Talk Dispatch Service

In addition to addressing the status of broadband access and broadband
telephony under CALEA, the Cornmission should also reaffirm, consistent
with its
finding in the CALEA Second Report and Order, that push-to-talk
"dispatch service is
subject to CALEA to the extent i t is offered in conjunction with
interconnected service.
Although the Commission has already held that this service is subject to
CALEA, a
growing number of wireless carriers are offering the service without
admitting that they
have triggered any related CALEA obligations Accordingly, Law
Enforcement asks the
Commission to reaffirm this obligation to ensure compliance.

E. The Commission Should Adopt Rules That Provide for Easy and Rapid
Identification of Future CALEA-Covered Services and Entities

As discussed above, there has been substantial confusion over whether
certain
types of services provided using packet mode technology are in fact
subject to CALEA
Accordingly, Law Enforcement asks the Commission to establish rules that
provide for
the easy and rapid identification of future CALEA-covered services and
entities. This
w i l l not only eliminate much of the confusion that has previously
plagued the CALEA
implementation and compliance processes, but also serve to facilitate
these processes in
the future Such rules, a t a minimum, should provide that (1) a service
that directly
competes against a service already deemed to be covered by CALEA is
preemptively
covered by CALEA pursuant to Section 102(8)(A) of CALEA; (2) if an
entity is engaged
in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission
service to the
public for a fee, the entity is also preemptively covered by CALEA
pursuant to Section
102(8)(A) of CALEA, and (3) a service currently provided using any
packet mode
technology and covered by CALEA that subsequently is provided using a
different
technology will preemptively continue to be covered by CALEA

In addition, the Commission should require any carrier that believes
that any of
its current or planned equipment, facilities, or services are not
subject to CALEA to
immediately filed a petition for clarification with the Commission to
determine its
CALEA obligations. The Commission should establish an expedited
procedure for
addressing such petitions for clarification of CALEA obligation and
coverage issues.
Such a procedure would benefit industry, by avoiding the kind of
regulatory confusion
that delays business plans, and benefit law enforcement, by ensuring
that service
offerings are CALEA-compliant on or before the date they are introduced
to the
marketplace

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516082661

===============================================================

Balance of 87 page DOJ/FBI/DEA petetrion:

 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516082660

 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516082663

 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516082662

===========================================================================

Translation:

D. New CMRS Entries (Sprint, Alltel, VZ) to the PTT arena must be CALEA
compliant.......

E. VoIP, BPL etc., must be CALEA compliant.......

What is interesting here is there is only a few days left for Cariers to
file comments. The commission is asking all interested parties to file
comments by April 12 and reply comments by April 27. As of today 4/7/04
Vonage is the only carrier that  has filed comments on this issue.