[asterisk-biz] VoIP provider
Peter Kilcullen
peter at intele-com.com
Wed Mar 7 13:10:37 MST 2007
Try Intelecom Solutions
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of johnny_xing
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:48 AM
To: asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com
Subject: [asterisk-biz] VoIP provider
Hi, Anyone here are in Voip provider service? Or anyone can recommend some
GOOD VoIP service providers?
I have tried VoIPjet and yet it's no good including sales service.
Best Regards,
Johnny
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
> asterisk-biz-request at lists.digium.com
> Sent: 2007年3月7日 3:01
> To: asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com
> Subject: asterisk-biz Digest, Vol 32, Issue 39
>
> Send asterisk-biz mailing list submissions to
> asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> asterisk-biz-request at lists.digium.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> asterisk-biz-owner at lists.digium.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of asterisk-biz digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: CALEA (Matthew Rubenstein)
> 2. Re: CALEA (Trixter aka Bret McDanel)
> 3. Re: CALEA (David Thomas)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:41:27 -0500
> From: Matthew Rubenstein <email at mattruby.com>
> Subject: RE: [asterisk-biz] CALEA
> To: Alexander Lopez <Alex.Lopez at OpSys.com>
> Cc: Asterisk-Biz <asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com>
> Message-ID: <1173195688.30867.82.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> I'm not saying that I wouldn't cooperate. That's *my* government,
> mostly working on protecting me, and I won't be protecting actual
> criminal activity from actual justice. Which requires handing them data,
> because only the actual justice system can investigate and determine
> crime. But that doesn't mean that I want to be in the position for
> maximum legal abuse when that "inefficient" machine starts chewing me up
> to get its targets. Nor do I want a blind spot to where competition
> without that burden can operate. Especially when I'm connecting my
> infosystems to them and *their* government rules.
>
>
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:20 -0500, Alexander Lopez wrote:
> > What I think is the general thought here and should not be sidelined is
> > that if a Government wants information and you do not give it to them,
> > even thought you may be 150% in the right but they will and can make
> > your life almost impossible.
> >
> > It is better to have a plan even if YOU feel that you are exempt.
> > (Non-US company, Users are elsewhere, media does not touch me, Etc.) It
> > is much better to give them something even if it not 100% of what they
> > ask for but it does the job. You have helped them and a happy Fed is a
> > Fed that goes away......
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-biz-
> > > bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Rubenstein
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:38 AM
> > > To: Trixter aka Bret McDanel
> > > Cc: Asterisk-Biz
> > > Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] CALEA
> > >
> > > If your business is, say, a NY corporation, but your servers are
> > in,
> > > say, Canada, are these CALEA requirements enforceable? What if your
> > > business is an Ontario corp, or Yukon, or Iranian? Is there some combo
> > > of foreign corp/servers that CALEA can't reach?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 13:15 +0000, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/6/07, Matt <mhoppes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > CALEA support is generally more than just log files,
> > > > thge government likes those log files in specific
> > > > formats, they like the recordings done such that
> > they
> > > > can tell which leg of the call
> > > >
> > > > To that I'd say touch noogies.. here's a comma delimited
> > > > version with headers :)
> > > >
> > > > that may work, however in my experience if you upset the government
> > > > they will spend years doing everything they can to 'get even'.
> > Often
> > > > spanning more than a decade. They also work it so that even if they
> > > > lose in court they still win.
> > > >
> > > > If its not a problem to convert it and play nice, why not - and its
> > > > unlikely that anyone on this list will ever receive a title III
> > > > warrant anyway given how few are issued.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > noise occured on (for background analysis), often
> > they
> > > > have a stereo recording where left channel is A leg,
> > > > right channel is B leg, I have seen mp3 as well as
> > > > regular CD audio for that.
> > > >
> > > > I still don't see why the system can't do this out of the
> > box?
> > > >
> > > > I never said it couldnt, I was addressing a specific persons
> > comments
> > > > with mine.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CALEA support also means being able to record
> > without
> > > > alerting the user, since there is a
> > > >
> > > > Again.. by DEFAULT Asterisk doesn't alert the user when
> > > > recording begins.
> > > >
> > > > reinviting the media off to the real provider (if you do that)
> > except
> > > > when recording is happening is a grey area, and that is what I was
> > > > addressing. It causes a change that can be observed by the person
> > > > being recorded and the government can argue that is notification,
> > > > whether or not its a valid interpretation. I know that when the
> > > > government decides something its generally very difficult to change
> > > > their mind, and generally by the time you do they already got what
> > > > they wanted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > provision against notification. If you are a
> > > > "interconnected VoIP provider" as defined in the CFR
> > > > (ie 911, USF, etc apply to you) you have to be able
> > to
> > > > record all calls that go through you, not just the
> > > > pstn ones - this means pc->pc if its through you. I
> > > > want to clarify before
> > > >
> > > > Again.. Asterisk already acomplishes this.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I was addressing a specific persons comments, I never once
> > > > indicated whether or not asterisk was capable of anything in the
> > > > original post. Had you left those comments in it would have been
> > > > easier to reference, but you omitted them so it requires someone
> > going
> > > > to the archives to see that I really was only addressing the persons
> > > > comments who said 'here is a log file'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We have a call center and we record every single call that
> > > > comes through there.... granted the caller DOES know.. but
> > > > only because we tell them in a message.
> > > >
> > > > Many do, and with some of the mixing apps you can create a single
> > wav
> > > > with left/right channel representing the a/b legs of the calls. I
> > do
> > > > not know that a/b leg seperation is reqired but it is desirable, and
> > > > if you read transcripts of wiretaps (written by the agents typically
> > > > littered with opinions of the agents written as fact) you will see
> > > > that they do make notes of background voices that are audible
> > > > corelating it with which side of the call it came from.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On a side note..... am I expempt from CALEA if all I handle
> > > > are CDR records... and I issue re-invites for ALL traffic?
> > > > That is.. if someone from me makes an outbound call and I
> > > > terminate IP.. if I connect my terminator directly to my
> > > > client... does that absolve me? (I certainly don't intend to
> > > > do that.. but an interesting thought).
> > > >
> > > > that is a grey area which I tried to address earlier. Its unclear
> > > > what the governments position will be and any position statement you
> > > > get can change at will. Further, changing from reinviting
> > everything
> > > > to not for recorded calls is grey as to whether or not it qualifies
> > as
> > > > notification to the end user. The original laws were written in the
> > > > 80s (1984 iirc) and as a result they didnt take into account
> > anything
> > > > but traditional phone systems where you had to handle the media as
> > > > well as the signalling.
> > > >
> > > > The reason its grey on reinvites is that there is a provision in the
> > > > calea statutes that exempts entities where its not technically
> > > > feasable to record. If you dont have the capacity to handle
> > > > reinvites, or cant do it in a way that doesnt alert the customer you
> > > > might qualify. Then again the government can say you arent in
> > > > compliance and the fine is something like $10k/day/switch (which
> > they
> > > > would likely assess as per asterisk box). IIRC you dont have to be
> > > > served to be in violation and subject to the fine, although they
> > > > shouldnt be able to know until you are and cant comply.
> > > >
> > > > There is also a bit of time you have to enable a warrant, but that
> > is
> > > > measured in days not weeks. So if you are served, you dont want to
> > > > scramble to write a bunch of CALEA hooks in and all, you should have
> > a
> > > > plan ahead of time just in case.
> > > >
> > > > Also note, calea generally doesnt cover stuff that isnt covered by a
> > > > title III warrant (of which only about 3500 are issued annually
> > anyway
> > > > for 300M people and billions of minutes of calls). But the patriot
> > > > act changed it to allow for tapping a person not just a specific
> > line.
> > > > So 1 warrant can now cover multiple lines. title III warrants have
> > to
> > > > go for judicial review regularly, I believe every month, and
> > > > extensions have to be granted or it expires. Common grounds for
> > > > extensions are 'the suspect is aware of our tapping efforts', so
> > > > tipping your hand just gives cause to prolong your recording, which
> > if
> > > > you dont generally do that does have an impact on your capacity
> > since
> > > > it is extra cycles running on your system.
> > > >
> > > > Stuff calea doesnt cover, nor do title III warrants are things like
> > > > business records, which CDR data qualifies as. Business records
> > > > (according to the federal rules of criminal procedure as well as
> > civil
> > > > procedure) are generally anything the business uses in its day to
> > day
> > > > operations. Subpoenas are all that are required on that, unless the
> > > > company wants to voluntarially give them up, which it can do should
> > it
> > > > choose to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
> > > > Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
> > > > http://www.trxtel.com the VoIP provider that pays you!
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
> > > >
> > > > asterisk-biz mailing list
> > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
> > > --
> > >
> > > (C) Matthew Rubenstein
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
> > >
> > > asterisk-biz mailing list
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
> --
>
> (C) Matthew Rubenstein
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:59:23 +0000
> From: "Trixter aka Bret McDanel" <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com>
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] CALEA
> To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion"
> <asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com>
> Message-ID:
> <a4d011c50703060759t2734cc07ua43736a74a08e1f0 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 3/6/07, Brian Fertig <brian at molten.us> wrote:
> >
> > I have no control over that. Its something we have to have for HIPA
sorry
> > list..
>
>
>
> is post trimming also not allowed? :)
>
>
> --
> Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel
> Belfast +44 28 9099 6461 US +1 516 687 5200
> http://www.trxtel.com the VoIP provider that pays you!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20070306/d87674
> 36/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:59:57 -0700
> From: "David Thomas" <punknow at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] CALEA
> To: "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion"
> <asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com>
> Message-ID:
> <27cfba050703060859l508491dr737c1bceb7dd9a40 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> > On 3/6/07, Brian Fertig <brian at molten.us> wrote:
> > > I have no control over that. Its something we have to have for HIPA
sorry
> > > list..
> >
> >
> > is post trimming also not allowed? :)
>
> Why not use gmail or some other account for your list activity. The
> disclaimer is really quite annoying. I always like to read what you
> have to say, but it's a real pain to go through any thread you are
> involved in.
>
> Regards,
> David
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>
>
> End of asterisk-biz Digest, Vol 32, Issue 39
> ********************************************
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
More information about the asterisk-biz
mailing list