[asterisk-biz] Experimental/new VoIP rate search engine.

[Alex Balashov]

Thanks for clarifying this.

So, I guess the real answer is, weigh the statistical loss expectancy of 
the (Probability of getting a CALEA claim) x (fine exposure for 
noncompliance) and pick the lesser of that and paying for 20x the 
bandwidth and 500x the equipment to actually be properly equipped to 
bother handling media.  :-)

Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:05 -0500, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> That's true.  But I do think these CALEA requests can be serviced by the 
>> upstream carriers even with LCR more often than not.
>>
> 
> yeah except that it can be much more difficult.  For example acct123
> needs to have taps placed on it.  However upstreams do not know which
> calls are from acct123, especially if arbitrary CLID is allowed.  
> 
> Now you can stuff a sip header but afaik there is no standard header to
> signal that it should be recorded.  This problem is solved for mobile
> phone providers who have roaming agreements, were it not there would
> have been some stink about this at some point in the past, and I have
> not seen that happen at all.  As a result there has to be a way to
> signal the other party who is in a position to see the media to actually
> tap it.  But its more than just tapping the line, because you generally
> should restrict access to who can see/set those taps, and if there are
> recordings at a bunch of different providers you have to then collect
> them and bundle signalling information in along with it when its handed
> over.  The police will need to know what time it was made, where it
> went, and all of that, granted this information should also be available
> to the carrier it was routed through, but that is not always the case.
> 
> for example internet to internet calls also have to be tapable if they
> are through an "interconnected voip provider".  So if custA calls custB
> and A is to be recorded you have to deal with the media even if it never
> hits the pstn.  So you cant rely on the other providers to be your sole
> source of recording facilities. 
> 
> The fine is/was $10,000 per day per switch that is not capable, it will
> not have gone down that is just not how the government works, but it may
> have gone up.  The cost of getting hit just one time for that can be
> substantial.
> 
> 
>> Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the carriers you 
>> normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for you be considered 
>> "tipping off" the customer being recorded?
>>
> 
> so far I have not seen a single case on this, so the answer would have
> to be a resounding "who knows".  Its a gamble if you change parameters
> when the taps are on from what they are when they arent.  At some point
> someone will detect the tap, or publish something on how to detect it,
> and the government will start to take an interest in this and if they
> blow a big case that was supposed to lead towards a promotion for some
> of the agents guess who they will take it out on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If so, it seems CALEA sets an impossibly high standard from a 
>> philosophical perspective.  What if you just changed your business rules 
>> and dropped your other carriers?
>>
> 
> it is a 1984 or so law, and was written for traditional telephone
> companies and only recently applied to the "interconnected VoIP
> providers".  Because the application was made without a statute change
> allowing it (the FCC using its legislative powers in violation of the
> separation of powers doctrine in the constitution) the statute is still
> written as if everything operates the way telephones worked in the
> 1980s.
> 
> As a result newer technologies that do things different can be tricky to
> deal with.
> 
> The biggest reason that this, the 911 stuff and the USF stuff happened
> is that the FCC realized that it was losing power, so it sought to
> expand its power by roping in as many VoIP providers as possible.  CALEA
> was the last of the changes if I recall correctly, and I expect more in
> the future basically trying to gain as much control over the internet as
> possible.  The FCC (and federal government in general) does not like the
> fact that they cant just control everything and have even proposed some
> legislation not that long ago that totally violated the 10th amendment
> saying that the states had almost no rights to regulate many things on
> the internet, television, and other things, fortunately that did not
> pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
> 
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz


-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775