IP: Don't you love regulatory law talk -- Definition of information access - does it fit ?)

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>Date:         Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:42:40 -0400
>Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the 
>Internet              <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>Sender: Telecom Regulation & the 
>Internet              <CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>From: Chris Savage <chris.savage@CRBLAW.COM>
>Subject:      Re: CALEA and (Re: Definition of information access - does 
>it fit
>               ?)
>To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chip Sharp [mailto:chsharp@CISCO.COM]
> >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:37 AM
> >To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> >Subject: CALEA and (Re: Definition of information access -
> >does it fit?)
> >
> >So if access to ISPs is "information access" this would imply
> >that ISPs are "Information Service Providers" and therefore CALEA does not
> >apply to them, even if they do happen to be providing a VoIP, no?
>
>Well, not quite.  IIRC, the FCC ruled in an 8/99 (?) CALEA order that the
>requirements of CALEA apply to carriers, which it defined as essentially
>entities meeting the common law test for being a carrier (see NARUC v. FCC
>from, I think, 1982 or so; also some FCC decisions under the "Norlight"
>name).  So the question is whether an ISP doing VoIP meets the common law
>definition of "carrier."
>
>Note in this regard that the '96 Act defined the term "telecommunications
>carrier" and related terms in such a way as to make clear that an entity can
>be doing a lot of things, only some of which are "carrier" things, and that
>carrier-like regulation only applies to the "carrier-like" things they are
>doing.  This is good, in that it makes clear that a non-regulated entity
>getting into the carrier business will not be thoroughly regulated by virtue
>of that choice; only the carrier activities will be regulated.  OTOH it
>opens the possibility that an ISP might be happily and totally non-regulated
>as to all of its activities *except* VoIP, if its VoIP activities otherwise
>meet the "carrier" criteria.
>
>Now, that said, it may well be that something in the actual order on this
>point will lend aid and comfort to one side or another of the VoIP debate.
>But the mere fact that dial-up connections to ISPs are now, apparently, this
>new thing called "information access" leaves that debate as murky as ever.
>
>Chris S.
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or
>privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the
>message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission
>and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
>***************************************************************************



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/