[71653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: S.2281 Hearing (was: Justice Dept: Wiretaps...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sun Jun 20 00:34:01 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0406192315120.1141@clifden.donelan.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:30:52 -0400
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 12:06 AM -0400 6/20/04, Sean Donelan wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, John Curran wrote:
>> S.2281 takes the middle of the road position in areas such as lawful
>> intercept, universal service fund, and E911. At a high-level, those
>> VoIP services which offer PSTN interconnection (and thereby look like
>> traditional phone service in terms of capabilities) under S.2281 pick up
>> the same regulatory requirements.
>
>It sounds good, if you assume there will always be a PSTN. But its
>like defining the Internet in terms of connecting to the ARPANET.
Correct. It's a workable interim measure to continue today's practice
while the edge network is transitioning to VoIP. It does not address
the more colorful long-term situation that law enforcement will be in
shortly with abundant, ad-hoc, encrypted p2p communications.
>What about Nextel's phone-to-phone talk feature which doesn't touch
>the PSTN? What about carriers who offer "Free" on-net calling, which
>doesn't connect to the PSTN and off-net calling to customers on the
>PSTN or other carriers.
>
>Will the bad guys follow the law, and only conduct their criminal
>activities over services connected to the PSTN?
Sean - what alternative position do you propose?
/John
