When Policy and Technology Collide: What CALEA, Community Broadband Deployment, and Net Neutrality Mean for the Future of the Internet Garret Sern, EDUCAUSE Copyright [Garret Sern] This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

CALEA: The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

What is CALEA? CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. It was originally enacted in It requires providers of commercial voice services to engineer their networks in such a way as to assist law enforcement agencies in executing wiretap orders. Until August 5, 2005 that is…..

CALEA: New Report and Order On August 5, 2005, in response to a request by law enforcement, the FCC voted to extend CALEA to include facilities-based Internet service providers. Order and Further Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPRM) Released September 23, Facilities-based Internet service providers are defined as: "entities that provide transmission or switching over their own facilities between the end user and the Internet Service Provider."

Arguments for/against extending CALEA to ISPs Law Enforcement The Internet is increasingly the communication of choice for criminal activity Legal intercepts need to be easier and less expensive for LE An “exempt” system is a magnet for criminal activity Education and Libraries Congress should decide not the FCC or DoJ LE has sufficient access now Cost to comply can’t be justified Will slow innovation

Two Part Decision Part #1: Decided: CALEA does apply to ISPs and all facilities-based Internet service providers are covered. Full compliance is required in 18 months. (May 14, 2007) Part #2: Still to be decided: What will be required (standards of compliance) and will there be an “special cases” allowed (i.e. small rural providers or education and research networks).

Currently underway 1.Petition for Review with the Federal Court of Appeals 2.Comments to the FCC on “Part #2” of the CALEA ruling 3.Continued negotiations with the DoJ on a compromise position.

Current Proposal: Single point-of-contact Standard procedures established 24x7 assistance available Personnel trained in procedural, legal and technical demands of assisting legal intercepts. Some gateway equipment would be replaced, but only under the normal replacement cycle

CALEA Tech Group Doug Carlson (Chair), NYU Mark Luker: EDUCAUSE liaison Pete Siegel, UIUC Mike Corn, UIUC Clair Goldsmith, UT System Wayne Wedemeyer, UT Austin David Walker, UCOP Shaun Abshere, WiscNet Jim Dolgonas of CENIC Eric Boyd, Internet2

How might a request work? LawfulAuthorization Law Enforcement Telecommunication Service Provider Service Provider Administration (Turn on Lawful Intercept feature of switch) Delivery Function Collection Function Access Function Law Enforcement Administration (Switch collects Lawful Intercept data) (Securely deliver information to LEA) (Order generated)

CALEA FAQ Where can I find out more? Educause AskCALEA FCC Selected vendor information “Cisco Service Independent Intercept Architecture” (sign on required to access on Cisco web site) RFC 3924 –

CALEA Appeals Timeline December 12, 2005 – HEC files petition for review before 10 th Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. January 10, 2006 – ACE files opening brief February 27, 2006 – Government (FCC and DOJ) filed briefs March 2, Verizon, which intervened in support of the FCC, filed its brief March 13 (today)– ACE filed a reply brief March 20 - final briefs (with corrections and citations to the appendices) due Oral argument has not been scheduled, but is expected to be held in early to mid May.

Higher Education Summit CALEA and Patriot Act Update University of Chicago Gleacher Center (450 North Cityfront Plaza Drive) Sponsored by the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and Cisco Systems March 15, 2006 (tomorrow afternoon), 12:30pm – 5:00pm Registration is free!

Network Neutrality What is it? Why is it suddenly so important? What are the arguments? How could it affect HE?

What is it? Network neutrality is the concept of keeping the Internet open to all lawful content, information, applications, and equipment on a non-discriminatory basis.

Why is it so important now? Post “Brand X” World Phone and cable companies are committed to VoIP and Video over IP services Phone and cable “duopoly”? The technologies exist to block or disrupt competing services.

Who controls the Internet? Everyone wants more and better broadband “Entertainment” and private investment will drive deployment and better pricing. (85% of the Internet is privately owned) The Internet is vital for economic growth, education, healthcare and access to public services

Tensions Encourage investment $$$$ Assure innovation and economic growth Provide vital public services

What are the arguments? Anti-net neutrality Net neutrality is a “quaint” 19 th century ideal that does not fit today’s marketplace Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem We take the risks $$$;we should be able to control the network as we see fit. (SBC promohting a “tiered” approach.) Content providers have been getting a “free ride” Broadband providers have no economic incentive to block traffic (Wall Street Journal, 3/08/06)

Pro-net neutrality Openness “was, is, and will be” vital to the Internet’s development This is not a unique or new problem… Common Carriage Can Translate into Inter-Connection Government regulation of the Internet is not new

How could this affect HE? Business costs: As large consumers of bandwidth Educational costs: Student/faculty access to broadband for distance education, research, information transfer Innovation costs: if network providers can block or “throttle down” access

Net Neutrality Resources Internet2, Testimony before Senate Commerce Committee, February 7, 2006 Proposed Legislative Language EDUCAUSE Net Neutrality Talking Points All can be found on the EDUCAUSE Net Neutrality Resource Page:

Municipal Networks Issue: Should communities have THE RIGHT to enable their citizens affordable access to information and services provided over the Internet. Arguments Against: No need for government mandates – market is already taking care of this Unfair competition - no incentive for companies to build out if competing against taxpayer funded projects

Why Should the HEC Care? Higher Ed needs “extended campuses” to deliver continuing education to the home and distance ed Higher Ed can’t realize the national goal of universal high-speed access by itself Municipal and community networks are natural partners and allies

Current Status 13 States currently have barriers to community broadband services 5 “compromise bills” were signed into law last year EDUCAUSE and our partners are encouraging Congress to enact the “Community Broadband Act (S.1294) Industry opponents backing off, concentrating on national video franchising

Universal Service Fund The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas. --FCC Website l

Components of USF Low-Income High-Cost Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) Rural Health Care

Universal Service Reform Issue: What is the most effective means for updating this federal government program in order to facilitate affordable deployment of the next generation communications to all Americans? Challenges: Maintaining level of funding as more Americans move away from traditional land lines (POTS) Determining the most equitable means for collecting USF

Why Should HEC Care? Students living in rural and low-income areas need access to information and education applications FCC favored number-based approach for collecting USF funds could pose a financial burden on HEC

ACUTA Study In a survey of ACUTA members conducted in October 2005 with 51 institutions responding, ACUTA found that the average USF contribution in a “typical” month was just under $1,260. Based on a $1.00 per DID number charge under the numbers-based proposal, the average contribution would increase to over $15,000 per month, not including additional charges for high-capacity circuits.

Ideals for USF Reform Enact a “means-test” to determine who receives funding Require USF funding to be used for broadband facilities Broaden the base of USF funding to include VOIP, cable modems and intrastate revenues For HEC: Seek exemptions from numbers-based approach Base on number-blocked fees

Current Status ACUTA continuing discussions with goal of reaching compromise regulations via FCC Wireline Bureau Dorgan/Smith bill to require $500 million of current USF to be spent on broadband Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on USF collection and distribution mechanisms

What Does the HEC Offer? Vision of the Internet’s Potential Experience Using Tomorrow’s Applications Today Dealing with the Practical Technical Challenges Associated with Incorporating the New Technology (ex. Ensuring E911 Access with VOIP) We helped invent the Internet!

What Can YOU Do? Work with newly-formed Networking Policy Council Engage Your Government Relations Representatives and Institution Presidents! Educate them on WHY IT Policy Is Important for your institution and how it fits into the mission of higher education Ask for their expertise in how to lobby policymakers

Join Us For Policy 2006 April 26-27, 2006 Washington, D.C.