WASHINGTON-The Department of Justice has signed a letter of intent with a telecommunications
manufacturer to buy software and give it to carriers to implement the digital wiretap act, Attorney General Janet Reno
told a congressional panel last Thursday.
“We have signed a letter of intent and are close to an initial deal with
a major manufacturer on a proposal that could provide [the Justice Department] a ‘right to use’ license for CALEA-
compliant solutions on all of the manufacturers’ platforms. [DOJ] would provide that software to carriers at no
charge,” Reno said. CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The
agreement is expected to be completed in 60 days.
The software would be deployed in “law enforcement
priority areas” first, Reno said. Deployment in other areas would be according to the “normal business
cycle,” she added. Priority areas are generally considered to be Los Angeles, New York and Miami, but Stephen
Colgate, assistant attorney general for administration, only mentioned Los Angeles when he spoke to reporters after the
House appropriations subcommittee hearing.
Colgate said the modular approach would offer flexibility to small and
large carriers alike, allowing them to upgrade switches in stages as part of year-2000 or routine switch maintenance. In
addition, Colgate said the software-licensing CALEA solution would minimize the cost of implementation.
He said
the deal “really jelled within the last 120 days.”
News of the agreement began percolating early last
week when Reno appeared before a Senate appropriations subcommittee.
Although DOJ officials would not name
the manufacturer involved in the deal, many insiders believe it to be Nortel Networks. Nortel was unable to confirm the
speculation. Nortel previously told DOJ it could implement a CALEA-compliant solution.
The issue of a CALEA-
compliant solution could be tricky since compliance has not been determined officially. The telecommunications
industry developed a standard in 1996, which was rejected by law enforcement as too weak. To be acceptable, DOJ
said the CALEA standard must include a nine-item punch list. Law enforcement says these technical capabilities are
necessary to implement CALEA, but the telecommunications industry and privacy advocates claim the features go
beyond the scope of the law.
Reno told Congress she expects the FCC to release a final order on the technical
standard-or what it would mean to be CALEA-compliant-sometime in May. The FCC would not give a specific date. A
spokeswoman said, “I think we will be issuing something on CALEA sometime late spring.”
The 60-
day time frame for a final deal with the manufacturer would give DOJ time to negotiate with other manufacturers. The
telecommunications industry hopes these negotiations will occur. “The door is wide open for other manufacturers
to go in and negotiate a similar deal with DOJ,” said Grant E. Seiffert, director of government relations for the
Telecommunications Industry Association. TIA represents manufacturers but has not been involved in the negotiations,
Seiffert said.
If other manufacturers are not included in this-or similar-deals, it could create a de facto monopoly in
the manufacturing sector since all carriers would have to buy equipment to support the CALEA-compliant software.
Carriers would not be reimbursed for this hardware outlay. “We don’t want to deal with Reno to pick winners and
losers in the marketplace,” said David Murray, director of legislative affairs for the Personal Communications
Industry Association.
Notwithstanding this and other concerns, PCIA said it is “pleased that [Reno] now
agrees with industry that relying on the ‘normal business cycle’ for installation of CALEA-compliant technologies can
significantly reduce the cost of CALEA implementation for taxpayers, industry and our customers,” said PCIA
President Jay Kitchen.
Another problem for PCIA is the deal apparently does not plan to compensate carriers that
deployed or significantly upgraded their equipment after Jan. 1. 1995. The law requires government to reimburse
telecommunications carriers for CALEA-related upgrades to equipment in place before Jan. 1, 1995. The FBI has said
if carriers have “significantly upgraded” their equipment since Jan. 1, 1995, the government is not required
to reimburse carriers for those upgrades. Equipment that has not been significantly upgraded and that the government
chooses not to pay to be upgraded would be considered in compliance.
Reno told Congress she would look at
redefining “significant upgrade” in such a way that effectively would move the grandfather date to June 30,
2000-the current date for CALEA compliance. For example, she said DOJ would not consider upgrades to
telecommunications equipment due to the millennium bug to be considered significant. She did not say whether she
would reconsider the definition of “deploy”. This lack of detail concerns the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association. “This is another place where we have to look at the details,” said Chris Putala, CTIA
vice president for congressional affairs.
The wireless industry is expected to continue to work with Congress to
change the grandfather date. “There is nothing specific that says we should abandon any option to solve the
grandfather date problem,” Putala said.
In a letter to Reno late last week, CTIA President Thomas Wheeler
called the platform license approach “a significant step forward,” but added, “It is not sufficient to
resolve all the issues raised by compliance with CALEA.”
