WASHINGTON-The newly installed chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Association also is the head of a company with a product and a position on implementing the digital wiretap act that differs from that taken by TIA.
“The difference is pretty clear … TIA is looking at the broader view,” said William J. Cadogan, chairman and CEO of ADC Telecommunications. Cadogan formerly served as TIA’s vice chairman and has more than 20 years of experience in the telecommunications industry, according to a TIA press release.
ADC Telecom has designed a non-switch solution that, according to the company, would satisfy all of the capabilities of the industry’s interim standard and shortly implement portions of the controversial punch list.
The ADC solution for the industry interim standard could be released before the end of year, the company said, with upgrades to implement the punch list being phased in as the capabilities are approved by the Federal Communications Commission.
On Sept. 11, the FCC extended the compliance deadline for when carriers are required to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 from Oct. 25 of this year to June 30, 2000. Without the extension, carriers faced possible fines of $10,000 per day for noncompliance after Oct. 25.
The FCC currently is considering whether the industry-developed standard is deficient. Privacy advocates, most notably the Center for Democracy and Technology, say the standard goes beyond the scope of CALEA. Law enforcement, led by the Department of Justice and the FBI, has said it does not go far enough. Law enforcement has been fighting for nine punch-list items-additional capabilities-that industry says go beyond the scope of CALEA.
Along those lines, the FCC also announced it soon would initiate a proceeding to “consider modifications to the [industry interim] standard that may be necessary to comply with the requirements of [CALEA]. If this standard is ultimately modified and new CALEA capabilities or functions are added to the core standard, we will consider establishing a separate deadline for upgrading carrier equipment and facilities to provide those additional capabilities or functions in that proceeding.”
The extension, while good news for the telecommunications industry, may not be good news for ADC. TIA joined with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the Personal Communications Industry Association and the United States Telephone Association to ask for the extension.
Most manufacturers are not offering solutions and instead are waiting for the FCC to act on the technical standard before developing products. TIA has said it will take two years from the time a standard is approved to deploy a CALEA solution due to the research, development, testing and installation required on all switches nationwide. TIA has advanced this view before the FCC. “Looking at the view from TIA’s [perspective], a number of switch manufacturers are concerned about the fines,” Cadogen said.
ADC says it did not take an official position on the compliance deadline, but in a letter last month to the FCC, ADC urged “the [FCC] take care not to grant an extension in a way which would effectively encourage carriers to await expiration of the extension period to achieve compliance, as opposed to effecting deployment of solutions as soon as they become available,” said the letter signed by David F. Fisher, ADC vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary.
The FCC did not establish a trigger, which would have required carriers to implement a solution quickly instead of waiting out the extension. “What we had expressed to the FCC and did not see in the order was if it comes to pass that there is a solution, carriers should be required to deploy that solution … The order says compliance will be achieved on June 30, 2000. I am concluding from the order that the FCC has determined that deployment will continue, and to that extent ADC is satisfied,” Fisher said last week.
Apparently, ADC also has taken some flack for its desire to sell a solution before the rest of the industry is ready. “We have taken a bit of heat from everyone on the face of the globe … ADC did not advance a position on the extension … It is of no great concern to us since our solution is switch-dependent. We are going to continue to work toward deployment … We are a company trying to sell product,” Fisher said.
The solution ADC has developed involves an out-of-switch delivery function designed to be integrated with both an access function and collection function developed by other manufacturers. Access and collection function interfaces developed by ADC have been tested and proven reliable for call data, the company said. These access interfaces are capable of adding features in a phased development, the company added.
ADC officials presented their solution to key FCC staff in a meeting on June 26.
TIA’s president, Matthew J. Flanigan, says ADC’s position is not different from TIA’s because ADC’s solution requires an interface with switch equipment, and the switch equipment is not yet ready. “I don’t think anybody thinks differently about the extension … ADC believes they have designed equipment that can be installed quickly. They agree they must interface with the switch manufacturer. They are a company selling equipment, and they want to sell that equipment as soon as possible. The switch manufacturer still has to install the solutions in all of the switches … I don’t think there is a real difference. It is a little awkward. [There are] a lot of parties involved,” he said.
