October 7, 1994: The bill later known as the "Communications Assistance for Legal Assistance" [CALEA] passes the Senate. Congress, responding to complaints from law enforcement, requires telecom companies to modify their infrastructure for wiretapping and "call identification"—and provides $500 million in subsidies. The legislation represents a compromise between innovation, privacy, and security.

March 10, 2004: "Joint Petition for Expedited Rulemaking" filed by the FBI, DEA, and Department of Justice. Concerned about Internet-enabled Voice over Internet Protocol services (VoIP), the agencies ask the FCC to extend CALEA-required wiretapping support to VoIP. The initiative urges the FCC to include Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as well, in short, to broaden CALEA to cover ISPs as "substantial replacements" to existing telephone services.

The petition raises a firestorm of objections from telephone, wireless, VoIP and ISPs, to say nothing of education, university, library and research groups. (See Technology Law Journal)

Groups complain that, if implemented, the proposal would reduce privacy, endanger innovation, reduce security, and require the public to pay heavily for the privilege. They further assert there is adequate support for authorized wiretapping under existing law.

September 23, 2004: The FCC authorizes a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM), broadening the definition of telecommunications provider to include broadband, thereby extending CALEA as requested by the law enforcement community. FCC establishes a period for public comment.

August 5, 2005: The FCC enacts a rule implementing its proposal. While the FCC positions the rule as a clarification of existing legislation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation charges that "the NPRM amounts to a change in the law, going beyond what Congress intended." A host of groups take the FCC's decision to Federal court.

May 8, 2006: Oral Arguments before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, three judge panel (Janice Rogers Brown, Harry Edwards, David Sentelle). Joined by the Department of Justice, FCC lawyers argue in support of the rule and are opposed by the American Council on Education (ACE) consortium, which includes the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EPIC, the Media Access Project, the ACLU, and COMPTEL (a telecommunications industry trade group).

June 9, 2006: The DC Circuit issues a 2-1 opinion denying the petition for review of the FCC rule, Judge Edwards dissenting.

The decision rejects arguments that ISPs and VOiPs represent "information services," by statute exempt from the law, rather than "telecommunications carriers." The majority agrees with the FCC claim that CALEA's language allows the agency to classify ISPs and VOiPs as telecommunications carriers if "the Commission finds that such service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service." The court also rebuffs arguments that the FCC's decision may illegally force college and universities to open up their broadband systems to law enforcement.

Judge Edwards dissents: "The FCC apparently believes that law enforcement will be better served if broadband Internet providers are subject to CALEA's assistance capability requirements. Although the agency may be correct, it is not Congressionally authorized to implement this view. In fact, the 'information services' exemption prohibits the FCC from subjecting broadband service providers to CALEA's assistance capability requirements. If the FCC wants the additional authority that Congress withheld, it must lobby for a new statute. Until Congress decides that the 'information services' exemption is ill-advised, the agency is bound to respect the legislature's will and we are bound to enforce it."

June 13, 2006: Scientist Vincent Cerf (one of the pioneers of the Internet) and other technologists release "Security Implications of Applying CALEA to VoIP," arguing that the FCC ruling will not only limit effectiveness to law enforcement, but also prevent real threats to innovation and network security when applied to VoIP.

July 28, 2006: The ACE consortium petitions for hearing "en banc" at the DC Circuit. Absent the colleges, whose claims were satisfied by an "exclusion of private networks" clause agreed to by the Commission, the consortium petitions for a hearing by the full panel of circuit court judges. Citing the "exceptional importance" of the ruling, petitioners argue that "By establishing that CALEA can be extended to Internet access and applications technology, and permitting the FBI to impose design requirements on Internet applications, the FCC (and the 2-1 panel) has taken a major step toward slowing down the innovation and growth that have been vital to the Internet's development."