Any assertion that it is not complex or expensive to tap the network demonstrates ignorance of how ISPs' networks operate. Our network, like those of many wired and wireless ISPs, is decentralized. The traffic of the users on each wireless access point takes a different route to the Internet, and may not pass through any central location. Thus, tapping a particular user would require going close to the edges and tapping into the individual routers. And since we built these routers ourselves (their architecture is one of the things that gives us a competitive edge), the FBI would likely not know how to use them to monitor a user even if we gave them the keys to our network. To abandon those routers would be to incur huge costs, lose our advantage over the competition (should it be illegal to make a better mousetrap?), and compromise our network's security (which is the best in the industry; every user gets an individual, encrypted connection). Also, as with many ISPs, the overwhelming majority of our users' traffic passes through routers which perform network address translation, or NAT. Hundreds of users' traffic appears to come from a single IP address, making filtering difficult. What's more, like other providers such as AOL, we also use caching Web proxies, which likewise aggregate users' traffic. This is great for users' privacy; it's difficult to distinguish one user's browsing from another's. This is by design; it protects our users from snooping. Unsurprisingly, the same features which protect users' privacy -- one of the selling points of our small ISP -- will make it difficult for the FBI to trace users' activities. If we're forced to abandon them to allow snooping, we'll lose one of our greatest edges over the big guys -- in particular, the cable/telco duopoly. Then there's the issue of bandwidth. Suppose we do capture specific users' traffic. Who pays for the extra Internet bandwidth that's required to transport it to the snoops? The notion that making the network tappable would cost a penny per user is ludicrous. We estimate that the cost per user would only drop below a dollar per user per month if the network were huge -- i.e. the size of a cable or telephone company network if all competitors such as ourselves were eliminated. Which, again, is what the CALEA regulations seem to be aimed at: eliminating innovative competitors such as our company.