I was at a seminar yesterday about this. FCC is proud of some huge fines the put on one large company for not encrypting customer info. It was negotiated down to a paltry $10m...
From: Mark Radabaugh Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" We get stuck with all of the CPNI requirements. No more helping out the kid with his router - the account owner MUST be found! And verify everything with the super secret password. Ok - so I exaggerate, but this is going to make things more difficult. I'm not sure what exactly the point of 'encrypt all customer data' is given that the front end is still going to be a web interface that happily decrypts every bit of data and displays it in plain text. Never let logic get in the way of a bureaucrat implementing a politicians talking points. Mark On 3/19/15 1:50 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I thought the exemption was only for the enhanced transparency requirements, not any of the rest of it. From: Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" I have read the whole thing FCC rule. We all get ROW access, we can only do traffic shaping if we are doing it for technical reasons and not discriminating (we can discriminate, but it has to be all streaming or all browsing or all of one certain type of traffic). And we must, must, must encrypt all customer info. Not just keep it on an internal network, but any spreadsheet you have with customer identifying information must be encrypted. I am not seeing a big impact for WISPS. And you are all exempt until December 15th too if you have less than 100,000 subscribers. From: Jason McKemie Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" Engadget just posted this commentary: http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/19/verizon-net-neutrality/ Not one sided at all, eh? -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
