So what happens when ARIN requires customer names and addresses on their IP justification forms? I ask because they are actually requiring this - which blows my mind.
On March 19, 2015 10:31:32 AM AKDT, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >doesn't have to be their *real* name. You can use an ID number. >...though I have seen TONS of them where the ISP put the actual >subscriber's name as the site name. > >On 3/19/2015 2:27 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: >> Is there name there? >> *From:* Ken Hohhof <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" >> Yet we put their lat/lon, street address and site name in a public >> database if we use 3650 MHz. Who makes us do that again? >> *From:* Chuck McCown <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" >> It is stored information. So primarily database files. I don’t >think >> email counts. They did say SSH qualifies. >> *From:* That One Guy <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" >> If we use powercode, that database in encrypted as far as I know. >What >> bout email communication with a customer? >> Is WISPA going to put out some clarification for us as far as what >> exact requirements would be on our shoulders? >> And this exemption, for tiny bastards like the company I work for, >> will that carry over? I like exemptions to shit. >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *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 <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *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 <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *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 >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 419.837.5015 x 1021 ><tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
