Re: [AFMUG] [BULK] Re: Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"

Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:27:56 -0700

Yep - that's the one. The FCC likes to fine companies for not getting the required statement right. Oh, you didn't fill out the form right - that will be $20,000 please.
The FCC came up with the rules after the 'pretexting' scandals and used a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. 


In any case it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.   
The rules do not prohibit using CPNI data internally for marketing, tech 
support, etc. but I see issues trying to authentice callers for things 
like email passwords, router passwords, wifi passwords.



"Sorry ma'am, we can't reset your password because you can't remember 
your PIN number."


Mark

On 3/19/15 4:07 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Doesn’t CPNI require that we have a written CPNI policy that we file 
annually under threat of a huge fine?  I seem to remember Steve Coran 
warns us each year when the due date approaches and about the whopping 
fine for non compliance.
I’m guessing this has to cover things like what our employees do if 
someone calls for tech support or wanting to make a change to their 
service, or if their computer guy calls for their PPPoE password or to 
find out what speed plan they are on?  And not only verifying the 
person calling is who they say they are, but also that they are 
authorized on the account?  This could be fun.

*From:* Bill Prince <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:20 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [BULK] Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"

And entering the data for each subscriber is mostly redundant 
information anyway.  The lat/lon and sector specifications are entered 
in the data for the base station.  That gives you the complete polygon 
for all possible subscribers in the first place.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/19/2015 11:34 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Good point.  Worth pointing out to the FCC in my opinion.  They are 
breaking their own rules.

*From:* Adam Moffett <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:31 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"
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.







--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

[email protected]  419.837.5015 x 1021




























					Reply via email to