is calling it the cripplenet going too far?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Dan Petermann <d...@wyoming.com> wrote:
> Marketing opportunity.
>
> “our internet pipes are built wide to accommodate the disabled"
>
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, my latest Linksys router has a yellow-painted wheelchair ramp.
>
> Did I really say that?
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 3/19/2015 1:51 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> This one is going to be fun too: Telecommunication Access for People with
> Disabilities
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/telecommunications-access-people-disabilities
>
> Your CEO gets to swear to {insert FCC Deity} on a yearly basis that you
> have done everything you can to make the Interwebs work for disabled people.
>
> " FCC rules cover basic and special telecommunications services, including
> regular telephone calls, call waiting, speed dialing, call forwarding,
> computer-provided directory assistance, call monitoring, caller
> identification, call tracing and repeat dialing, as well as voice mail and
> interactive voice response systems that provide callers with menus of
> choices. "
>
> "When conducting market research, product design, testing, pilot
> demonstrations and product trials, companies should include individuals
> with disabilities in target groups for such activities. "
>
> Is being an politician considered a disability?
>
> " The best way to provide the information that the Disability Rights
> Office needs to assist you, is to complete the Request for Dispute
> Assistance (RDA Form) <https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/RDAformEnglish>
> online. "
>
> Um... OK.
>
> Mark
>
> Queue someone complaining that I'm being insensitive to the
> handicapped.... If that's the way you take this, you rather missed the
> point.
>
>
>
> On 3/19/15 4:32 PM, That One Guy wrote:
>
> maybe if across the board providers started strict enforcement of those
> policies, letting customers know this is all part of this "open internet"
> they clamored for, the publics support would wane. Minor inconveniences for
> the ADHD public can move mountains. hehee, everybody should implement dual
> factor authentication using the postal service as one of the factors
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 <part15...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:20 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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 <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:31 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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 <af...@kwisp.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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 <ch...@wbmfg.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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 <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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 <ch...@wbmfg.com> 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 <m...@amplex.net>
>>> *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 <ch...@wbmfg.com>
>>> *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 <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
>>> *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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
> m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
>
>
>
>
--
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.
