I was worried that they were all in one wheelchair for a moment.
On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','part15...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> Careful, I have a relative (and friends) in a wheelchair(s).
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 3/19/2015 2:19 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Oh, duh, now I understand what crippleware is for...
>
> *From:* That One Guy
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:15 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [BULK] Re: Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"
>
> 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
>>> *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
>>> *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
>>> *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
>>> *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
>>> *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
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>
>
>
