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. > > >