Awesome - and Ken takes it full circle!
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 5:32 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > A dingo ate my baby. > > From: Chuck McCown > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [BULK] Re: Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" > > My apologies for the tasteless comment, I have a brother (technically nephew > but only 3 years younger) that is a quad. He jokes about being a gimp all > the time, I am perhaps less sensitive than I should be. > > But to kick up the tasteless Thursday a notch, we now have to transition to > dead baby jokes. > > From: Chuck McCown > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [BULK] Re: Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" > > Oh, duh, now I understand what crippleware is for... > > From: That One Guy > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:15 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Marketing opportunity. >> >> “our internet pipes are built wide to accommodate the disabled" >> >>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> 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) 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 <[email protected]> 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: [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 >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:31 PM >>>>>>>> To: [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 >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM >>>>>>>>> To: [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 >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM >>>>>>>>> To: [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 >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM >>>>>>>>> To: [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]> >>>>>>>>>> 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: [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 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: [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 >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: [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] 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] 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 >>>> >>>> [email protected] 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. > <dingo_net_neutrality.jpg>
