No, their database is encrypted. It is only the *data* that is public.
/shakes head ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck McCown To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" 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.
