for clarity, "he names his WIFI SSID "GimpNet". short typing and typos don't go together.
Maybe I should actually stop and get breakfast. It is after 6PM after all. ----- Original Message ----- From: Glen Waldrop To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [BULK] Re: Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" One of my employees has muscular dystrophy, names is WIFI SSID "GimpNet". ----- Original Message ----- From: That One Guy To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:15 PM 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.
