Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"
Only if the people owning the ROW know about it. Otherwise just show them the 2015 document... From: Jerry Head Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 1:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality" So all this is moot now right? On 3/19/2015 12:47 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: 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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"
Where do you get the must encrypt part? That was somewhat implied in the overturned Privacy rules, but those are gone. And even there the rules were not absolute on encryption - how you protected the records was up to you. Mark On 5/2/17 3:00 PM, Jerry Head wrote: So all this is moot now right? On 3/19/2015 12:47 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: 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 <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on "Net Neutrality"
So all this is moot now right? On 3/19/2015 12:47 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: 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 <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
No, their database is encrypted. It is only the *data* that is public. /shakes head - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown To: af@afmug.com 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: 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.
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
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
[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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
I would have to dig it out, it appears to me the whole thing was set aside for now for the smaller operators. We are now BIAS providers. Basic Internet Access Service. And the CDNs and Googles of the world are now all Edge Providers. And we are all part of the Public Switched Telephone Network (without the switching) so that was renamed PTN I think. Other things are totally off the table like internal content providers. We can prioritize internal services all we want. They are pretty specific about transparency requirements but it would be in everyone’s best interest to describe the exact nature of the offering on your web site. Comcast got a pretty big fine for not being forthcoming about some details of some offerings. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality 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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
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.
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 mailto:af...@kwisp.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021 tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021 -- 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.
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: 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.
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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
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?
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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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
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.
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 m...@amplex.net *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 ch...@wbmfg.com *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 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *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.
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
What makes you think the Powercode db is encrypted? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:11 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: 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 m...@amplex.net *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 ch...@wbmfg.com *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 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *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.
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
So what happens when ARIN requires customer names and addresses on their IP justification forms? I ask because they are actually requiring this - which blows my mind. On March 19, 2015 10:31:32 AM AKDT, Adam Moffett dmmoff...@gmail.com wrote: 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 mailto:af...@kwisp.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021 tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021 -- 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. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
Here is the actual law: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e3e960806c00e1d3c9d0349925c64af9node=sp47.3.64.urgn=div6 It doesn't specify encryption though it does have: (a) Safeguarding CPNI. Telecommunications carriers must take reasonable measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI. Telecommunications carriers must properly authenticate a customer prior to disclosing CPNI based on customer-initiated telephone contact, online account access, or an in-store visit. It could be argued that plain text over the Internet (Telnet, non-HTTPS) isn't reasonable. I believe the companies that were fined had the customer data on a publicly facing website with no or defective authentication. Mark On 3/19/15 2:15 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: It is stored information. So primarily database files. I don’t think email counts. They did say SSH qualifies. *From:* That One Guy mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021 tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021 -- 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
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 mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:af...@kwisp.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:15 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:11 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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
mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:54 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:43 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto: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 mailto:m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021
--
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.
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
Here are the new and additional rules: 53. Section 222: Protecting Consumer Privacy. Ensuring the privacy of customer information both directly protects consumers from harm and eliminates consumer concerns about using the Internet that could deter broadband deployment. Among other things, section 222 imposes a duty on every telecommunications carrier to take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality of its customers’ proprietary information. We take this mandate seriously. For example, the Commission recently took enforcement action under section 222 (and section 201(b)) against two telecommunications companies that stored customers’ personal information, including social security numbers, on unprotected, unencrypted Internet servers publicly accessible using a basic Internet search. This unacceptably exposed these consumers to the risk of identity theft and other harms. From: Mark Radabaugh Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:42 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality Here is the actual law: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e3e960806c00e1d3c9d0349925c64af9node=sp47.3.64.urgn=div6 It doesn't specify encryption though it does have: (a) Safeguarding CPNI. Telecommunications carriers must take reasonable measures to discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI. Telecommunications carriers must properly authenticate a customer prior to disclosing CPNI based on customer-initiated telephone contact, online account access, or an in-store visit. It could be argued that plain text over the Internet (Telnet, non-HTTPS) isn't reasonable. I believe the companies that were fined had the customer data on a publicly facing website with no or defective authentication. Mark On 3/19/15 2:15 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: 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
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
Needs to be foreshortened. BS provider is easier to say... From: CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:10 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality I've always wanted to be a BIAS provider. Sounds like working for the left or the right... - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality I would have to dig it out, it appears to me the whole thing was set aside for now for the smaller operators. We are now BIAS providers. Basic Internet Access Service. And the CDNs and Googles of the world are now all Edge Providers. And we are all part of the Public Switched Telephone Network (without the switching) so that was renamed PTN I think. Other things are totally off the table like internal content providers. We can prioritize internal services all we want. They are pretty specific about transparency requirements but it would be in everyone’s best interest to describe the exact nature of the offering on your web site. Comcast got a pretty big fine for not being forthcoming about some details of some offerings. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality 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?
Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
I've always wanted to be a BIAS provider. Sounds like working for the left or the right... - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality I would have to dig it out, it appears to me the whole thing was set aside for now for the smaller operators. We are now BIAS providers. Basic Internet Access Service. And the CDNs and Googles of the world are now all Edge Providers. And we are all part of the Public Switched Telephone Network (without the switching) so that was renamed PTN I think. Other things are totally off the table like internal content providers. We can prioritize internal services all we want. They are pretty specific about transparency requirements but it would be in everyone’s best interest to describe the exact nature of the offering on your web site. Comcast got a pretty big fine for not being forthcoming about some details of some offerings. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality 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?
[AFMUG] Consumer Blogs on Net Neutrality
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
