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
<mailto: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 <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:20 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto: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 <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.
--
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
