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) 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
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
