<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules? in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20602359</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:28:49 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:28:49 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602401</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : The "do not call" list will only work if enough people complain about a specific violator.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602401</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:07:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602634</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/823721"><b>PhoenixDown</b></A> : I don't believe they can do that. It appears a separate consent authorization form is needed.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602634</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:55:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602557</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1502125"><b>Millenniumle</b></A> : Not that they wouldn't do it, but forced consent is a bit of a contradiction in terms.  I don't think it would hold up if challenged.   ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602557</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:42:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602359</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/611909"><b>patcat88</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  PhoenixDown <A HREF="/useremail/u/823721"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The FCC recently strengthened their position on CPNI stating that customer information cannot be shared with third parties unless the customer specifically agrees. My take, and I am not a lawyer, is that sharing the info for marketing purposes with a company like nebuAD would be highly against the rules. And since this information is still shared despite the cookie opt out method, I think Charter would be in violation.<br> </div>Then all Charter has to do is put in the TOS, by getting Charter internet you are agreeing to data sharing, if you do not agree, do not order service.<br><br>Remember internet IS NOT regulated by the FCC. Nobody regulates it.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20602359</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:11:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20601918</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1479210"><b>SilverSurfer</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  PhoenixDown <A HREF="/useremail/u/823721"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>[...] sharing the info for marketing purposes with a company like nebuAD would be highly against the rules. And since this information is still shared despite the cookie opt out method, I think Charter would be in violation.<br> </div>That never stopped the DMA from ignoring the law before.  Case in point:  the national do not call list.  I still get sales calls despite having been registered on that site pretty much since the day it was launched.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20601918</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:57:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>FCC CPNI Rules?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20601780</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/823721"><b>PhoenixDown</b></A> : The FCC recently strengthened their position on CPNI stating that customer information cannot be shared with third parties unless the customer specifically agrees. My take, and I am not a lawyer, is that sharing the info for marketing purposes with a company like nebuAD would be highly against the rules. And since this information is still shared despite the cookie opt out method, I think Charter would be in violation.<br><small>--<br>You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. <br><br>-- Ron Paul<br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20601780</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:33:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
