North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Date: Sat Apr 30 22:11:26 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Ct7fpZVdGncZTODuuAxSwhDXZfo/J4zx5uVAtwUOQIRjIC4UO8ClfIag23C5jw1BHFv5miEPRIhgonqLbrvxOJUaJeGzlwRXoiXM+n5cVzgsjp+uEjOsHi7LIsJVBUkUDAIM3Lkne5Tx1vjAqRxnaSwy3JIUjzQkkxtDkPmixH8=
On 5/1/05, Robert M. Enger <enger@comcast.net> wrote:
> It's not a buck a meg.
>
> There should be a little money in their model to
> provide guidance and/or software to the consumer.
> Hopefully enough to fund an aggressive abuse department.
Both things that any provider who hands fat pipes to customers must do
There wont be any money at all in their model if they hand a raw,
unfiltered feed to customers .. and I seriously doubt if the customers
will want or need one (the vast majority I mean, the people who know
enough to switch on their PC / laptop and let their wifi network card
pick up a connection, or maybe know a little more like "the blue cable
goes from the back of my PC to that bright blue colored box the
verizon tech dropped off at my place")
There are some providers who think there is money in charging premium
rates to give unfiltered feeds to clued users (speakeasy for example,
though it resells dsl from providers who wouldnt give you the same
sort of feed or service if you bought directly from them). There are
others who see more money in providing filtered feeds to a mass market
that only wants to get on the internet, check their email and then
spend time streaming music / movies / gaming etc.
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
|
