Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

Thu Apr 28 14:47:50 UTC 2005

On 27 Apr 2005, at 17:51, Pakojo Samm wrote:

> Give me a *clear* unobstructed line (that stays up) at
> the cheapest price please.

Your attitude is very much the norm, however your requirements on 
connectivity are more stringent. All customers want unobstructed access 
and, we as an ISP, want to provide it. Obstructions to service, 
regardless of fault or utility, generate call volume. The vast majority 
of subscribers, measured in millions, are not obstructed by filtered 
internet services. Subscribers do not understand the benefits of 
complete end-to-end connectivity nor do they perceive filtered 
connections as less valuable than other services.

For those subscribers who do notice these obstruction, we offer more 
robust connections at a different price point. The reasoning is simple: 
in order to provide the best connectivity possible, measured by least 
obstructions perceived by the user at the lowest price point, at the 
highest margin possible we need to relocate the operating cost to the 
appropriate party. Providing all users with unfiltered transit 
increases our operating expense without providing the customer with any 
added benefit. Providing a subset of users with unfiltered transit when 
necessary pushes that expense onto the users requesting additional 
service.

As you said, customer desire the cheapest stable connection they can 
locate. Value added services aid in retention when cheaper rates are 
offered by competitors and we are not willing to match that price 
point. Subscribers are willing to pay more for connectivity instead of 
incurring the cost of replacing their email address, their ISP 
associated software, etc.

On 28 Apr 2005, at 00:55, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Who are you to decide that there is no damage to blocking residential
> customers?

The customer makes the decision when they subscribe to a service 
whether or not filtered service will meet their needs. Who are you to 
decide that unfiltered service is required to meet the needs of all 
customers?

> Why should an ISP decide what a residential
> customer can or can't do with their internet connection.

The service provider should be able to decide what services they wish 
to offer. If a provider of any service chooses to differentiate 
services based on utility and the customer is made aware of these 
characteristics, how is this in anyway unfair? If your objection is 
that, in single provider markets, it may not be financially viable to 
obtain your desire service level i.e. the local cable provider does not 
offer unfiltered connectivity and there are no other residential high 
bandwidth options available then I suggest you encourage diversity in 
the market place.

You are not entitled to unfiltered internet connectivity. If you want 
to be entitled to unfiltered internet connectivity then petition your 
local government to make transit a privatized utility with all the 
government oversight and bureaucracy that entails.
---
James Baldwin
hkp://pgp.mit.edu/[email protected]
"Syntatic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050428/9407bd3a/attachment.sig>