North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden

  • From: James Baldwin
  • Date: Wed Apr 27 17:12:43 2005 
On 27 Apr 2005, at 06:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
ISPs transport packets. That's what they do. That's what most consumers
pay them to do. I haven't actually seen a lot of consumers asking for
protected internet. I've seen lots of marketing hype pushing it, but,
very little actual consumer demand. Sure, the hype will probably generate
eventual demand, but, so far, it hasn't really.
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Our customers are retained based on our value added services, including protected internet initiatives, more than for the Internet service we provide. Internet service is becoming commoditized to the end user, with multiple choices at competitive pricing in many markets. Consumers within single provider markets might expect ISPs to only "transport" packets, however in multi vendor markets the ISPs are being chosen for offerings above and beyond network access.

This is becoming especially true for companies like AOL, which are attempting to move their value added services independently of their Internet access in anticipation of dropping profit margins on network access as well as an attempt to break into new single vendor markets. Moving packets is no longer enough for ISPs.

If customer retention is based on value added services then consumers are making market decisions based on more than network transit. I expect NSPs to transport packets. I expect ISPs to provide Internet services, including security services.

On 27 Apr 2005, at 06:43, Owen DeLong wrote:

I'm sorry, but, I simply do not share your belief that the educated should
be forced to subsidize the ignorant. This belief is at the heart of a
number of today's socialogical problems, and, I, for one, would rather not
expand its influence.
It is becoming more expensive for ISPs to cater to the educated than to restrict the ignorant. I appears you would prefer the ignorant bear the burden for the educated. Unfortunately, there are many more ignorant who are willing to purchase restricted internet than educated who require unfettered access, moreover the educated understand the value of unrestricted internet access. As it has a value above and beyond restricted access, in the sense of unrestricted traffic transport, it should be billed at a higher rate accordingly.

On 27 Apr 2005, at 16:33, Owen DeLong wrote:

However, eliminating end-node abuse at the transit just adds more cost
and is, in the long run, an ineffective solution at best, usually with
unintended side consequences.
For many problems, eliminating the issue at the transit level increases cost to the transit provider but reduces cost to the consumer. This cost reduction can be recouped through effective marketing and having the customer realize those cost savings. If you reduce customer rollover you can tolerate or encourage core infrastructure cost increases as your bottom line can remain the same or increase.

---
James Baldwin
hkp://pgp.mit.edu/[email protected]
"Syntatic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon."

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part