On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Oh, please.
If you think that the Internet should remain an "every man for himself", wild wild west, Ok Corral, situation (not my words, mind you), then you better get with the powers that will steam-roll all of us if we let it -- money and marketing.
This ain't no science project anymore.
Bruce is right -- right as rain -- I don't give two damns whether you think it is an issue of marketing, or protecive self-advertising. The issue is that the _consumers_ want it, that's what they'll pay for, and it is the ISP's perogative to either honor that wish, or lose the business.
We owe to our customers, and we owe it to ourselves, so let's just stop finding excise to side-step the issue.
Sound about right?
No. Not at all. I agree that if customers are willing to pay for managed security services that ISP's should provide them. However, an ISP that does not provide them is not lazy and irresponsible, as characterized in the article. As for security, intelligent ISPs will be monitoring their network and will have sensors in place to alert them to abnormal traffic (NetFlow, Snort, SNMP Traps, Log watchers) patterns and take action, but that does NOT extend to enforcing a security policy on the public without their consent. If the public agrees to it, and requests it, that is one thing. Universally filtering packets because it makes our lives easier is another. No one said this business would be easy. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST