In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 02:49:02PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Tier 1 T640 core network with 10GE handoff Regional Cisco GSR network with 1GE handoff Local 1006 to Arris CMTS Subscriber Motorola Cable Modem to NetGear SOHO Gateway User Patron with Airport Express sharing a wired connection to WiFi ... If you were going to write it into law/regulation, where would you require it?
Seems to me that from a legislator's perspective, there is a pretty bright (as in "moth attracted to flame") line between "subscriber" and "provider".
The counterpoint I would offer is their are the most lobbiests and lawyers on the "provider" side of that equation, and indeed in the entire stack best I can tell.
And the incentive for CPE manufacturers to invest in the small software cost is?
The "provders" are large buyers of much of the CPE, and in some cases get to approve what CPE gets attached to their network. They can push this on the CPE manufacturers, and should. I suspect if legislators tried to push the issue their lobbiests and lawyers would attempt to stall and deflect, and that would be the direction. Many places already have laws that running an unsecured WiFi network is the subscriber's problem, not the providers. There's already operational and legal precident that the person running that end router should be responsible. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/