Re: "Default" Internet Service (was: Re: Points on your Internet

[Paul Vixie <paul () vix com>]

> I don't think it should be limited to cable and dsl providers.  I
> think this model is applicable across the board, and, I think it is a
> reasonable solution.  ...

thanks for your kind words, but this only scales.  for a home dsl/cable user
(or a home ppp user if there still are any), values of N are imaginable, like
USD$500.00 for example, where the cost of paying a fraction of it is close to
the cost of managing the operating systems of the connected computers, which
assumes that (a) there are many millions of possible customers for this, and
(b) the operating system environments are mostly identical or very simple,
like bimodal between apple mac/os x and microsoft windows xp.

to offer this "across the board" one would find that the cost of providing
operating system management to the average T1 user is far far far in excess
of what that user is willing to pay to avoid progressive fines.  but that's
actually not a problem, since there are comparatively few of these users and
they're probably paying enough to justify a real abuse desk for them.

re:

> > now, though, there's an opportunity to do a marketing U-turn on this.
> > cable and dsl providers in the USA can point to the national
> > cybersecurity plan and say that to comply with it they have to put
> > infected computers in cyberjail, with a fee of $N to get these machines
> > audited, and if found clean, put back on the net, noting that N doubles
> > every time this process is invoked, and that a deposit of $(0.5*N) is
> > required as prepayment for the next incident, refundable after one year
> > if there are no further incidents.  then offer to remotely manage their
> > host ("give me your root passwords, trust me!") for an annual fee of
> > $(0.75*N).  if the initial value of N were $500, you might be able to get
> > the people who need this service to pay for it.  it's worth a try? --
> > Paul Vixie