🚀 go-pugleaf

isnt the procative thing that the big isp s are doing these days is to sell
anti virus or firewall..bell and telus are pushing these services ot members
as much as they can. this sort of offering just seems to be the way ALL the
big isp s are going

so whats in it for them
2 or 3 dollars a month in hard revenue to pay for the firewall or antivirus
users with some sort of protection on the network

not sure if its worth it or not buth they are all going that direction for
some reason I would guess. dont get into a linux box or anyting like that
sort of setup. the big guys are not interested in ppl for that sort of setup
they want mom and day using the service. set them up once get it right and
hope they just keep paying and dont have to call back. there has to be
something to this strategy as opposed to smaller isps trying to get users to
download after midnight and before 8 am

I might not agree with what the big companies are doing but the business
plan is obviously putting some black into the bottom line at the end of the
year.

now a quick comment on the cap issue...from all Im seeing rogers backed off
or is in the process of backing off. the smaller isps have pushed the
bandwidth hogs back to bell or downloading in the way wya off peak hours

all that bell did with caps was push the high end bandwidth users away set
themselves up with a bandwidth monitoring system that is sitting there ready
to be turned back on at the flick of a switch....i think caps speed and
price should get real interesting between now and next may...all we can do
is wait and see

Kevin

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a35846b4a8b46bc989eaa@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <Xns944473C154314jbuserspc9org@130.179.16.24>, jem@users.pc9
> __org says...
> > >> Then something occurred to me. Wouldn't it help dramatically if ISPs
> > >> delegated static IP addresses for any kind of permanent connectivity?
> > >> This way, customers' addresses would stay constant and make them
> > >> easier to track down:
> > >
> > > Actually, if ISP's required users to install a router with NAT it
> > > would eliminate most of it. The hacks and worms could not infect new
> > > machines protected by NAT.
> >
> > This is part of the great irony of ISPs not knowing what's really
> > financially beneficial to them:
> >
> > Static IPs cost little extra to set up, but help the Internet more
easily
> > self-regulate and block malicious traffic without having to resort to
> > blocking the whole ISP. When large netblocks in the ISP are blacklisted
> > globally, the ISP loses * way more business * due to customers going
> > elsewhere.
>
> But your action is not PROACTIVE. If they forced non-business users to
> live with NAT it would be a proactive measure - meaning that they would
> block uninvited inbound activity at the modem.
>
> This could also have an added benefit of blocking inbound file sharing
> and servers that are not suppose to be running on residential networks
> anyway :)
>
> Static IP's are not something to mess with, they are a fixed resource
> that blacklisting is also reactive, not proactive.
>
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)