@kurisu7885:

The problem as an ISP is that it costs a lot of money to call up a customer and help them get a virus squashed; install the right software etc. That costs a human, and humans are pricey. I dare say you would not be willing to pay for internet access from a company that does this.

Although admittedly there are some networks that now package anti-virus software with a subscription, this is markedly more passive than is workable.

Meanwhile, even if you do help customers install virus protection so you can run filter-free, you still have to disconnect infected customers so they don't infect others (maybe not on your network) until they can get it sorted...which potentially loses customers.

Spam filtration is useful, but it isn't a solution. I have yet to find a filtration device that, at my level of need (1.3 mbps average over the last year, to just my personal inbox alone), does not cause false positives. So you still have to go through the tagged spam to verify it really is spam, assuming your email is important to your business (and you can't just say "I must have missed it", like I can't say that to my customers).

Anyway, these issues are complicated, I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I'm speaking on what I believe to be the current epistemology among network operators. If you know better, I encourage you to subscribe to NANOG mailing lists, and tell network operators how it should be done. Remember to include a salient business model (you have to be able to still make money with competitors who maybe don't do what you suggest, and so don't have the same costs).


@GP:

So what, if anything, happened? I'm not interested enough to go see it, but I'm interested to read what people are saying.

I'm not going to like this meeting. As one group against neutrality has been already offering their "faster speeds for more $$$" options and are going to say that the issue is overblown that they'll provide less service for those that don't pay. It is silly though, as the internet isn't broken, so don't need to fix it. We also have the grid internet on the horizon that'll likely make the current internet obsolete.

just tell comcast that net neutrality will yield them 50 cents more profit each quarter

they WILL support it

ok, i am a little confused.What exactly is the "net neutrality" arguement about?being a gamer doesnt automatically make me computer-savvy

@arowe87: That's one argument of the Network Neutrality debate. Others include mis-management and/or unfair treatment of certain protocols: Chief-Example being BitTorrent.

It's about a lot of things.

I think a better question is, "what can it realistically achieve?"

Realistically, nothing is going to possibly be done over issues arowe87 represents; the right to manage traffic on networks is one the FCC will never realistically remove. It would be way too far reaching.

At best, it could reasonably bring into legislation some guarantee (and penalties for the industry) that networks will not censure their customers.

There's some good and some bad with this; requiring Comcasts on a legal basis not to interfere with customer's packets increases your rights as a consumer. However, it also means Comcast can't filter out worm, virus, spam (lots of spam these days comes from 'bot nets'), and other traffic, which they do.

@hcf

A lot of that is why anti virus and anti spyware exists, as well as spam filters.

Sorry to be a pedant, but that doesn't beg the question. It raises the question. Begging the question is when one of your arguments assumes that the point you are trying to prove is true.

That is an interesting question, though. I was under the impression the VGVN was run by the ECA. Curse you, similar acronyms!