Steve Jones - Editor (12/5/2007)
I wonder how unfair it is to refuse to buy a router or not protect your machine? Is it like driving without headlights? Is it refusing to tune your engine so it doesn't stall?It's tough to get your machines protected. The downloads from MS don't work, you need to get stuff before you put your machine line, but really I think ISPs are a little negligent if they don't give you a router up front and build the cost into the price they charge.
Really? I don't know how it is in the US, but here in the UK I can't think of any ISP that doesn't provide at least one package which includes a router. If an ISP provides two packages (one with a router and one without), and a customer makes an active decision to go with the one without, do you really think it's the ISP at fault?
I read a story about someone who bought a Winnebago, put it on cruise control, went into the back to make a cuppa, then sued Winnebago because of the ensuing crash. Irrespective of the way the ruling went, do you really think it was Winnebago's fault?
Where I would say ISPs are at fault is in having the ability to easily spot virus-generated traffic on their network, not using that ability and failing to suspend the connections used by the virus-ridden machines. There, I believe there is a good case to be made for negligence.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat