Re: Request for information

["Woodchuck" <djv@bedford.net>]

fogstorm wrote
> djv@bedford.net wrote:
> >fogstorm wrote:
> >> holist@elender.hu wrote:
> >> 
> >> I don't see how filtering subscribers using any criteria except cash is 
> >> compatible with anonymity.
> >
> >I think he might have had some intention of filtering out the
> >clueless. I use a mom-and-pop ISP, and the handholding of the
> >clueless is *the* major time- and therefor money-sink.  If everybody
> >on an ISP is a unix geek, or at least trying to become one, the
> >ISP will nearly run itself. Or at least the users' questions
> >and problems will be interesting ones.
> 
> I think you're right but my point still stands. User anonymity is one of 
> his criteria. If a user is going to be truly anonymous then they have to 
> be able to pay anonymously using cash (or its equivalent).

In terms of total anonymity, i.e. that the proposition "Joe Blow
is a subscriber of Magyar InfoServices" is unprovable, I agree.
Even sign-up must be provably anonymous.

> A way to filter out the clueless would be to have a support policy that 
> says "if the problem is at our end we'll fix if it's at yours you're on 
> your own". Or perhaps "we'll help you fix your problem at $x per unit of 
> time".

Agree. I'd drop the second option if it would compromise anonymity.
(Like site visits, or the need for root on a customer's machine.)

D.