I think this has direct operational relevance--it will be
interesting to see if this "campaign" has any direct impact
of the spam zombie/botnet problem -- especially when even
temporarily "disconnecting" customer computers is a revenue
impacting activity (even if it does violate AUP's). 
I guess we'll see....
Excerpt from Reuters article:
[snip]
"Home computer users who unwittingly send out spam e-mail
should be disconnected from the Internet until their machines
are fixed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Tuesday.
"The FTC said it would ask 3,000 Internet providers around
the globe to make sure that their customers' computers haven't
been hijacked by spammers who want to cover their tracks and
pass bandwidth costs on to others."
[snip]
Article on Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-05-24T194826Z_01_N24452932_RTRIDST_0_NET-TECH-SPAM-DC.XML
FTC announcement:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/zombies.htm
- ferg
"The FTC said it would ask 3,000 Internet providers around
the globe to make sure that their customers' computers haven't
been hijacked by spammers who want to cover their tracks and
pass bandwidth costs on to others."
"Hi! I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
Whelp, can't recall who said it at one of the NANOG presentations last week but to recap, get involved to help point people in the right direction in USG or at least provide enough "ops perspective" to folks so they get a clue or more clue on some of the challenges of these proposals. (not always an easy task but that one is also a two way street sometimes it seems) Alternatives or other approaches need to be highlighted while insuring they're grounded in operational technical reality.
In other words, Hi I'm from Telecom or ISP X and we're here to help 
This will go a long way to prevent the dreaded "R" word from coming up (regulate). Just to add further perspective, several of us in USG get called down to the hill to discuss many topics of concern by lawmakers/staffers. In a recent trip when they called us from US CERT they were concerned about peer 2 peer file sharing and some of the security challenges associated with it. We spent some time educating them on third-party tools and techniques to tackle the issue and that corporations and agencies need to leverage the technology. We also highlighted some of the things industry is doing to tackle these issues. Of course depending on size and fiscal resources determines the level of mitigations being deployed. Why we suggested they talk to those in the private sector that actually own these infrastructures and some of those companies that are providing mitigation solutions to provide further perspective.
However, as you know security awareness is always a good thing and user education goes a long way. (always comes back to that end-user) I know in recent emails from a couple of my providers they sent out emails and flyers in the monthly statement to point users to FAQ's on how to protect themselves and where to dload anti-virus, personal firewall software, and anti-spy/adware tools.
I think it was Vijay(AOL) that also stated that one support call eats all of the profits from that user based on the expected life of that user utilizing the service. Hence a financial motivator to focus on prevention or mitigating the risk factors to lower the number of those incoming support call volumes so that profit margins don't get eaten. (I know this is preaching to the choir in some instances but still a valid point)
Lastly, we'll also relay some of the operational realities back to those folks but again, awareness and mitigation is the objective. Suggestions or perspectives welcome
Cheers,
Jerry
  (quickly putting on the flame retardant suit)
Not really regulation. The FTC did this about open relays a while
back. And they are in touch with ISPs - go to any antispam conference
(MAAWG, ITU/OECD etc) and you'll find at least some people from the
FTC, FCC, commerce, state as well as people from assorted law
enforcement agencies.
They still would definitely welcome more operational perspective, and
the recommendations they're forwarding on appear to be a precis of the
MAAWG bcp for ISPs ... so this is government / regulators in an
educating / facilitating role rather than a regulatory role.