[138833] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TR Shaw)
Fri Mar 18 19:04:43 2011
From: TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com>
In-Reply-To: <D12319F8-39F5-4365-9CCF-1D4559BA42BC@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:03:59 -0400
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>=20
>>> This is not uncommon practice. I agree with you that it's =
undesirable, but, it's not uncommon
>>> among the access networks.
>>=20
>> I guess it's ok to expect a small fee when your consumer grade =
internet connection gets a static IP. Given that many large ISPs force =
you to get a business account if you want a static IP, and a higher =
price.
>>=20
> I think both practices are relatively despicable, but, widespread =
enough that perhaps I am in the minority.
> Hopefully this will get better in IPv6.
>=20
Owen,
I doubt it will get better. Lots are into nickle and dime'ing for =
everyone to get an extra buck. Look at wireless, they charge for x =
Mega/giga bits per month from your hand help device (phone). Oh you want =
to tether, that will be more? Say what? Bits are bits but somehow =
tethered bits are different. Oh, its cause we can pretend and charge =
more for them....
Tom
