[173040] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Palmer)
Tue Jul 15 02:30:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:24:03 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201407150405.WAA26567@mail.lariat.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>
> >Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
>
> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much
> larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start with.
While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
argument:
Annual Fee Max CIDR $/IP
$500 /22 0.49
$1000 /20 0.24
$2000 /18 0.12
$4000 /16 0.06
$8000 /14 0.03
$16000 /12 0.02
$32000 > /12 Mastercard!
Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
purchases. I note that even LARIAT does this. You charge $60 for
1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps. Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to
ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps?
> It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the
> Internet community at large.
I don't think human beings in general are wired that way.
- Matt
--
Politics and religion are just like software and hardware. They all suck,
the documentation is provably incorrect, and all the vendors tell lies.
-- Andrew Dalgleish, in the Monastery
