[173054] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brett Glass)
Tue Jul 15 11:10:11 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:58:49 -0600
To: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>, nanog@nanog.org
From: Brett Glass <nanog@brettglass.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140715062403.GE17452@hezmatt.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no
reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason
for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little
guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny.
--Brett Glass
At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
>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.
