🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Mar 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:

> In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.980330165653.27876A-100000@mercury.mcs.net>,
> Michael Walden  <walden@Mercury.mcs.net> wrote:
> >> You only need to pay the fees if you come BACK for allocation during
> >> that year.  If you are stable, and not asking for more space, you do not
> >> need to signup for these fees.
> >> 
> >> That is, the fees are actually one-time.  If you do not need to request more
> >> space in a given year, you do not need to pay that fee, because you are not
> >> using the allocation service.
> >> 
> >> They are quoted as "$/year" because it is presumed that you will be using
> >> them in a given year.
> >> 
> >> Now, given that you would pay, for example, 8 cents to have the address
> >> allocated ONCE, what is this crap about charging someone $5/month for it?
> >> 
> >> That's quite a margin, is it not?
> >> 
> >
> >I agree that it is absolutely lame for an ISP to charge for ip addresses.
> >Now I read what you said about the IP space and if that is the case then
> >the ARIN webpage is completely misleading. Now I also attended the ARIN
> >members meeting two weeks ago and that charge per year was also the
> >impression that I got. However, the Arin meeting was so arcane that anyone
> >could have gotten the wrong impression. Sorry to see you weren't there but
> >Kim said that you did not attend these things. :)
> 
> Well, Kim is full of shit.  She is well aware of why I was not there - they
> booked it for a day which was just flat-out impossible for me to make, and
> knew that to be the case at the time.

Just be glad that you did not sit through the eight hours of hell like I
did. It was so tiring and you had a few people whom had an opinion on
everything. No one would agree on anything and it was totally stupid. Some
of hte impressions that I got from the meeting were that ARIN as a group
was only interested in passing the buck when it came to any serious issue.
I dunno maybe they are covering their asses becasue they think that
someone or some people will sue. Who cares!
 
> That's ok - they have to book things like this for the greatest convenience,
> not for mine, and I accept that.  But to say that "I don't attend these
> things" is a bald-faced lie, especially when Kim and I had distinct
> conversations on this very point.

I figured you would be there if you could..
 
> 
> I still have a serious problem with the fee structure - it is my position
> that any fee structure in excess of direct and verifyable costs is likely
> akin to a tax -- without the authority to levy same.
> 

Agreed!