🚀 go-pugleaf

Where do I sign?!
I want to nail SaskTel, they constantly screw over their customers not just
on their pathetic ISP but on their telphone service as well.
I can't wait until we get some other phone companies here.
Karl Denninger wrote in message <6eum0r$86o$1@Mars.mcs.net>...
>In article <6eule5$st8$2@winter.news.erols.com>,
>Jim Pettipas <jinks1@x.erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> When the service started the ADSL lines used static IP addressing and
>>>>> everyone was happy. Then they decided that they would start using NAT
to
>>>>> have a type of dynamic IP addressing, then no one was happy. Now they
>>want
>>>>> to sell us the right to have a static IP address again for the low
cost
>>of
>>>>> 100 dollars. They expect people to pay 100 dollars extra a month so
that
>>we
>>>>> can be privledged enough to have the same service that we received to
>>begin
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, that may be ARIN's fault.
>>>
>>>The revocation of static addresses from those who don't have 24x7 access
is
>>>a policy issue that may be attributed to ARIN.
>>>
>>>The charging of $100/month for a static address is NOT attributable to
>>ARIN.
>>
>>
>>FYI, my ISP charges $75 a year for a static IP address.
>
>Any ISP which is charging SPECIFICALLY for a static address should, IMHO,
>be reported to ARIN as such.  You might not see an immediate reaction
>to this, but the next time that ISP tries to justify their address
>allocation policies to obtain more addresses.............
>
>This is an issue which I believe needs wide debate within ARIN.  I am
>strongly against ISPs doing this for a number of reasons, not the least
>of which is that it leads directly to the violation of the actual rules
>for assignment of address space (and the granting of future requests for
>more).
>
>Static addresses have been pretty much banned for non-24x7 dial
>customers who have no valid technical need for them (ie: not a routed
>connection), and granting them has been given as a SPECIFIC reason for
>refusal to make additional allocations.
>
>I fundamentally think that this sucks, but if the rules are going to be
this
>way, then they need to be UNIVERSALLY enforced against ALL ISPs, large or
>small, regardless of who they are or who they know.
>
>Note that this is true regardless of whether you paid for the address or
not.
>
>ISPs playing this game as an attempt to extort more money from people and
>circumvent the allocation guidelines should be reported to ARIN for two
>reasons - (1) you have no reason to pay for the addresses (the cost per
>address to the ISP even if they have to get an ARIN membership is on the
>order of a one-time fee of $0.02 per IP number), and (2) circumventing the
>rules on allocations is asking to have your next request turned down flat.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
>http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines
K56Flex/DOV
>      | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
>Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL
ACCOUNTS
>Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no
cost