🚀 go-pugleaf

Your cable company is lying to you. They don't want you to use more than one
computer unless you are paying big bucks to them. You will have no problem
proxying your other computers. The only problem you may have with putting
another network card in your machine would be if they both wanted to use the
same resources.
chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote in message
<3511B0E6.6EA9BC3F@mynetaddress.com>...
>I had asked the question about setting up a small network in the home,
>and having several internet terminals.  It was suggested that I try
>"winproxy" because it would allow me to access HTTP, NNTP, POP etc. from
>all the machines.
>
>Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
>access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
>than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.  (at which
>point they would consider it a "business" and adjust my bill
>accordingly.)  This brings up a few more questions:
>
>1.  Apparently they install an external modem-like device, which
>connects to an internal network card in the PC.  If I wanted to use this
>PC as a server, would I have any conflict from putting another network
>card in the machine, for access to the rest of the computers?
>
>2.  They told me that only one computer at a time would be able to make
>use of the internet connection, but when I went to www.winproxy.com and
>read the overview, it suggested that winproxy will transcend this.  I'm
>interested in hearing from anyone who is already running this software,
>for your thoughts on this.
>
>Cost-wise, the cable modem seems economical, when you consider the
>monthly ISP charges, plus the charges for maintaining a second line,
>plus the costs of the actual calls to the ISP.  Plus the fact that it's
>much faster.
>

Thanks for the response.  I figured the info on the winproxy site was probably
correct.

Is anyone here using cablemodem technology?  I'm curious how it matches up to
conventional dialing in with regards to downtime and customer support.

Clark Lebarge wrote:

> Your cable company is lying to you. They don't want you to use more than one
> computer unless you are paying big bucks to them. You will have no problem
> proxying your other computers. The only problem you may have with putting
> another network card in your machine would be if they both wanted to use the
> same resources.
> chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote in message
> <3511B0E6.6EA9BC3F@mynetaddress.com>...
> >I had asked the question about setting up a small network in the home,
> >and having several internet terminals.  It was suggested that I try
> >"winproxy" because it would allow me to access HTTP, NNTP, POP etc. from
> >all the machines.
> >
> >Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
> >access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
> >than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.  (at which
> >point they would consider it a "business" and adjust my bill
> >accordingly.)  This brings up a few more questions:
> >
> >1.  Apparently they install an external modem-like device, which
> >connects to an internal network card in the PC.  If I wanted to use this
> >PC as a server, would I have any conflict from putting another network
> >card in the machine, for access to the rest of the computers?
> >
> >2.  They told me that only one computer at a time would be able to make
> >use of the internet connection, but when I went to www.winproxy.com and
> >read the overview, it suggested that winproxy will transcend this.  I'm
> >interested in hearing from anyone who is already running this software,
> >for your thoughts on this.
> >
> >Cost-wise, the cable modem seems economical, when you consider the
> >monthly ISP charges, plus the charges for maintaining a second line,
> >plus the costs of the actual calls to the ISP.  Plus the fact that it's
> >much faster.
> >

chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote:
> 
> Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
> access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
> than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.  (at which
> point they would consider it a "business" and adjust my bill
> accordingly.)

And you want to base your Internet connection on service like this from
morons like that?

Personally, before I even considered buying data from MediaOne (the local
monopoly), I'd have to see:

1. One broadcast-quality TV signal for at least fifteen minutes.
2. 24 hours of TV cable service without a service interruption. (I do
have to say they're better than ever now; they're down to a few fuzzouts
per night at only a few seconds each.)
3. More capacity (165 users max out a MediaOne head end, according to a
discussion with their tech guru in chi.internet some months ago; each
head end around here serves 20 to 40 suburbs).
4. Packet-sniffer capability on drops eliminated. (One "drop" serves one
or two blocks' worth of customers.)

But long before that happens (if it ever does), I'll have a nice ADSL or
CDSL connection from one of the many reliable area ISPs.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   Cliff Sharp  | Wanna know how to uninstall Microsoft Internet Explorer? | 
|     WA9PDM     |   http://home.netscape.com/download/netscape_now.html    | 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I have been using a cable modem for a few months with very little
problems. My service is much better than any ISP modem service I have
ever had. There are no busy phone lines or hangups. Once setup your
cable modem is constantly connected to the internet. Also the cable
modem was installed and supported by an outside company, not the cable
company. I am using @Home cable modem service and my cable company is
TCI.

chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the response.  I figured the info on the winproxy site was probably
> correct.
> 
> Is anyone here using cablemodem technology?  I'm curious how it matches up to
> conventional dialing in with regards to downtime and customer support.
> 
> Clark Lebarge wrote:
> 
> > Your cable company is lying to you. They don't want you to use more than one
> > computer unless you are paying big bucks to them. You will have no problem
> > proxying your other computers. The only problem you may have with putting
> > another network card in your machine would be if they both wanted to use the
> > same resources.
> > chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote in message
> > <3511B0E6.6EA9BC3F@mynetaddress.com>...
> > >I had asked the question about setting up a small network in the home,
> > >and having several internet terminals.  It was suggested that I try
> > >"winproxy" because it would allow me to access HTTP, NNTP, POP etc. from
> > >all the machines.
> > >
> > >Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
> > >access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
> > >than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.  (at which
> > >point they would consider it a "business" and adjust my bill
> > >accordingly.)  This brings up a few more questions:
> > >
> > >1.  Apparently they install an external modem-like device, which
> > >connects to an internal network card in the PC.  If I wanted to use this
> > >PC as a server, would I have any conflict from putting another network
> > >card in the machine, for access to the rest of the computers?
> > >
> > >2.  They told me that only one computer at a time would be able to make
> > >use of the internet connection, but when I went to www.winproxy.com and
> > >read the overview, it suggested that winproxy will transcend this.  I'm
> > >interested in hearing from anyone who is already running this software,
> > >for your thoughts on this.
> > >
> > >Cost-wise, the cable modem seems economical, when you consider the
> > >monthly ISP charges, plus the charges for maintaining a second line,
> > >plus the costs of the actual calls to the ISP.  Plus the fact that it's
> > >much faster.
> > >

>>> 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.

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

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

Clark Lebarge wrote in message <6esc9f$6l5$1@usenet43.supernews.com>...
 >>Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
>>access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
>>than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.   >>


       Go to NG comp.dcom.modems.cable THIS is almost all  that they
discuss, I run a cable modem and have three computers on HUB.     HERS, His,
and Son's :>).
  >
        Yukio YANO

Sounds like your cable company is a very poor service provider, the one in
my area is a little better. I have both a Cable Modem and an ADSL line. The
ADSL line kills the Cable Modem as far as speed goes but because it comes
from the telephone company which is an even larger monolithic monster than
the cable company they are way out to lunch.
Get this as an example of their stupidity.
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.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote in message <3511D3A2.7D0@megsinet.net>...
>chkmmk@mynetaddress.com wrote:
>>
>> Today I spoke with the local cable company about their new cable modem
>> access, and they seemed to think that it could never be done from more
>> than one computer without putting multiple cable modems in.  (at which
>> point they would consider it a "business" and adjust my bill
>> accordingly.)
>
>And you want to base your Internet connection on service like this from
>morons like that?
>
>Personally, before I even considered buying data from MediaOne (the local
>monopoly), I'd have to see:
>
>1. One broadcast-quality TV signal for at least fifteen minutes.
>2. 24 hours of TV cable service without a service interruption. (I do
>have to say they're better than ever now; they're down to a few fuzzouts
>per night at only a few seconds each.)
>3. More capacity (165 users max out a MediaOne head end, according to a
>discussion with their tech guru in chi.internet some months ago; each
>head end around here serves 20 to 40 suburbs).
>4. Packet-sniffer capability on drops eliminated. (One "drop" serves one
>or two blocks' worth of customers.)
>
>But long before that happens (if it ever does), I'll have a nice ADSL or
>CDSL connection from one of the many reliable area ISPs.
>
>--
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-+
>|   Cliff Sharp  | Wanna know how to uninstall Microsoft Internet Explorer?
|
>|     WA9PDM     |   http://home.netscape.com/download/netscape_now.html
|
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-+

Clark Lebarge wrote:
> 
> Get this as an example of their stupidity.
> 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.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   Cliff Sharp  | Wanna know how to uninstall Microsoft Internet Explorer? | 
|     WA9PDM     |   http://home.netscape.com/download/netscape_now.html    | 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <35123506.7D5E@megsinet.net>,
Clifton T. Sharp Jr. <clifto@megsinet.net> wrote:
>Clark Lebarge wrote:
>> 
>> Get this as an example of their stupidity.
>> 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.

Disclaimer: I'm on the ARIN Advisory Council

--
-- 
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

> 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 

The rest of the post was accurate except the above. The above is not true
for ISP's. It is true for individual entities getting IP space from ARIN
but not ISP's, IPS's are billed the following.

ISP Subscriptions for Bulk Registrations

Small		$2500/year /24 - /19 
Medium 		$5000/year >/19 - /16 
Large 		$10K/year  >/16 - /14
X-Large		$20K/year  >/14

http://www.arin.net/feeschedule.html

It is surprising that someone on the ARIN AC does not know this. Oh well,
we will just not re-elect you when your term is up. Democracy is our
friend.

In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.980327165042.7458B-100000@mercury.mcs.net>,
Michael Walden  <walden@Mercury.mcs.net> wrote:
>> 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 
>
>The rest of the post was accurate except the above. The above is not true
>for ISP's. It is true for individual entities getting IP space from ARIN
>but not ISP's, IPS's are billed the following.
>
>ISP Subscriptions for Bulk Registrations
>
>Small		$2500/year /24 - /19 
>Medium 		$5000/year >/19 - /16 

A /19 is 32 Class "C"s.  32 * 256 = 8192
5000 / 8192 = 0.63 one time.

>Large 		$10K/year  >/16 - /14

A /16 is 256 * 256 addresses, or 65536
Or ~0.15 cents, again, one time.

>X-Large		$20K/year  >/14

A /14 is 1024 * 256 addresses.  Do the math. (~0.08/address)

>http://www.arin.net/feeschedule.html
>
>It is surprising that someone on the ARIN AC does not know this. Oh well,
>we will just not re-elect you when your term is up. Democracy is our
>friend.

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?

--
-- 
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

In article <6fj30r$9e0$1@mars.mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.COM> wrote:
>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?

BTW, just in case anyone comes to the conclusion that because I'm on the AC
for ARIN I actually *support* this model, please read my submission to the
Department of Commerce regarding the "Green Paper".

ARIN, DNS, and IANA issues are all discussed there.

The paper is reachable off the "http://www.edns.net" home page, in the
"Links" section.

--
-- 
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

Karl Denninger wrote:
> BTW, just in case anyone comes to the conclusion that because I'm on the AC
> for ARIN I actually *support* this model, please read my submission to the
> Department of Commerce regarding the "Green Paper".
> 
> ARIN, DNS, and IANA issues are all discussed there.
> 
> The paper is reachable off the "http://www.edns.net" home page, in the
> "Links" section.

You make a LOT of good points there.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   Cliff Sharp  | Netcom Web Hosting -- BEST DEAL GOING for SPAMMERS!      |
|     WA9PDM     |  Spam from elsewhere, your Netcom site is UNMOLESTED!    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 28 Mar 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:

> In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.980327165042.7458B-100000@mercury.mcs.net>,
> Michael Walden  <walden@Mercury.mcs.net> wrote:
> >> 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 
> >
> >The rest of the post was accurate except the above. The above is not true
> >for ISP's. It is true for individual entities getting IP space from ARIN
> >but not ISP's, IPS's are billed the following.
> >
> >ISP Subscriptions for Bulk Registrations
> >
> >Small		$2500/year /24 - /19 
> >Medium 		$5000/year >/19 - /16 
> 
> A /19 is 32 Class "C"s.  32 * 256 = 8192
> 5000 / 8192 = 0.63 one time.
> 
> >Large 		$10K/year  >/16 - /14
> 
> A /16 is 256 * 256 addresses, or 65536
> Or ~0.15 cents, again, one time.
> 
> >X-Large		$20K/year  >/14
> 
> A /14 is 1024 * 256 addresses.  Do the math. (~0.08/address)
> 
> >http://www.arin.net/feeschedule.html
> >
> >It is surprising that someone on the ARIN AC does not know this. Oh well,
> >we will just not re-elect you when your term is up. Democracy is our
> >friend.
> 
> You only need to pay the fees if you come BACK for allocation during
> that year.  If you are stable, and not asking for more space, you do not
> need to signup for these fees.
> 
> That is, the fees are actually one-time.  If you do not need to request more
> space in a given year, you do not need to pay that fee, because you are not
> using the allocation service.
> 
> They are quoted as "$/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. :)

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.

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.

The charge IS per year - if you use the allocation services.  If you 
don't, then it isn't (that is, you pay in any year you use the allocation
services).  That charge is SEPARATE from membership, which is cheap 
(a couple of thousand a year), which gets you the representation (very
important indeed).

ARIN has claimed all along that what you're paying for is the allocation
service and the work associated with it - NOT the space, as they consider
the IP space itself to have no tangible value (and thus, it can't be sold,
since it isn't owned).  In fact, their BOT has recently restated that on a 
public mailing list.  

If that's not REALLY what they're doing then I would predict that when the
truth surfaces and is documented you'll see the BOT and AC flee like rats
off the Titanic - the legal problems surrounding anti-competitive activity
related to a *critical* resource are too numerous to mention.

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.

--
-- 
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

On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:

> Karl Denninger wrote:
> > BTW, just in case anyone comes to the conclusion that because I'm on the AC
> > for ARIN I actually *support* this model, please read my submission to the
> > Department of Commerce regarding the "Green Paper".
> > 
> > ARIN, DNS, and IANA issues are all discussed there.
> > 
> > The paper is reachable off the "http://www.edns.net" home page, in the
> > "Links" section.
> 
> You make a LOT of good points there.
> 

Agreed, that is why the fee thing was odd. Who knows probably just ARIN
being unclear as usual.

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!