> On Sep 22, 2021, at 17:47 , Noah <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 13:40 Owen DeLong, <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On Sep 21, 2021, at 16:16 , Noah <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> If it makes business sense to lease, the best is to seek sub-allocations >> from existing LIR by requesting a service from the said LIR. >> >> Chances are the cost of direct sub allocation from an LIR providing such a >> WISP connectivity services would be way much lower since there are no 3rd >> party markups cost wise. > > Pricing below assumes a 30 day month and computes the monthly price as > (hourly price*24*30). > All of these are prices over and above the connectivity charge for whatever > circuit on whatever plan you get with the provider. These are just the > additional fees for static addresses from the providers shown. > > > Google static IP address pricing (assigned but unused address per month): > $7.20 > Google static IP address pricing (in use on a standard VM instance per > month): $2.88 > > Azure Static IP address pricing Standard (ARM) per month, single address: > $3.60 > Azure Static IP address pricing Standard (ARM) per mont, prefix (per > address): $4.32 > > Amazon pricing for static IPs is sufficiently opaque that I couldn’t figure > it out. > > Comcast static IP (Business class service only, so double your connectivity > price, too), $19.95/month > > Century Link static IP $15/month + $75 setup > > Charter static IP (Business class service only, so plan an upcharge there, > too): $65/month or more > > AT&T static IP: $15-$40/month > > Verizon Business: Starting at $99.95/month > > OneSource: $11/month > > EarthLink: $15/month > > Tell me again how all of these circuit based LIRs are cheaper than the > average $3-$5/month from a non-facilities based lessors? > > Owen, you are ignoring the infrastructure investments made by all the above > providers. How do you expect them to deliver services to end-users without a > fee.
Noah, you are ignoring everything I said. I am not talking about them not charging a fee for their network services. I am talking about what they are charging on top of the fee for their network services purely for IPv4 static addresses. Each and every one of those charges is an ADDRESS charge per IPv4 address per month that is over and above the charge for the connectivity services being provided. I was very careful to focus only on the amount they are charging for IPv4 addresses exclusive of their charges for connectivity services in order to make this an apples to apples comparison between the two scenarios. > How would they cover operational costs related to provision of the circuits > associated with each of the above. Presumably through what they are charging for connectivity services over and above the pricing above which is exclusive to the static IP addresses they are leasing to their customers. > As for the additional costs to static IPs, all I am seeing is different > prices depending on the providers in which case, end-users have a choice. Not really. The above are strictly the additional costs for static IPv4 addresses. Further, the providers do not overlap in many geographic areas and it is not at all uncommon for subscribers to only be able to reach one of the above providers in their location. These are simply the realities of the north american service market. As you can see, many of the problems that you like to assume exist only in Africa continue to plague us here, too. Things are not so different as you like to pretend. Yes, we have dependable electricity and clean water that we can mostly take for granted. Beyond that, however, the internet is not so different. >> And that's assuming they can afford to purchase. >> >> If they don't prefer brokers or IPv4 lessors to an LIR, there is no lease >> business and nothing for you to fret about. >> >> The draft policy dont make no sense. The whole thing started with IPv4 >> transfers year ago and now cropping into IPv4 lessors but to whose benefit. >> Certainly not the community. > > So how, exactly, does the community benefit from paying $15+ per address, > upwards to as much as almost $100/address/month instead of being able to > lease from independent sources for ≤$5/address/month? > > The services they keep enjoying provided for by the providers. _IF_ that were true (and it assumes a great deal), it would be about the money I pay for the connectivity services. What benefit do I get from paying Comcast $15/month for a /32 vs. paying someone else $5/month for a /32? Since it seems to me that all /32s are alike, So the question is, what benefit do I receive from paying Comcast $15/month/address vs. paying someone else $5/month/address? BTW, in my case, instead of paying Comcast $15/month/address, I pay ARIN $0.??/month/address (I haven’t done the exact calculation of yearly fees/addresses/12 yet and they just jacked the fee schedule around in a big way so I’d need a new calculation anyway). However, not every subscriber has the option of getting space from an RIR. I got PI space via the old RIR->ISP->Subscriber route back in the early 1990s. That route’s not even available (at least in ARIN) any more. > Who is your home ISP? Dont you value anf enjoy the service they provide you? Comcast. No, I resent and abhor the lack of customer service, the high price and low quality of service, the gouging prices for addresses and the difficulty in getting issues that do not fit into their first-line minimum-wage employees script resolved. Further, I don’t get addresses from Comcast (well, I get one, but I only use that to terminate GRE tunnels). I do like my upstream providers who I terminate my BGP sessions with. They don’t provide any network infrastructure to my home, but they provide vastly superior and more useful network services to me remotely. I only get a couple of /32s from one and some /30s from the other, but that’s just to do the necessary connections between my routers and theirs for exchanging BGP. The addresses I use inside the tunnels and within my home are entirely mine, registered to me by ARIN. I also have a WISP that I use in addition to Comcast, but again, just to terminate GRE tunnels. Ridge Wireless is also awesome and I highly recommend them. Nonetheless, thesis orthogonal to the discussion at hand which is about the prices charged for addresses independent of the charges for connectivity services (whether such are part of the contract or not). > I mean I’m willing to accept the idea if you can make it make sense, but so > far, your claims about pricing just aren’t reality. > > > My claims are valid as per some of the few examples you provided above of > services that include suballocations based on need. You claimed that ISPs are cheaper per address per month than non-ISPs would be. I have proven that is demonstrably and consistently NOT true. Explain how that makes sense (for anyone but the price-gouging ISPs) again because I still don’t get it. Owen
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
