DJA wrote:
> James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
>> Assuming that with IPv6, there is no (heh: or at least, less) need
>> to be
>> stingy with IPs,
>
> ISP's are in the business of selling services not giving them away.
> Competition in the space of those who will actually /control/ IP
> address
> space has shown to date no inclination to provide "More for Less". Why
> should they start just because they find more raw technology
> materials?
>
> From what I've read recently on how crappy our Internet connections
> are
> compared to what is actually possible right now /without moving to
> IPv6/
> (i.e. at the tier 1 and tier 2 levels), I don't expect to see any
> price
> breaks for as long as it's possible to artificially keep resources
> scarce.
>
> Examples in other industries: diamonds are not intrinsically scarce on
> the planet relative to demand. A virtual diamond monopoly imposes its
> own model of scarcity.
True
> Crude oil is not a scarcity (yet, or for the foreseeable future)
> relative to demand (statistical predictions and other
> pulled-from-an-ass
> prognostication notwithstanding). A large cartel maintains a scarcity
> so
> as to maintain a preferred wholesale/commodity price [1].
Not true. We have reached peak oil, demand continues to rise, while
supply will continue to fall. The laws of supply and demand dictate
that the price will continue to fall. To believe differently is to
ignore facts.
--
Neil Schneider pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B 8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D
"When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a
circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already here,
and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are
well trained." - Edward R. Murrow
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
