Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> Smaller ISPs are more worried about running a
> successful business than they are in protracted legal battles which they
> generally don't have the funds for anyways.
Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise.
But consider the time factor. As time has gone on, the addresses
available have diminished. Many, probably most small ISPs were
allocated blocks at a time when they were under less pressure to
justify them. If they change upstream provider, they lose.
> there are very
> real technical reasons to minimize the number of portable address blocks
> available due to the deleterious effect a lack of ability to aggregate
> addresses and summarize routes have on both the size and CPU/Memory
> requirements necessary to hold and calculate routing tables.
This is adding insult to injury, it seems to me. Is the small ISP to
be blamed for the shortcomings of his provider?
> the RIRs aren't too happy with
> their new masters at ICANN either, as ICANN has taken to delegating itself
> address space since ICANN representatives apparently feel that they are
> sufficiently above the RIRs that the rules do not apply to them.
I think that was likely their primary motive in joining the Board.
I'm sure it was for Mike Roberts.
> The Internet was never "very free." Someone was at all times
> paying for it, it just generally wasn't the end users.
Well, as I said in response to David Conrad, I didn't mean free in
the monetary sense. "Free" to me means freedom, not without cost. I
meant free in the sense that all networks were equal, had equal
access, were equally connected to others.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
