US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Jawaid Bazyar]

Oh dear, there are so many problems with your letter I don't know where to
begin.

1) So-called "anti-trust" laws are immoral, and are just another way to
   put the screws to business, already America's most popular scapegoat.
   Need someone to blame so that you can get rights-violating laws passed
   in your favor? Blame it on business! Karl Marx invented the technique, 
   Socialists of this century perfected it.
   
   I can quote all the laws protecting slavery as an institution in the
   1800's, in an attempt to justify slavery. But it doesn't matter,
   because slavery is *wrong* and so is anti-trust.  If you simply don't
   want to pay for IP address allocation, fine, just say so, but don't
   weasel out like this. The job has to be done, and has to be done by
   one body.  It's being done by one body *right now*, it used to be
   done by one body back when it was subsidized by the government.

2) IP addresses are not a "national resource". There is no such thing as
   a "national resource". IP addresses are not 'scarce', either. Their
   limitation of number is purely a technical limitation, and one that
   can be (and is being) addressed by engineers (such as IPv6). (I'll
   note that the exact same is the case of radio frequencies - their
   'scarcity' is a technical limitation, as new technologies make it
   possible to put more and more communications in smaller bands).

3) *Someone* has to allocate IP addresses to ensure that you don't have
   different people trying to use the same address. Considering that people
   are finally beginning to realize that the government should stick to
   basics (police and courts), and stop trying to run everyone's business,
   people with an interest in this (i.e., who *care that it works and
   works well*) are trying to set up an organization to handle this.
   It took Apple *five years* just to get the FCC to give them a frequency
   band for wireless LANs. This is the organization of absolutely clueless
   bureaucrats you want controlling the Internet??? I'd much rather pay
   people who know what they're doing, to do the job right, and have an
   interest in the smooth functioning of the system. Bureaucrats only have
   an interest in keeping their jobs, at the expense of the taxpayer
   (i.e., you, from whom they have a never-ending supply of your money).

4) Examples of irganizations that charge money to allocate numbers are 
   plentiful.  PCI controller cards have manufacturer and product IDs that
   are assigned by the PCI consortium - which costs money to join. Ethernet
   hardware address allocations are controlled by the IEEE, and it costs
   $1000 to get an allocation. And now IP addresses join the other unique
   identifiers that private organizations have allocated perfectly well
   in the past and will allocate perfectly well in the future.

If you wish to evade the fact, ignore the knowledge that someone has
to do this, and those people have to not only eat, but maintain an
organizational structure which allows the job to be done efficiently and 
properly - then I pity you. Ignoring reality is something people who run 
to the government all the time are good at, and something I thought we 
were getting past.  Maybe I'm being too optimistic, it *is* the current
administration that tried to enslave the medical profession.

--

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Tim Bass wrote:

> 
> USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 2:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
> 
> Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
> the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
> punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by
> both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Opinion:  IP address space cannot be monopolized nor commercialize because
>           it is a national resource.  Those planning to charege for it might 
> 	  consider if they believe Title 15:1:2 applies to a national  and
>           scarce resource, such as IP address space.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> USCODE Title 15: Chapter 1: Section 1:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> § 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
> 
> Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with
> foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to
> be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if
> any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Opinion:  Forming a trust to sell a national resource, such as IP address
>           space  without competition, fixing a price might be considered
>           a violation under federal code.
> 
> 
> Action:   Request a formal advisory from both the Department of Justice
> 	  and the Federal Trade Commission.
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, attempts by Network Solutions, Inc. to form 
> NAIPR and to require a fee for IP address space may violate these
> federal codes.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Tim Bass
> 
> -------
> mailto:bass at silkroad.com          voice (703) 222-4243
> http://www.silkroad.com/            fax (703) 222-7320