[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[Mury]

Just wondering...

If the problem lies with these monopolies not giving IPs to their
downstream customers, why are they going to cooperate and route IPs
allocated from ARIN?  If all these arguments are true, why won't they just
have a "non-assigned routing fee?"

I don't see the difference.  If they think they can suck more money out of
their customers won't they do it whether they have assigned their
customers IPs or whether they have to route their customer's ARIN
allocated blocks?

Thanks.

Mury

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, William Stucke wrote:

> Jon Lewis asked: -
>
> > Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional
> IPs when their customers have used up what they have?
>
> I'm not a monopoly incumbent Telco, so I can't speak for them, but I can
> take a guess: -
>
> It's because they're MONOPOLY INCUMBENTS, and the mindset of this particular
> animal simply doesn't understand the concept of competition.
>
> 1	They believe that giving an inch to their "customers" will allow the
> latter to wriggle out of their sticky and blood-red claws.
>
> 2	Why shouldn't they be? They can do what they like ... and don't talk about
> Regulators. There isn't a Government in Africa that I'm aware of that hasn't
> made damned sure that their Regulator (if one even exists) is tightly bound
> in terms of what it can and can't do. Telecommunications laws don't talk
> about IP addresses, they just say "Thou shalt connect anywhere via the
> incumbent, ONLY"
>
> A number of very important concepts are diametrically opposed when
> considering circuit-switched type telecommunications versus packet-switched
> type IP networks. Indeed the mindsets are so different that many people have
> difficulty grasping that a difference even exists .. but this is rather off
> topic. The Telecommunications laws are all written based on the former, and
> have real trouble dealing with the latter.
>
> The number of times that I've heard Telkom SA people equate the terms "core
> network / router" and "Telephone Exchange"  ...
>
> Regards,
>
> William Stucke
> ZAnet Internet Services (Pty) Ltd
> +27 11 465 0700
> William at zanet.co.za
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> jlewis at lewis.org
> Sent: 30 September 2003 23:34
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: William Stucke; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for
> the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> >       On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, William Stucke wrote:
> >     > In most of the 53 countries in Africa, ISPs don't
> >     > have a choice of from whom they get service, nor how it is carried.
> They are
> >     > obliged to use the monopoly incumbent, or go to jail. Some of those
> monopoly
> >     > Telcos are VERY reluctant to assign IP addresses - e.g. Kenya.
> >
> > This is an important factor for Americans to consider carefully before
> > rushing to judgement in this issue.  One of the _really fundamental_
> > assumptions Americans make, upon which the whole policy framework in
> > America is founded, is that customers can vote with their feet.  That is,
> > if a customer doesn't like the policies of an upstream provider
> > ($500/month for an additional IP address, or whatever), they can simply
> > switch providers, and give their money to someone more reasonable.  That
> > logic is simply not applicable in the African regulatory context, and that
> > fundamental difference informs this whole debate.  So, American ARIN
>
> Why are the monopoly incumbent carriers so reluctant to assign additional
> IPs when their customers have used up what they have?  If it's simply to
> extort more money from them, is there any reason to believe giving them
> portable space is going to make a difference?  "oh...you want to do BGP
> now?...well, that's going to be an extra $X/month per IP you announce to
> us."
>
> Now this sounds like a[n attempted] technical solution to a non-technical
> problem.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 2003/07/24
>