[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Scott Leibrand]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> That is why the HD-TV changeover is the way it is.  I don't want to
> beat a dead horse but I keep returning to this analogy because it's
> an example of a technological upgrade done properly.  ALL of the
> consmers get screwed over ALL at the SAME time, so there isn't any
> of this nonsense of upsetting the various broadcasters markets -
> your not for example increasing ABC's market share because NBC went
> to HD-TV before they did.  Everyone goes to it all at the same time.
> Consumers have no recourse but to spend the money for converters or
> new TV's.  The increased content is available all at the same time.


Don't most HDTVs get hooked up to Cable or Satellite networks, rather
than broadcast?  And isn't the flag-day required broadcast conversion
just to *digital* broadcasting, not to *HD*?  I don't own a TV (analog
or digital, SD or HD) myself, but I get the impression that the switch
to HD is actually being driven by demand from Cable and Satellite users
who want to watch the HD programming they provide.

If you really think our government could do a better job getting us
converted to IPv6 than the industry can do on its own, feel free to
write your congressperson.  But ARIN is not a government, and we have to
deal with the reality of the situation as it confronts us.  That means
continuing to make IPv4 addresses available as long as they're needed,
and AFAICT a transfer policy is the only proposal on the table that can
accomplish that.

-Scott