[arin-ppml] DTV and IPv6

[Kyle Banks]

Speaking solely as a guy that works for a cable company, I think the whole
DTV Delay, could have been solved by a little better planning on the
manufacturers level.  The main reason for the delay is the manufacturers
lack of supplies, Now if they would have started running that add about a
year earlier, and actually had the boxes available, then I think this could
have been avoided...And the fact that the Ads, banners, and informational
material, just recently started noting the fact that if you are on a cable
tv system then you don't need to take any action whatsoever, Is kinda BS...
If people were better informed when they're forced to take action it would
create a lot less turmoil, anger, and confusion... I mean seriously, If I'm
being forced into a van by a guy with a gun, at least tell me where I'm
going... 

 
 
Kyle V. Banks
Service/Technical Representative
Giant Communications
785-362-9331 EXT. 108
kbanks at giantcomm.net
 
 

-- Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be
disappointed--Benjamin Franklin

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:07 PM
To: ARIN-PPML at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DTV and IPv6

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
> 
>> This is an excellent event for IPv6. Now we have a concrete way
>> to tell people in the USA that they have to act and cannot
>> delay the change. The IPv4 runout is not like the switch to
>> digital TV where you can delay things by legislating it. It's
>> like the millenium bug where you have to get stuff fixed now,
>> not later.
>>
> 
> The DTV delay is a very bad sign for the v6 migration. It indicates that
politicians in the US are so fearful of the possibility that people will be
stranded when analog is shut off that they are willing to maintain very
costly "dual stack" equivalents (broacasting on two channels) for another 6
months (or more). It indicates that after 13 years of planning for this
transition no one has any confidence that it will work when we actually pull
the trigger.  
> 
> Yes, as Dillon there is says one critical difference: broadcasting is a
highly regulated industry with an overlay of political control and
responsibility lodged directly in governments. (This hierarchical, political
form of control has done as much to delay the transition as hasten it, as
anyone familiar with the politics of U.S. broadcasting knows.) 
> 
> But anyone who thinks that this somehow demonstrates that we should laugh
in the face of v4 address runout and that running into a brick wall will
somehow facilitate a smooth and effective transition, is being
irresponsible. What the DTV case really indicates is that such migrations
are complex, unpredictable and difficult to manage. Anyone who imposes an
artificial constraint on that migration, such as not fully utilizing
underutilized v4 addresses in the vain hope that this will "force" people to
behave the way they want them to behave, is playing a game of chicken. Who
will be responsible when the internet gets into the crash? Some guy on a
listserv who urged ARIN to speed up as it approached the brick wall? 
> 
> Do you think politicians will remain on the sidelines when the game of
chicken results in a smash-up? 
> 

It's not entirely a matter of confidence. Irrespective of all the DTV 
transition ads, people have no clue it means, don't want to get a box, 
don't think they need a box, or don't want the government telling them 
they should change. There's no apparent value in getting a box right now 
when as far as they can see their TV still works fine.

~Seth
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.