[arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal
bill at telnetcommunications.com
Thu Aug 16 14:13:15 EDT 2012
Your points are well noted and agreed.
In relation to the Canadian angle, you are correct. I tried not to make specific reference to Canada in the text, however I have described the problems that are currently being faced in Canada to which this policy change will solve.
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: August-16-12 2:07 PM
To: Gary Buhrmaster
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Paul Andersen
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal
As I come to understand the problem better, I don't think that it is really specific to Canada or that there is actually a technically feasible way to do otherwise given the way that cable systems function.
As such, I think that the policy as written is actually generic and would suffice for any other jurisdiction that were to develop an "unbundled elements" equivalent for their cable providers.
Indeed, having this policy on the books at ARIN may well serve as a way to encourage other jurisdictions to create similar third party access requirements which, IMHO, would be a very good thing.
On Aug 16, 2012, at 07:36 , Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Paul Andersen <paul at egate.net> wrote:
>> If by "rigged" you mean "designed" then that is a rough view of one problem faced by TPIA providers.
> So, from a policy perspective, Canadian ISPs are between a rock (ARIN
> utilization requirements) and hard place (CRTC TPIA
> requirements) for growth if they enter the cable market.
> I suppose the paranoid could say this was all part of a scheme by the
> incumbents to force the 3rd party ISPs to stay out of the cable market
> if they want to grow elsewhere.
> I am not entirely comfortable with seeing other jurisdictions define
> IP address allocation policies, nor do I like the idea for special
> carve-outs for such rules (the precedent it provides can lead to other
> poor results), but neither do I expect to see the CRTC rules change.
> Based on my current understanding, I find myself reluctantly
> supporting moving this policy forward for acceptance for further
> discussion because it enables further competition in the Canadian
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML