[arin-ppml] Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for Legacy Users

Wed Sep 15 19:35:01 EDT 2021

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:47 PM <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> I think he is saying the categories did not change.  He never said that
> everyone pays the same.  For as long as I can remember, us little ones pay
> LOTS more per IP than the big guys.

Well, yes.

But, I think that "paying per IP" is not a reasonable way to look at it - I
don't call up and say "I'd like 7 please, with extra fries and hold the
mayo".
You are paying for registration and administration and similar.

> When this is brought up, they always
> point out those large guys pay a whole lot more than us.  What they fail
> to consider is that they ALSO get a better price per IP.  As the example
> you noted, they are paying 64 times LESS per IP than your /19.
>
> I have always considered that unfair.
>

In the county where I live, I need to pay an "Electrical Permit Fee" for
"Service Equipment (new, temporary or replacement)". The fees are:
0 to 400 Amps -- $70
Over 400 Amps -- $95

I recently had to get a 60A panel installed, which meant that I was paying
$1.16 per amp for the permit, while my neighbor, with a 400A panel only
paid $0.18 per amp for his permit.
A 400 Amp permit is $0.23 per amp, but if you are a large consumer and get
a 2000A permit it works out to only $0.05 per amp.

Perhaps this is unfair, and I should ask the county to charge permit costs
by the amp instead -- but their work for issuing a 200A permit or a 400A
permit is basically identical.
The over 400A permit seems also roughly the same amount of work, but
someone getting that level of service can presumably justify an additional
$25 for the permit.

W

(Many years ago a swore a solemn oath to myself to not get involved in
arin-ppml threads. I'm not quite sure what has possessed me to break this
oath, but I suspect I'll live to regret it...)

> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Mark McDonald wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> > We must be looking at different fee charts.  Can you send me the one
> you’re referring to?  We hold a /19 and fall under the “Small” service
> category, paying roughly
> > $0.12/IP/Year.  Right off the bat, we’re in the same service category as
> someone holding a /18, so we’re paying twice as much per IPv4 Resource as
> them - but wait, it
> > gets much, much better.  Those holding a /8 are paying $0.0038/IP/Year -
> *64X* less than our company per IPv4 resource.  Someone over there failed
> math class if the
> > goal was to level the costs among all users.
> >
> > If ARIN’s goal is to get everyone paying the same per/resource, our bill
> should go down to $31.13/year so we’re paying the same per resource as
> those issued /8’s.
> >  For an organization that’s trying to promote IP conservation, your
> metrics show you’re promoting the opposite - the larger the block, the less
> I pay.
> >
> > I broke it all down for you here:
> >
> > CIDR Number of IP's Service Category Fee Fee per/IPv4 (Resource) % of
> full cost (/24) per/resource
> > /24 256 3X-Small $250.00 $0.9766
> > /23 512 2X-Small $500.00 $0.9766 100.00%
> > /22 1,024 2X-Small $500.00 $0.4883 50.00%
> > /21 2,048 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.4883 50.00%
> > /20 4,096 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.2441 25.00%
> > /19 8,192 Small $2,000.00 $0.2441 25.00%
> > /18 16,384 Small $2,000.00 $0.1221 12.50%
> > /17 32,768 Medium $4,000.00 $0.1221 12.50%
> > /16 65,536 Medium $4,000.00 $0.0610 6.25%
> > /15 131,072 Large $8,000.00 $0.0610 6.25%
> > /14 262,144 Large $8,000.00 $0.0305 3.13%
> > /13 524,288 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0305 3.13%
> > /12 1,048,576 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0153 1.56%
> > /11 2,097,152 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0153 1.56%
> > /10 4,194,304 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0076 0.78%
> > /9 8,388,608 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0076 0.78%
> > /8 16,777,216 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0038 0.39%
> > /7 33,554,432 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0038 0.39%
> > /6 67,108,864 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0019 0.20%
> >
> > I sincerely hope ARIN re-thinks this before implementation.  That’s what
> would be fair and equitable for all.
> >
> > -Mark McDonald
> > President/CEO
> > Siteserver, Inc.
> >
> >
> >       On Sep 15, 2021, at 1:05 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> >
> > Mark -
> >
> > In April of this year, we announced a consultation on the matter of
> harmonizing ARIN’s fees and many of the issues you raised were discussed at
> that time on the
> > ARIN-consult mailing list -
> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2021-April/date.html
> >
> > As noted in that discussion, 3621 end-user customers will see their fees
> decrease as a result of change.  4431 end-users (those with larger IP
> address holdings)
> > will see their fees increase.  After the fee changes, all customers will
> be paying the same fees based on their total IPv4 resources held.
> >
> > Regarding ISP/EU fees distribution, note that ARIN’s expected total fees
> paid in 2021 are approximately $21 million – with ISP’s paying the
> overwhelming
> > majority of the costs at approximately $17M annually.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > /John
> >
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2021, at 3:21 PM, Mark McDonald <markm at siteserver.com> wrote:
> >
> >       Mr. Curran,
> >
> >       It’s unfortunate to learn about ARIN’s proposal to increase our
> rates by 650% from one year to the next from your EMail.  It would have
> been nice to
> >       receive this when this measure was being proposed.  In looking
> through various member forums, it appears we aren’t alone.  While I can
> appreciate
> >       your desire to standardize rates between End Users and ISP’s, it’s
> obvious that ARIN provides a different set of services for ISP’s as it does
> End
> >       Users.  For us, ARIN stores < 50k of data in a database - similar
> to a Domain Registration from Network Solutions.  They’re somehow able to
> perform
> >       these services for about $9/year.  ARIN has historically charged
> us $300/year for this service, and is now raising rates by 650% to
> $2000.00/year.
> >        And for what?  The IPv4 pool is depleted so there is no value in
> attempting to obtain additional IPv4 resources, while IPv6 resources are
> >       limitless, and are charged accordingly.
> >
> >       For End Users, there are no ongoing SWIP assignments or ongoing
> actions from ARIN that require ARIN’s resources and for those that there
> are, ARIN
> >       charges for those services (new assignments, transfers, etc).  We
> maintain numerous resources with ARIN through a different ISP account for
> >       resources used for ISP services and pay fees (and utilize
> services) accordingly.
> >
> >       When ARIN, or any organizational body, sends out an email stating
> rates are raising 650%, it makes me question how an organization that could
> do
> >       something for a a set fee for so long suddenly can’t and needs to
> implement drastic measures to “recoup” these fees.  It wreaks of
> inefficiency as
> >       ARIN’s number of resources managed is going up, not down and with
> any business, the cost to provide services goes down as the number of
> customers
> >       (resources) goes up.
> >
> >       I was trying to look through the ARIN organizational documents and
> recent Annual Reports to see how ARIN’s income is represented (percentage
> of ISP
> >       vs End-User, RSP vs Non-RSP) as your Email lacks this important
> information, however I was unable to find this.  It would be much
> appreciated if you
> >       could provide it.  As a user of ARIN’s services, it would be nice
> to see exactly how much of a rate increase this is (increasing ARIN
> revenue) vs
> >       standardizing rates, which would re-rate *everybody* (raising
> some, lowering others) so that ARIN’s revenue remained neutral while
> equally balancing
> >       costs to provide services.
> >
> >       In owning and operating businesses in the IT space, I’ve always
> viewed ARIN as a fair and equitable organization.  Until today.  Your email
> lacked
> >       critical information that would have shown this as a
> “standardization of rates” vs a rate hike on what appears to be all legacy
> customers.  Perhaps
> >       the rates ARIN is charging them isn’t too low, but the rates
> you’re charging ISP’s is too high, or perhaps somewhere in between.
> >
> >       From the Emails I’ve already received from other parties this
> affects, it appears the courts will ultimately decide what is legitimate
> and what is
> >       not, however I feel this could have all been avoided with better
> communication.
> >
> >
> >       Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> >       Mark McDonald
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       ARIN-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:
> >       https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >       Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210915/6f9bc88d/attachment.htm>