[arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Actually in the phone number space, there are LARGE blocks of numbers that 
cannot easily be returned because of legacy issues.

The legacy technology is pagers, which ironically I still use to alert me 
to network outages by automatic means. Texting cannot be used to alert to 
internet failures, because of the chicken and egg problem.

Normal telephone numbers are given out in blocks of 1000, meaning each 
telephone prefix can be given out to 10 different companies, which helped 
extend the life of the area codes.

However, because they used to be given out in full 10,000 number blocks, 
and the fact that there are no NEW makers of updated paging terminals with 
1,000 number block support, paging terminals are limited to using their 
legacy 10,000 number blocks, even if each prefix might only have a few 
customers. Paging companies are unwilling to change customer numbers to 
reduce this use, since a lot of the customers disconnect rather than move.

This is just like IPv4, where legacy networks might have a very low use. 
However, unlike IPv4, there is no MONEY behind recovery of these numbers.

The only reason that some IPv4 networks are being split, is the MONEY.

I wish that IPv6 uptake would get to the point that I could just get rid 
of IPv4.  My guess is that more than 1/2 of active networks have IPv6, but 
of course because of the other 1/2, we are stuck with IPv4 as well.

I would love to go to an IPv6 ONLY model.  Maybe ISP's could offer levels 
of service, with the IPv6 only service being the lowest tier, It should be 
cheaper because of not having to deal with NAT/CALEA logging, and would 
work just fine for things many want a fixed connection for things like 
most streaming providers.

Is anyone tracking this data to see what percentage of the internet is 
able to access IPv6 by percentage of access provider's connections? I 
already figure IPv4 will still be around long after my lifetime, and we 
will never get back to the pure need based assignment like IPv6 is now, 
and IPv4 used to be before the exhaust and things like CIDR and NAT.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> Removing the program, with its criteria and fees, would not stop the practice.  I will be the first to admit that, when I was on the ARIN board, I was completely against commercial brokerage of IP addresses, as a matter of principle.  I believed that IP addresses, when no longer needed, should be returned to the RIR for redistribution as needed.  Like phone numbers, for instance.  Now, however, I believe that there is a reasonable market niche for a few brokers, and that ARIN keeping a check on bad behavior in that space is valuable.
>
>                                -Bill
>
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 2023, at 9:28 AM, Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t see a reason to shut it down as it keeps at least some level of standard and provides revenue for ARIN.
>>
>> But then again in completely against brokeraging IP addresses. So I could go either way.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 17:26 Dominik Dobrowolski <dominikdobrowolski.co at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we are at it,
>> Why shouldn't we discuss openly whether to even keep facilitators program alive?
>>
>> Dominik Dobrowolski,
>> dominet LLC
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, 10:32 PM Tom Fantacone <tom at iptrading.com> wrote:
>> I was a bit stunned this morning to see our organization's ARIN fees
>> would be going up by a factor of 10.  We live in inflationary times,
>> but that's an increase of, let's see, I guess 1,000%?
>>
>> Before the rest of you resource holders on the list have a coronary,
>> let me qualify that this fee increase is for just for registered
>> facilitators (brokers) and most of you won't be affected.  This
>> time.  But the more general issue of ARIN raising fees in an
>> extravagant manner with no solicitation for public discussion of the
>> impact affects all of us.
>>
>> When ARIN began the facilitators' program the annual fee was just
>> $100.  A few years later the fee was raised tenfold to $1,000.  Today
>> we learned that another tenfold increase would go into effect making
>> our annual fee $10,000.  So it's actually a 100-fold increase in
>> about a decade.
>>
>> Our own organization won't be too affected by this.  We can handle
>> it, and most of the larger IP brokers can as well.  It may even help
>> us by driving away some competition.  But that shouldn't be the
>> point.  There are smaller organizations that are facilitators that
>> will be severely impacted.  We work with some of these and while they
>> may not handle the volume of transactions we do, they do an excellent
>> job in moving IPv4 resources to organizations that need them and
>> educating the parties along the way.
>>
>> There are some other changes to the facilitator program, including
>> requiring liability insurance for ARIN, background checks, customer
>> references, etc.  I assume this is to keep some of the riff-raff out
>> and may be helpful.  I don't see how outrageous fee increases help anyone.
>>
>> Other sharp fee increases have been brought up and complained about
>> on this list, always after the fact.  The recent resource holder fee
>> increases that saw end user organizations suddenly treated as ISPs
>> comes to mind.  Recently, transfer fees spiked from $300 to $500 per
>> transfer and were suddenly appled to source organizations in all
>> transfers (it used to be just transfers from end user orgs).  As if
>> that wasn't enough, ARIN started charging transfer recipients an
>> additional transfer fee.  I can tell you from first-hand experience
>> this hurt small organizations looking to acquire IPv4 blocks.
>>
>> I recommend ARIN transparently solicit public input when pondering
>> fee increases of such magnitude.  Hopefully before our fee goes up
>> another 1,000%.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tom Fantacone
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>