<p>Scott,</p>
<p>On Oct 2, 2012 5:02 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> The discussion to date seems to have focused on the Residential Customer Privacy implications of this definition change. However, I think the more important change (and IIRC, what originally prompted Cameron to speak up) was the fact that ARIN is only applying 4.2.3.7.3.1. Residential Market Area (<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2373">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2373</a>) to wireline technologies, whereas the same addressing challenges are present in wireless deployments as well. The relevant text in that section reads:<br>
><br>
>> Initial allocations are based on total number of homes that could purchase the service in a given market area.<br>
>> Using SWIP or RWhois, residential access ISPs must show that they have reassigned at least 80% of their current address space, with a 50 to 80% utilization rate, in order to request additional addresses.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cameron, is that accurate?<br>
><br>
> -Scott<br>
></p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>For some reason, policy treats wires different than no wires. If there is no technical reason for this distinction, lets remove it and say the lower layer technologies are irrelevant.</p>
<p>In the marketplace, wireless broadband is frequently more fit (higher capacity) than the legacy wires that provide internet access to people. This was not likely the case when this policy was drafred.</p>
<p>Consquently, the policy should be updated to reflect the fact that wires vs no wires is not relevant to residential service definition. Same goes for a fixed location.<br></p>
<p>CB</p>
<p>><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Leif Sawyer <<a href="mailto:lsawyer@gci.com">lsawyer@gci.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Well, as a provider of Internet to residential and business users in rural Alaska, we don't have the option in many villages of wireline delivery.<br>
>><br>
>> Therefore we use wireless delivery. But this isn't "personal" nor "mobile" delivery, at least as far as my old eyes tell me...<br>
>><br>
>> So, cleaning up vagaries of policy is in the best interest, n'est pas?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Or maybe I'm misunderstanding some point in the thread?<br>
>> ---<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Cameron Byrne <<a href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com">cb.list6@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > I would just like the policy to be the same for wireless and wireline<br>
>> > networks that sell service to individual people.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I am not asking for any special provisions or changes to policy<br>
>> > itself, just change to the definition of a single term.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Today, this clumsy word "residential" is used, and ARIN staff say<br>
>> > residential service implies wires to a house where somebody lives.<br>
>><br>
>> Well, OK, if that's what ARIN staff say and it can't be fixed<br>
>> administratively then let's fix it in the policy. But let's be a<br>
>> little cautious about unintended consequences.<br>
>><br>
>> The folks who wrote that policy put "personal" and "home" in there<br>
>> five different times because they wanted to be extra sure that ARIN<br>
>> staff wouldn't apply it to a broader use. Clarifying it to mean<br>
>> regardless of technology may not reopen that debate or the can of<br>
>> worms that went with it. Expanding it to a new user class, mobile<br>
>> users, probably does.<br>
>><br>
>> I figure if you can fix the problem you've identified without<br>
>> reopening the debate then you've a better chance of getting the<br>
>> problem fixed. Am I wrong?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Bill Herrin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> PPML<br>
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
</p>