ARIN Proposal

[Stephen Satchell]

At 8:36 AM 1/22/97, Jerry Scharf wrote:
>> > > For any ISP that sells any of those "tied" services, any move which
>>makes it
>> > > un-feasible (and by that I mean any event which causes SIGNIFICANT
>>barriers
>> > > to entry to be raised) is IMHO a per-se anti-trust problem, at least
>>in the
>> > > United States.
>> >
>> >       I think it's a technical fact of life.
>> >
>> >       If you move, you have to notify your friends, change your mailing
>> > address everywhere it appears, change your phone number, maybe drive
>> > further to work, and so on and so forth. Is this grounds for an action
>> > against your landlord?
>> >
>> >       DS
>>
>> That's not the analog here.
>>
>> If you move, *I* don't have to change *MY* phone number.
>
>Karl, any of us who have been through one or more area code renumbering
>instances knows this is not true. It can happen, it does happen, just the
>Internet has smaller prefixes. Forced by at outside organization to change
>with no recourse or cost recovery. It just so happens that the people
>making the decisions are almost always an arm of the state government.

There is another flaw in this analogy:  there is an announcement, a
parallel-operation period where *both* Area Codes are valid, then the final
cut-over.  I've been through this a couple of times with Chicago, New
England, and Bay Area clients.  (I'm also facing this with the idea to
split Nevada into two area codes -- I'm in Northern Nevada and Clark County
[Las Vegas/Henderson] run the state, so my area code is sure to change.)

With IP numbers, you don't have any of those options, as I've mentioned in
what should have been a prior rock.