Your modest proposaal; was: Re: Free Webhost

[R P Herrold]

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Ed wrote:

> Would anyone like to start a state initiative that limits our ISPs to
> managing only the bandwidth of their service as provided to users
> (enforcing Network Neutrality),

require that all customers must be
> provided only static IP addresses, and full port ranges* - with rare
> technical & temporary exceptions granted by the corporation
> commission,

the option to the customer of IPv6 or IPv4 at no cost
> diffrerential as of 2010

, and finally that any customer that is
> experiencing a "to the property line/to the wall" monopoly on wire or
> optical line based service may elect to be covered under a corporation
> commision managed, rate & service monoply controle.

Would you like a pony with that as well?

Seriously, there is no such thing as a free lunch and passing 
a law to have the govenment entity, rather than the 
marketplace, add requirements on what may be offered, is a 
recipe for higher prices, and less features.

IPv4 vs. IPv6 pricing are simply two different kettles of fish 
-- I've been wresting with ARIN BGP block pricing issues this 
week, for a new 'slice' product -- and while I would LIKE a 
pony, it's not gonna happen.

I can probably give all my customers IPv6 at once -- but the 
infrastructure maturity, and application maturity, and tech 
abilities matureity for a pure IPv6 world are, as a practical 
matter, not there yet.  Prove it to yourself - can you run 
your residential net entirely IPv6 with sendmail/exim/postfis, 
and bind/tinydns, and ssh, and your dhcp server dishing out 
only IPv6 content.  As the problems are still there, there is 
a consumer desire for IPv4 for good reasons.

I would LIKE to be able to dish out contiguous blocks, and to 
reassign customers here and there within an allocation, but 
the truth of the matter is that there is overhead default 
route, network and network broadcast over head which varies, 
depending on the number of IP's assigned.  Solving allocations 
most efficiently is a 'knapsack packing' problem with the 
additional constraint that one has to co-ordinate changes with 
customers which may have nameserver details not easily 
changed.  TANSTAAFL

Having a monopoly provider out there adds yet another provider 
to compete against, and as a practical matter, they will 
either have subsidies of exonomies of scale that will eat 
alive a small niche provider such as I am affiliated with, 
into extincton.  Then you'll have only that 'choice' to turn 
to.  Wanna bet how FOSS friendly it will be?

- Russ herrold