Your modest proposaal; was: Re: Free Webhost

[Ed]

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:39 PM, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
> 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?

:)
Ponies we got ->  http://www.ponycity.com/stallions/warrior/index.html
for ponies, I like Connemara ponies myself. But, if you are going to
ride in Arizona, an Arabian is really what you want.

but a formal, well thought out broadband policy to best facilitate the
economic development of the great state of Arizona, that we need.

>
> 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.

only in the ideal free market, but we all know that any company that
can wrangle a monopoly 1) sets the prices high, and 2) the service low
- broadband is a utility, a natural monopoly in many parts of the
state. It should be regulated & supported as such. the places where
broadband is a competitive market is the exception for much of
Arizona.

I'm not asking for a free lunch, but I do want to have a say in what
the chow cart is serving.

>
> 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.
>

ok, I don't care all that much about IPv6, but I know that in the not
so distant future IPv4 will strangle all new enterprises in Arizona
(lack of static IP access). Until then, there is no business case to
migrate, unless it is a policy decision. The policy I am proposing is
to create a trickle of demand that must be serviced, to enable the
infrastructure transition, so that over a couple of years IPv6 will
take on more of the IPv4 transactions so that by 2020 only the
stragglers will still be using IPv4. And then we can send service
people out to switch them manually.

it is called change management, because it requires being managed -
orthogenesis isn't going to happen here - I'm open to suggestions that
can implement this, such as exposing the network to the driving force
of the bleeding-edge to get to the next level of network organization.
I think it is best to empower those that pay the bills to make that
demand, I'm also counting on a capricious consumer (statistical).
Arizona needs to avoid the entombing stagnation as IPv4 goes eol,
perhaps more than other states as we are (under normal conditions) a
young, growing state that relies on a dynamic economy.

> 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.

ok, but you're not one of the Arizona broadband providers with
monopoly control of your customers - and yes I expect there will be
plenty of proxies - and no, I don't want to see dhcp used in IPv6 -
training wheels on your new BMW? The transition will be something like
this - the state goes first(one), then the universities(few), then the
counties, hospitals and prisons(many) - by this time there should be
major IPv6 capacity in the meetme room(s) - then the utilities, ISPs,
cities and large corps and startups(countable). finally small
businesses and retail migrate(whatever). I'm guessing this will happen
about the same time Quartzite, AZ gets fiber and Prescott gets light
rail. (~20?3)

>
> 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

you miss-understand - I'm not suggesting an additional provider - I'm
suggesting we correctly identify and regulate the ones we already
have. We have a problem, it is time we managed it. Monopolies are a
stagnant form of businesses, they are sick and need our help to return
to their vibrant and growth filled ways, even if the cash flow looks
good short term - the free market does have toxic corner cases, and
this is one of them.

> 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?

The rule on monopolies is simple: if your customers aren't open to
choice, then your network is(and we can tell you to put a line out to
Quartzite). and no you don't get to set the rates(relax, you will make
money). Control or CashFlow, pick one. if you want to run a closed
network and set your rates, there must be choice at the customer level
- wherever that occurs.
Doesn't that make your situation viable? sounds like your local telco
is running a somewhat open network already - or they're not a
monopoly.

FLOSS you say? those that write the initiative can spell that out -
how friendly can you make it?

So, you liked all the other parts, right? ;)

>
> - Russ herrold
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>