Sony is one of the largest TV manufacturers in the world and
they also are a very large movie studio owner and one of the larger
game console manufacturers.
They have huge economic incentive to push 1040p HDTV and now
to push 4K tv. Have you seen a PS4 4K game on one of these?
It's almost indistinguishable from real life.
The fact is that a HDTV tuner is tacked on to an HDTV as almost
an afterthought.
The Powers That Be successfully engineered a narrative that blamed
the FCC for shifting to HDTV but the reality is that all of these
electronics companies had their own reasons for throwing 480p
into the gutter. They just didn't want to be blamed for it.
Ted
On 9/13/2021 10:08 AM, [email protected] wrote:
The true problem with the digital TV problem was twofold:
1) The FCC should have mandated DTV tuners PRIOR to the first DTV
stations going on the air. This mistake was similar to the FCC waiting
on the UHF tuner mandate until a lot of UHF licenses were already issued
and were operating.
2) The Coupon program should have started right after the first DTV
stations were put on the air. That would allow Digital sooner, and they
would not have had to extend the deadline because most of the OTA
viewers would have already been viewing digital prior to the Analog
shutoff, either with one of the boxes, or a new tv with a digital tuner.
And even that did not last, as now there is ATSC3 in many markets, and
none of this gear will pick up the broadcasts, leading to another
generation of hardware replacement.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
On Sep 12, 2021, at 10:04 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]> wrote:
I am fine with right-sizing allocations. An AT&T size network should
be able to receive a larger allocation based on the size of their
network versus our organization which should only receive a smaller
allocation based on the size of our network. This would work for IPv4
& Ipv6 and IPv8 if someone invents it.
The costs involved for an organization of adding Internet services
will dictate the time of an IP energy shift. The costs of IPv4 will
play a part of it especially as the cost goes up a lot, but other
real costs also factor in and those would be combined with high costs
of IPv4 addresses to finally encourage an IP energy shift.
The other thing that could cause a shift to another IP energy sooner
would be interference by say, the US Government, requiring in law a
shift away from IPv4 - similar to what they did with HD TV signals. I
prefer to let the market decide when. ?
You should look at that HDTV thing again before making that claim…
The FCC actually extended the deadline several times at the request of
consumer advocates and NTIA as they completely botched the set top box
voucher program repeatedly.
The end result at a certain point was that the broadcasters rejected
the last extension and basically said “You can extend the deadline all
you want, but we’re turning off the transmitters now.”
Owen
Steven Ryerse
President
[email protected] | C: 770.656.1460
100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Maimon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 3:22 AM
To: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]>; Ronald F. Guilmette
<[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And
The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
Steven Ryerse wrote:
So we have Ipv4 which is the energy currently running most of our
internet. IPv4 has a known total of IP addresses. The reserves of
unused IPv4 are spread around the planet in an inefficient and
uneven manner. Every day more and more IPv4 addresses are put to
work running services on the Internet which is slowly making them
more scarce. As the price rises over time per IPv4 address on the
open market, a lot of this inefficient and uneven spread of IPv4
addresses will even out somewhat via the open market. This will keep
the price reasonably low for awhile ($75 Per tank full) but as these
IPv4 addresses become more scarce the price will slowly climb until
the day comes where they become very expensive by todays standards
($500 per tank full) and at some point ($1000 per tank full or more)
and the organizations wanting to add more services to the Internet
will look for a cheaper alternative.
The significant difference is that IPv4 is a lot more recyclable than
oil.
It happens to be possible to create oil derivatives from other energy
sources.
So it is likely that we may never actually run out of IPv4 addresses
(especially because of the uneven spread of them).
Agreed.
Frequently what I read in this forum from some members makes me feel
like I am back in high school being told we will run out of IPv4
(oil) very soon. As we approached "Exhaustion" there was a steady
drumbeat of various members wanting to update policies to somehow
"save" IPv4 from running out. Some policies were changed to try and
slow the run out but we still reached the point of "Exhaustion" (end
of the 1990's) and its now 2021 and guess what - we haven't run out
of IPv4. This was easily predictable and some members shared exactly
this perspective in this forum and were largely ignored for a long
time. Now the free market has taken over like it ALWAYS does and the
reserves of IPv4 that were always there - have been slowly coming to
market in one way or another as the scarcity of IPv4 is slowly
increasing. This will continue and the price of IPv4 (oil) will
slowly rise. I suspect just like the oil predictions in the 70's,
IPv4 may still have a long way to go before!
it is replaced with a new IP energy (2030's?, 2040's?, 2050's? or
possibly later?).
Let us not gloss over the wasted costs associated with this
unnecessary and interminably long period.
The other possibility of new Internet energy happening sooner is a
killer Internet app that eats up IPv4 addresses so fast that the
cost per address rises much faster than it is doing now. VisiCalc
and then Word Perfect were the killer apps that cemented PC usage
throughout corporate America, Microsoft Exchange was the Killer app
that cemented Microsoft Windows Server as the de facto server
standard for corporate America, and so on.
Those killer apps are stillborn on the drawing board due to address
scarcity. Any that survive do so without addressing dependencies.
As you probably recall, the internet used to be a whole lot more p2p
than it is now. Now we have all sorts of centralized applications and
services that have significantly displaced that. To what extent has
address scarcity played a role is another question.
Precisely where IPv6 is strongest, mobile, is where p2p is least
applicable.
This is why I have always advocated for furthering the Internet by
making it reasonably easy and inexpensive for organizations to get
IPv4 resources, especially small organizations. My policy proposal
several years ago to allow any organization in the ARIN region to
easily get a /24 was shot down - or at least not supported by the
members of this community and forum. For those that think we should
have switched to IPv6 (new energy) by now, "saving" the Internet
from "Exhaustion" has actually had the opposite effect of delaying
the day that IPv6 might take over as the new Internet energy. So not
supporting my policy proposal to make /24 easy to get (we should
still do it) as well as not supporting other members that promoted
reasonable easier access to IPv4 resources have had the effect of
delaying the day IPv6 might take over as the Internet energy. Should
we really have a limit on the size of an IPv4 block that ARIN can
assign if the need can be demonstrated?
You cant have it both ways if you want RiR's to implement any form of
rationing and preferential assignment. Which I actually do, on record
with policy proposals.
I'm certainly against fraud of any kind, including in our community
and region, but reasonable policies on leasing IP address space that
are aligned with the free market make sense. Again, I am for any
proposal that furthers the Internet knowing the eventual scarcity in
IPv4 will cause us all to switch to the next IP energy - whenever it
happens and whatever it turns out to be. (I think we should add that
original phrase back into the ARIN Mission Statement even now.) Our
organization will be ready for the new Internet energy and we will
embrace it as it comes. All things considered, Excel was better than
Lotus 123 which was better than VisiCalc and so on.
I wonder what predictions they are teaching our children in high
school these days? My twenty-five cents. ?
Steven Ryerse
President
[email protected] | C: 770.656.1460
100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ronald F.
Guilmette
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 12:01 AM
To: arin-ppml <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And
The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)
In message
<[email protected]>,
Paul E McNary <[email protected]> wrote:
We are out of ipv4 IP's.
Not really. It's just that the ones that we have are very poorly
distributed and also very poorly utilized.
It is technically possible to host 100,000+ web sites on a single
IPv4 address.
Is is also technically possible to provide email service for
100,000+ domains on a single IPv4 address. Is anybody doing that?
No. Because the incentives to do so just aren't there... yet.
If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to the U.S.
DoD which just re-routed 175 million of their 221,971,968 IPv4
addresses, just to use them as one colossal and record-shattering
honeypot.
If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to Comcast
and ask them why they haven't moved to IPv6 and then returned their
79,419,720 IPv4 addresses to the free pool to help everyone out and
relieve this artificial "scarcity" for the benefit of everyone.
If you think that we've run out of IPv4 addresses, talk to AT&T and
T-Mobile and Verizon about the huge piles of IPv4 that each is
sitting on. Or better yet, talk to the Ford Motor Company, and The
Prudential Insurance Comapny, the U.S. Postal Service, and to Apple,
none of whom is a service provider, and all of whom are individually
sitting on an entire /8 or more (i.e.
= 16,777,728 addresses each).
Then maybe we could ask if Amazon really needs 23.3 million, if IBM
really needs a whole 17.5 million, if Google really needs 13.1
million, if Eli Lilly really needs 11.5 million, and if Merck really
needs 7.2 million, and if Bank of America really needs 6.2 million.
We're dying of thirst in the middle of Lake Superior.
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
