Owen DeLong wrote: > If you want to build a business based on upsell and control by trying > to convince users that they should give you extra money to provision > a resource that costs you virtually nothing, then more power to you. > > However, I think this will, in the end, be as popular as american > restaurants that charge for ice water.
Sorry, I need to dial back on the cynicism / sarcasm a bit, it doesn't travel so well through the tubes - that's a rant about the attitudes I encounter, not my views! I *utterly* agree with you that trying to micro-manage the allocation size on a per-customer basis for high-volume residential / SOHO connections is a complete waste of resources. I equally believe that a number of ISPs operating in that market are going to try, not just one or two crazy outliers, based on the attitudes I touched on in my rant (which, again, *aren't* mine). Coming from an IPv4 business model that goes: Extra for a static IP Extra for more than one IP Extra for a contract that doesn't forbid incoming connections Extra for non-generic reverse DNS Extra for not blocking IPSec Extra for... I fully expect some ISPs to extend that into whatever parts of IPv6 they can measure and charge for. > Is probably going to be at a significant competitive disadvantage vs. > a model that says "You can have whatever address space you can > justify. We'll start you with 65,536 networks which we believe is way > more than enough for virtually any residential user. We don't charge > you anything for address space. We think charging people for integers > is illogical." I really hope you're right. I'd love to see the Internet opened back up again, for everyone. Regards, Tim.
