On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Eisenberg > <nat...@atlasnetworks.us> wrote: >> As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think it's all >> that odd, or 'despicable'. Allocating static assignments consumes engineer >> time for configuration and documentation. On a business class service, you >> can eat that cost fairly easily. On a low-yield residential circuit, there >> has to be some long term ROI because that work probably takes the margin out >> of the service for months. > > "Engineer time" is not an issue. If it requires an "engineer" for > "configuration" and "documentation," the provisioning process is > already flawed. The reason to not want residential users to have > static IPs is that these users represent large chunks of traffic which > can be easily moved from one group of HFC channels to another when > additional capacity must be created by breaking up access network > segments. If many users had a static IP, this would be more > difficult. Since most users don't have a static IP, the overhead of > dealing with the few users who do is entirely manageable, especially > when these users are paying a higher fee. > This assumes an HFC network and not a PON or DSL topology where it is not an issue.
Owen
