On Mar 20, 2013, at 16:20 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:18 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 09:25 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>> Not one of them will run BGP with a residential subscriber.
>>
>> Who cares? [See below.]
>>
> Not one of them will run BGP with a commercial subscriber using a
> cost-effective edge technology.
[snip]
I'm literally at a loss how to respond.
This whole post is either a contradiction ("ISPs do free BGP", "the barrier to
entry for BGP is higher than it should be"), or non-sequitors ("Comcast charges
me $99 and doesn't give me a static IP address", uh... so?), or simply wrong
statements ("BGP doesn't scale so we limit growth", "no we don't", "not in so
many words, but yes we do").
What exactly are you trying to say? Because I apparently am too stupid to
understand.
>> You are a pretty smart guy, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the
>> doubt and assume you just kinda-sortta forgot or did not consider the whole
>> "money" thing, despite the fact the only reason nearly every Internet entity
>> exists. (Now I wonder how many people are going to tell me about the N%
>> which are non-profits, despite the fact I said "nearly"?)
>
> I'm paying way more per month to the providers that refuse to do BGP with/for
> me than I am paying to the providers that ARE doing BGP with/for me. Clearly
> money is not the issue.
You are confused. Money is (to a first approximation) ALWAYS the problem. Just
because two companies sell things at different prices does not mean money is
not at the heart of each company's pricing strategy. OF COURSE it is. They....
Oh, never mind.
I'm going to take away the benefit of the doubt I gave you.
And I think I'm going to stop feeding the ridiculously obvious troll.
--
TTFN,
patrick
