On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:35 AM, <l...@mwtcorp.net> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:05:12 -0400 > > Hi Mike, > > It feels like we have been here before, > > "Mike Burns" <m...@nationwideinc.com> wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> I understand that there is a danger of overpurchasing (by whomever's >> definition) that comes from the removal of a needs test for transfers. >> In most cases we rely on the price of the addresses to provide some check on >> this practice, as it would for the overpurchasing of any other asset a >> corporation may choose to invest in. I think we should leave those >> definition of what an overpurchase is to the buyers, who will have a range >> of intended purposes, projected growth rates, planning horizons and other >> considerations. At least with a cap of some sort we limit the overpurchase >> risk to overall address usage efficiency. > > Here is where we disagree somewhat. To a deep pocket, I derive utility from > the > IP I deploy, and the IP that I prevent my competitors from deploying. We have > seen this in the RF spectrum. Vast amounts of spectrum are unavailable and > unused in the Rocky Mountain West due to a small number of national companies > purchasing the spectrum at auction and then choosing not to use it. It wasn't > done to increase it's value. It was done to stifle competition and to some > degree > it has been successful.
What percentage of the spectrum did each company have to buy to have that effect? A /12 maximum would limit any one org to 0.02% of the total IPv4 space before needs justification kicks in. There are other valid concerns here, but I think the /12 limit does address the concern about anticompetitive behavior. -Scott _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
