On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:47 PM <hostmas...@uneedus.com> wrote: > I think he is saying the categories did not change. He never said that > everyone pays the same. For as long as I can remember, us little ones pay > LOTS more per IP than the big guys.
Well, yes. But, I think that "paying per IP" is not a reasonable way to look at it - I don't call up and say "I'd like 7 please, with extra fries and hold the mayo". You are paying for registration and administration and similar. > When this is brought up, they always > point out those large guys pay a whole lot more than us. What they fail > to consider is that they ALSO get a better price per IP. As the example > you noted, they are paying 64 times LESS per IP than your /19. > > I have always considered that unfair. > In the county where I live, I need to pay an "Electrical Permit Fee" for "Service Equipment (new, temporary or replacement)". The fees are: 0 to 400 Amps -- $70 Over 400 Amps -- $95 I recently had to get a 60A panel installed, which meant that I was paying $1.16 per amp for the permit, while my neighbor, with a 400A panel only paid $0.18 per amp for his permit. A 400 Amp permit is $0.23 per amp, but if you are a large consumer and get a 2000A permit it works out to only $0.05 per amp. Perhaps this is unfair, and I should ask the county to charge permit costs by the amp instead -- but their work for issuing a 200A permit or a 400A permit is basically identical. The over 400A permit seems also roughly the same amount of work, but someone getting that level of service can presumably justify an additional $25 for the permit. W (Many years ago a swore a solemn oath to myself to not get involved in arin-ppml threads. I'm not quite sure what has possessed me to break this oath, but I suspect I'll live to regret it...) > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Mark McDonald wrote: > > > Hi John, > > We must be looking at different fee charts. Can you send me the one > you’re referring to? We hold a /19 and fall under the “Small” service > category, paying roughly > > $0.12/IP/Year. Right off the bat, we’re in the same service category as > someone holding a /18, so we’re paying twice as much per IPv4 Resource as > them - but wait, it > > gets much, much better. Those holding a /8 are paying $0.0038/IP/Year - > *64X* less than our company per IPv4 resource. Someone over there failed > math class if the > > goal was to level the costs among all users. > > > > If ARIN’s goal is to get everyone paying the same per/resource, our bill > should go down to $31.13/year so we’re paying the same per resource as > those issued /8’s. > > For an organization that’s trying to promote IP conservation, your > metrics show you’re promoting the opposite - the larger the block, the less > I pay. > > > > I broke it all down for you here: > > > > CIDR Number of IP's Service Category Fee Fee per/IPv4 (Resource) % of > full cost (/24) per/resource > > /24 256 3X-Small $250.00 $0.9766 > > /23 512 2X-Small $500.00 $0.9766 100.00% > > /22 1,024 2X-Small $500.00 $0.4883 50.00% > > /21 2,048 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.4883 50.00% > > /20 4,096 X-Small $1,000.00 $0.2441 25.00% > > /19 8,192 Small $2,000.00 $0.2441 25.00% > > /18 16,384 Small $2,000.00 $0.1221 12.50% > > /17 32,768 Medium $4,000.00 $0.1221 12.50% > > /16 65,536 Medium $4,000.00 $0.0610 6.25% > > /15 131,072 Large $8,000.00 $0.0610 6.25% > > /14 262,144 Large $8,000.00 $0.0305 3.13% > > /13 524,288 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0305 3.13% > > /12 1,048,576 X-Large $16,000.00 $0.0153 1.56% > > /11 2,097,152 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0153 1.56% > > /10 4,194,304 2X-Large $32,000.00 $0.0076 0.78% > > /9 8,388,608 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0076 0.78% > > /8 16,777,216 3X-Large $64,000.00 $0.0038 0.39% > > /7 33,554,432 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0038 0.39% > > /6 67,108,864 4X-Large $128,000.00 $0.0019 0.20% > > > > I sincerely hope ARIN re-thinks this before implementation. That’s what > would be fair and equitable for all. > > > > -Mark McDonald > > President/CEO > > Siteserver, Inc. > > > > > > On Sep 15, 2021, at 1:05 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > > > > Mark - > > > > In April of this year, we announced a consultation on the matter of > harmonizing ARIN’s fees and many of the issues you raised were discussed at > that time on the > > ARIN-consult mailing list - > https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2021-April/date.html > > > > As noted in that discussion, 3621 end-user customers will see their fees > decrease as a result of change. 4431 end-users (those with larger IP > address holdings) > > will see their fees increase. After the fee changes, all customers will > be paying the same fees based on their total IPv4 resources held. > > > > Regarding ISP/EU fees distribution, note that ARIN’s expected total fees > paid in 2021 are approximately $21 million – with ISP’s paying the > overwhelming > > majority of the costs at approximately $17M annually. > > > > Thanks, > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > > On 15 Sep 2021, at 3:21 PM, Mark McDonald <ma...@siteserver.com> wrote: > > > > Mr. Curran, > > > > It’s unfortunate to learn about ARIN’s proposal to increase our > rates by 650% from one year to the next from your EMail. It would have > been nice to > > receive this when this measure was being proposed. In looking > through various member forums, it appears we aren’t alone. While I can > appreciate > > your desire to standardize rates between End Users and ISP’s, it’s > obvious that ARIN provides a different set of services for ISP’s as it does > End > > Users. For us, ARIN stores < 50k of data in a database - similar > to a Domain Registration from Network Solutions. They’re somehow able to > perform > > these services for about $9/year. ARIN has historically charged > us $300/year for this service, and is now raising rates by 650% to > $2000.00/year. > > And for what? The IPv4 pool is depleted so there is no value in > attempting to obtain additional IPv4 resources, while IPv6 resources are > > limitless, and are charged accordingly. > > > > For End Users, there are no ongoing SWIP assignments or ongoing > actions from ARIN that require ARIN’s resources and for those that there > are, ARIN > > charges for those services (new assignments, transfers, etc). We > maintain numerous resources with ARIN through a different ISP account for > > resources used for ISP services and pay fees (and utilize > services) accordingly. > > > > When ARIN, or any organizational body, sends out an email stating > rates are raising 650%, it makes me question how an organization that could > do > > something for a a set fee for so long suddenly can’t and needs to > implement drastic measures to “recoup” these fees. It wreaks of > inefficiency as > > ARIN’s number of resources managed is going up, not down and with > any business, the cost to provide services goes down as the number of > customers > > (resources) goes up. > > > > I was trying to look through the ARIN organizational documents and > recent Annual Reports to see how ARIN’s income is represented (percentage > of ISP > > vs End-User, RSP vs Non-RSP) as your Email lacks this important > information, however I was unable to find this. It would be much > appreciated if you > > could provide it. As a user of ARIN’s services, it would be nice > to see exactly how much of a rate increase this is (increasing ARIN > revenue) vs > > standardizing rates, which would re-rate *everybody* (raising > some, lowering others) so that ARIN’s revenue remained neutral while > equally balancing > > costs to provide services. > > > > In owning and operating businesses in the IT space, I’ve always > viewed ARIN as a fair and equitable organization. Until today. Your email > lacked > > critical information that would have shown this as a > “standardization of rates” vs a rate hike on what appears to be all legacy > customers. Perhaps > > the rates ARIN is charging them isn’t too low, but the rates > you’re charging ISP’s is too high, or perhaps somewhere in between. > > > > From the Emails I’ve already received from other parties this > affects, it appears the courts will ultimately decide what is legitimate > and what is > > not, however I feel this could have all been avoided with better > communication. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Mark McDonald > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.