On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 13:40 Owen DeLong, <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 2021, at 16:16 , Noah <n...@neo.co.tz> wrote: > > If it makes business sense to lease, the best is to seek sub-allocations > from existing LIR by requesting a service from the said LIR. > > Chances are the cost of direct sub allocation from an LIR providing such a > WISP connectivity services would be way much lower since there are no 3rd > party markups cost wise. > > > Pricing below assumes a 30 day month and computes the monthly price as > (hourly price*24*30). > All of these are prices over and above the connectivity charge for > whatever circuit on whatever plan you get with the provider. These are just > the additional fees for static addresses from the providers shown. >
> > Google static IP address pricing (assigned but unused address per month): > $7.20 > Google static IP address pricing (in use on a standard VM instance per > month): $2.88 > > Azure Static IP address pricing Standard (ARM) per month, single address: > $3.60 > Azure Static IP address pricing Standard (ARM) per mont, prefix (per > address): $4.32 > > Amazon pricing for static IPs is sufficiently opaque that I couldn’t > figure it out. > > Comcast static IP (Business class service only, so double your > connectivity price, too), $19.95/month > > Century Link static IP $15/month + $75 setup > > Charter static IP (Business class service only, so plan an upcharge there, > too): $65/month or more > > AT&T static IP: $15-$40/month > > Verizon Business: Starting at $99.95/month > > OneSource: $11/month > > EarthLink: $15/month > > Tell me again how all of these circuit based LIRs are cheaper than the > average $3-$5/month from a non-facilities based lessors? > Owen, you are ignoring the infrastructure investments made by all the above providers. How do you expect them to deliver services to end-users without a fee. How would they cover operational costs related to provision of the circuits associated with each of the above. As for the additional costs to static IPs, all I am seeing is different prices depending on the providers in which case, end-users have a choice. > And that's assuming they can afford to purchase. >> > >> If they don't prefer brokers or IPv4 lessors to an LIR, there is no lease >> business and nothing for you to fret about. >> > > The draft policy dont make no sense. The whole thing started with IPv4 > transfers year ago and now cropping into IPv4 lessors but to whose benefit. > Certainly not the community. > > > So how, exactly, does the community benefit from paying $15+ per address, > upwards to as much as almost $100/address/month instead of being able to > lease from independent sources for ≤$5/address/month? > The services they keep enjoying provided for by the providers. Who is your home ISP? Dont you value anf enjoy the service they provide you? > I mean I’m willing to accept the idea if you can make it make sense, but > so far, your claims about pricing just aren’t reality. > My claims are valid as per some of the few examples you provided above of services that include suballocations based on need. Noah > Owen > > >
_______________________________________________ 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.