I believe every POTS phone number is separately portable, at least within
the geographic area ... you can switch your POTS number between providers and
to cellular or VoIP providers. Business numbers are transferable (and have
been for longer than general portability) ... in the case I was associa
And yet, you can indeed take your number with you when you change cell
phone providers. You can convert a fixed base land line to a cell
phone number, and then take it anywhere you want to, and to any cell
phone provider.
You can't convert a cell phone number to land line. Yet.
On 3 Aug 2007 23:
>I don't see whay you can't sell your phone number.
You can sell your 800/888/877/866 number, but not your POTS number.
Toll free numbers are more like domain names, in that you have to find
a provider to host it and to put an entry into the DNS-like database
that phone switches consult to decide
On Aug 3, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't see a duty of care here. There is no general obligation in
law to give up an economic interest just to help others.
Rather than allowing IP addresses to be traded, an annual per IP
address use fee could be imposed. This fee
I don't see whay you can't sell your phone number.
If you have a good number (lucky digits, etc.) I bet you could sell it
off. I wonder if there is a market for good 800 numbers
On 8/3/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3-aug-2007, at 23:54, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wro
On 3-aug-2007, at 23:54, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What you call extortion others call capitalism.
Either an ip address allocation is property or it isn't.
Right. And the people who've been in charge of IP addresses for the
last decade and a half or so, have always maintained that it
What you call extortion others call capitalism.
Either an ip address allocation is property or it isn't. If it is the owner has
no duty to give the property away just because someone else might want it. In
the second case the only possible cause of action would be against the
registrar.
I don'
On Aug 3, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
My point was about the failure to make sure there was large-scale,
multi-vendor, in-the-wild *service*. Anything that constraint [in]
what can go
wrong will limit the ability to make the technology robust and usable.
There are currently m
Tom.Petch wrote:
Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running
products.
...
OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products
and I was involved with their implementation.
So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed and s
Tom.Petch wrote:
Certainly there were early prototypes of OSI modules, and even running
products.
...
OSI got well beyond the prototype stage. Major manufacturers produced products
and I was involved with their implementation.
So did minor manufacturers. We (Wollongong) developed and
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: on the value of "running code" (was Re: Do you want to have more
meetings outside US ?)
>
> David Conrad wrote:
> > I'd offer that
On 3-aug-2007, at 13:32, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't see a cause of action a third party could bring here.
Agree. I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that random IP users have
standing for suing other random IP users.
In the past digital has claimed to have used a very large fraction
All
Due to lack of response, and as my 1st mail had a different Subject-line
thus may have been missed by mistake, I resubmit the comments. Sorry for
any inconvenience.
---
On draft-drage-sipping-service-identification-01 I would like to ask
wheter it would be more beneficial to leave out th
> If I was the isp in that situation hp has something I want and many
others want. There is absolutely nothing to be achieved by threatening
hp and much to be lost. Even if the threat worked the party that brought
the case and paid for the costs would most likely not get the allocation
anyway.
Whe
This thread recurs about once for every second or third A that's
allocated, so after 15-25 more iterations we're done.
Arnt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Just an observation:
It's nice to note that the management appears to be busy with real
work. The last IAB minutes are from April 10, IAOC from March 1.
http://www.iab.org/documents/iabmins/index.html
http://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes/iaoc_minutes.html#2007
OK, back to the regularly scheduled ran
I don't see a cause of action a third party could bring here.
In the past digital has claimed to have used a very large fraction of their
allocation. Its just behind a firewall.
Any third party claim would have to be brought against arin for not applying
their rules. It is a futile threat becau
I agree, the worst outcome here is we end up with a hundred different roll your
own approaches.
We don't always get whatwe want, but if we try we might get what we need.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
> The only effect that threats from ARIN would have in this
> situation is to make the situation worse. HP uses the address
> space internally. Transition to a different address space
> where they are behind a NAT has real costs for them. They are
> only going to make the transition if they can
I do not accuse people I disagree with of being ignorant or stupid, even when
they deserve it.
As you admit there is no effective competition in ip address allocations.
Attempting to prohibit resale may delay the exhaustion point by discouraging
speculation. But it also advances the exhaustion
On 3-aug-2007, at 10:17, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
ARIN does not want an address market? So what? I'd like someone to
give me a free Porche. Does not mean its going to happen.
So the fact that you're not getting a free car means that we're going
to have an IP address market?
Since the
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 3-aug-2007, at 0:46, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> > I expect the market in IPv4 addresses to trace the following pattern
>
> If you would have cared to quote properly and thus read the
> previous message you'd have seen that ARIN
22 matches
Mail list logo
