This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Drew Marshall
drew.marshall at trunknetworks.com
Tue Aug 2 17:45:48 CEST 2011
On 2 Aug 2011, at 09:17, Peter Heidenreich wrote: > Hello, > > we have the same situation and i still wrote an email to agm at ripe.net. > > We currently have a /20 and two /21. We are in the billing category > "small". With the new charging scheme we are in the category "M" and we > have to pay 2.500 EUR per year. > Actually we pay 1.600 EUR per year. > > I think also that it is not fair that we should pay 900,- more without > any benefit! > I would agree that the break point between medium and small looks to be in the wrong place (or right place, depending on which side of the fence you sit!). We have 1 x /21 as our first allocation and 1 x /20 as our second as we used up the first /21 and under the new charging structure we have suddenly become medium because of the extra /21 and are facing a significant price hike. I very much like the idea that I saw where the charges were on a sliding scale, as this strikes me a being far fairer. I know we should pay more for our allocation than someone with a single /21 but I also feel we should pay less than someone with a /16. My thoughts for what they are worth. Drew
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]