[members-discuss] Billing scheme problem

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 09:58, Michel Luczak (SHRD) <ml at shrd.fr> wrote:
> I rarely post here, but this is not limited to ex-USSR. I’m a LIR in France, I know several other french LIRs, we are (very) small companies (usually not a full time activity and no profit made, just hobbyists) and this change is affecting us as well. So as long as possible we’ll use the possibility, as the RIPE proposed, to split payments for companies with limited cash flow but it will definitely become a problem.

I'm going to speak up here as well just to illustrate that this isn't
necessarily an issue of location and I would hate for people to be
forming an opinion that they don't care because it only affects "the
others". I represent a number of smaller LIRs in the UK where it
simply would not be practical to pay a year's RIPE fees up front.

Let's put the amount in perspective. When you consider that your
up-front cost to the NCC to set up a LIR is probably greater than what
you might pay a transit provider, monthly in arrears, for a whole year
to actually deliver the service for those addresses, the NCC cost is a
huge component of the cost of starting up an ISP - in any country,
although admittedly moreso in some than others. And it's remains a
huge proportion of the cost base for many ISP businesses which now
operate in an effectively commodity market on thin margins. I'm not
saying there's anything wrong with the price (a discussion that is not
relevant to this thread), just that the inversion of payment terms is
in opposition to the way (most of) the rest of the real world of
business operates.

Let's not forget also that RIPE NCC is a giant corporation with none
of the cash flow issues or immense uncertainty that smaller LIRs may
face. It is no hardship to them to have the payments arrive over time
- especially when you consider that they are currently obtaining cash
money in advance to cover expenses that will not be incurred until 11
months later. What a privileged position to be in that nobody
questions this!

As far as the motivation for this change, I find that also faintly
ludicrous. Of course a higher number of LIRs means a higher cost in
bookkeeping and collections! But it also means a higher revenue. It's
called a marginal cost. The cost per LIR does not go up. All this
change serves is to further bolster the cashflow and interest earnings
of an organisation that certainly needs neither (evidence: NCC budget)
and create an unnecessary and potentially crippling barrier for both
new LIRs and for those that wish to remain small.

I see there will be opportunity for payment plans. We have received no
information on this despite all my LIRs currently being on quarterly
payment. Will it be means-tested? I certainly hope not, that defeats
the object of reducing costs. Will it just be what is currently
available in the form of quarterly payments? If so what is the point
of this change? Just to hide away so you only have access to it if you
ask for it? and thus still have the perceived barrier to new entrants?
Will it be available for ever or only for this year?

Let's have a clear statement from the NCC as to what problem they are
actually trying to solve with this change and why they feel it fair to
put the squeeze on *any* above-zero percentage of their members when
they simply don't have a cashflow problem to solve. As mentioned
above, reduction of bookkeeping costs is bunk and not acceptable.

Regards

David