[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Will van Gulik
will at nimag.net
Wed Apr 19 14:31:05 CEST 2023
Hi Everyone, On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 04:00:29PM +0200, Clement Cavadore wrote: >Hello Simon-Jan, * > >On Wed, 2023-04-12 at 15:45 +0200, Simon-Jan Haytink wrote: > >> [ ... ] >> Model A - Category Model > >Could you please share how many LIRs would enter in each category ? >And also, it still seems unfair to me that extra-large LIRs holding >millions of IPv4 would pay a few thousand euros. National fixed or >mobile internet service provider should be able to handle higher fees. I would like to support that comment from Clement, it seems to me that huge players will not get impacted much by this charging plans. As I see it, some small ISPs (let's say with a /19) will get charged a 4th of what an incumbent (3215,3320,3303) would pay for their IPs, as the cap is a /15. I might have missed the reason why the amount of IP doesn't look like it has been considered above this cap, at least for model A. I understand that it's a minority, however they " use " most of the IPs. I think we are missing a point here in the calculation, the ~300 ish LIRs with more than 500k IPs could have a higher fee, I suspect that most of them can easily afford it. Regards, Will van Gulik Nimag Networks
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Publication of Draft Charging Scheme Models 2024
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]