[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue Apr 25 18:12:37 CEST 2023
paul, > we resent being forced to pay for features that were are not in a > position to be able to use, by having them embedded in the unavoidable > fees. understood. but the set of services is the union of the services the members need, not the intersection. but a discussion of the services seems quite appropriate, just not here. i think we get to do that separately. > Current charging mechanism represents 3% of our turnover. it represents 100% of mine. rgnet has only expense, and it's all NCC fees. rgnet has no paying customers, just research. but that is a conscious choice. and i sympathize with the small isps. which is why i keep asking about finer granularity with a non-capped curve. a 'progressive' rate, kinda like the american income tax was supposed to be. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Consultation on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]