North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: RADB Fees
- From: Dean Anderson
- Date: Tue Oct 26 00:01:05 1999
Oh come on. AV8 is pretty small, and I'll pay the fee. Though, I think $200 is pretty high for what is provided. I mean, its just a database entry after all. Right? Server operation at exchanges is paid for by server users at the exchanges. Right? So we pay Internic the outrageously high fee of $35 per year for domain registration... Doesn't seem that much different...
Around 09:49 PM 10/25/1999 -0400, rumor has it that Majdi Abbas said:
>> While I agree with you in principal, the reality is that we live
>> in a capitalist society, and governments are eliminating the socialist
>> funding of these mechanisms which has allowed them to exist to date.
>> If they are to continue to exist, they will require a source of
>> funding. If you have an alternative that is better than user fees,
>> please propose it. Otherwise, please recognize that this isn't
>> an effort to nickle and dime so much as the result of multiple
>> independent agencies being forced to self-fund their pieces of
>> internet infrastructure as they lose their government funding.
> I don't see it as being cost recovery (although it is
>certainly intended as such)...more as cost shifting. Here's
>how it'll work:
> The people who will be affected will, in many cases,
>either pool their resources (maintainers, in this case), or
>get their upstreams to start handling their RADB entries.
> The end result? Merit will recover a lot less of
>their costs than they might expect, and the larger ISPs
>out there will get hit hard -- suddenly they're doing a
>lot more administrative work than they used to have to.
> Smaller ISPs and people who just don't care enough
>will stop using the RADB or not start in the first place
>if they perceive the obstacles as outweighing the benefits--
>thus making it a less effective resource than it is today.
> Short term, because Merit hasn't been very public
>about it to date, even on this mailing list (which was the
>first on my list), a lot of people will be receiving bills
>they're unaware of, and may or may not be able to get paid
>on time -- presuming the maintainer contact was even up to
>date in the first place -- so a lot of objects go away in
>the database, and the internet will become a much less
>happy place until things are resolved.
> I don't have an issue with the cost recovery aspects,
>I just feel that this is rather short notice, and also rather
>poorly timed (a lot of people are still busy with y2k issues,
>it would have been better to wait until sometime next year).
Plain Aviation, Inc firstname.lastname@example.org