North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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:
>Owen wrote:
>> 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).
>	--msa
           Plain Aviation, Inc                  [email protected]