Subj : Weekly nodelist report on noteworthy changes (148) To : Matthias Hertzog From : Michiel van der Vlist Date : Thu Jun 03 2021 11:28:54 Hello Matthias, On Wednesday June 02 2021 08:16, you wrote to me: MV>> However.. The market for fixed internet connections is pretty MV>> saturated. Mobile is another kettle of fish but almost every MV>> household in the western world has a fixed broadband IP MV>> connection by now. There is not much net growth and in MV>> consequence little demand for more IP addresses in that sector. MV>> The incumbents are not short of addresses yet. The ones most MV>> affected are the newcomers. MH> That's true. But one may not forget, that customers are shifting to MH> other suppliers. While one is getting free IPs, the other gets short MH> of them. Every company has to be prepared for such a shift, which is MH> especially citical for newcomers or others with a great load of MH> inbound shifts. Really hard to predict. Yes, there is that. Another factor is that with a market value of $20 for an IPv4 address, it may be tempting for some providers to sell unused addresses. With the risk of needing them later when demand rises unexpectedly. MH> Since the bottom of the price is probably reached, huge shifts will no MH> longer happen that easy these times. As you've said, the market is MH> saturated. In your next message I read that you pay SFR 44/month for 1 GB sysmetric. That is cheap!. I pay some EUR 55 for 75/10. Not really comparable because for that I also get a "landline" and 75+ TV signals, half of which HD. My cable provider has a semi monopoly because the 75+ year old telephone cable can not compete with the coax and fiber is not available here. SFR 44 = EUR 40 a month for 1GB sysmetric is reaaly cheap even if they only offer CGNAT IPv4 and no IPv6. So that may explain why they are faced with an acute shortage of IPv4. Still... I am not happy with this development. Because it amplifies a trend that has been going on for over a decade: the internet is turned from a peer to peer network into a client/server network. :-( MV>> So... next question.. this ISP of your connection at home, is it MV>> a new kid on the block? MH> No, it's not. In fact, one of the oldest. www.green.ch But as i've MH> said before: "Conservative". "Conservative" may work against them in the long run... I may be a bit obsessive about this hobby horse of mine but I think an ISP not offering native IPv6 yet, 21 years into the 21st century has missed the boat. We will see... MH> I know some of the people there and see exactly why things are like MH> they are. They have a new CTO, so i expect some changes in the future. MH> Just had a nice chat with him yesterday about IP-addresses :-) And what did he have to say? MH> Having FTTH is fine and the right thing to do. It sucks a bit, that MH> it's not a real "open access network" where several providers can MH> participate. That is an issue here as well. For the customers open access networks are preferable, but the powers that be try to frustrate it. Here KPN (the incumbant) has recently changed from AON to GPON for their fiber network. Cost they say, but I suspect it mostly serves to make it more difficult to share the physical layer with other providers. The other mayor player, Ziggo is now involved in a court case over free choice of cable modems. The customer who started this has a good case, but Ziggo has been figthing tooth and nail to prevenet free modem choice and so far they have been succesfull. MH> When i ran my ISP, we always went to the open access networks and had MH> a great success with it. A lot of cities here went the right way and MH> installed FTTH networks which they rent to providers on L2/L3. That MH> works, allows competition and is hassle-free for endusers. I'd say you can't leave this to the market. The big ones will always win in the end. MH> Green is using BBCSF (broadband connectivity service fiber), which is MH> using the swisscom physical network, but with green backbone. Not bad, MH> works very well and performance is fine. Green is not getting rich of MH> it, as swisscom takes a large portion of the fee for their network, MH> but green had not to do invest in the physical network. So it's MH> probably fine for both of them. MH> The market here in switzerland is very fragmented. You can get MH> swisscom everywhere and UPC-Cablecom-Sunrise almost everywhere. To MH> find another ISP is possible, but offerings vary from city to city, MH> sometimes even on street level . It is not much different here. MH> .. and that's exactly why people stick with swisscom if they once have MH> it. Moving is easy (even the tech spec can be different at a new MH> location) and they bundle mobile. Expensive as hell, but a real "don't MH> worry"-packag for the tech-unare enduser. I was fighting on that front MH> for years. As I said, it is too important to leave it to the market. The infrastructure should be public property, to be available for every provider on an equal opportunity basis. Cheers, Michiel --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111 * Origin: Michiel's laptop (2:280/5555.1) .