Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him. --Johnny
Can we stop the analogies before they begin. This is not the PSTN, comparing it to the PSTN appears to be where the court is going wrong. This is the Internet. It is internationally accepted policy that IP space is issued under a kind of license that does not give ownership or transferability. It is also part of the fundemental operation of the Internet that address space remains aggregated and that customers borrow space from the provider and if they move they get given new address space by the new provider. This is agreed by IANA, the RIRs, the ISPs. Steve On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Johnny Eriksson wrote:
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him.
--Johnny
Since all NSP's, ISP's, ALEC's, BLEC's and CLEC's adhere to this accepted behavior and there are more than 100 I blieve the court would be on the side of the plaintiff under the 3rd amendment of the constitution. It is my understanding that doing otherwise will cause an administrative nightmare and harm to the standard numbering system across vast segments of the industry and would create greater security risks than at present. It would cause enconomic harm to software writen specifically towards the current system and force redistribution of software and or fixes that could be disruptive for months on end. Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent, and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP, for the small number block they have. The long term potential harm could result in small ISP's not being able to get number blocks thus making it more difficult for small companies to gain better backbone access, from their Tier 1 host counterparts and could trigger a potentional shakeout in the industry. Have A nice day... -Henry --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
Can we stop the analogies before they begin.
This is not the PSTN, comparing it to the PSTN appears to be where the court is going wrong. This is the Internet.
It is internationally accepted policy that IP space is issued under a kind of license that does not give ownership or transferability. It is also part of the fundemental operation of the Internet that address space remains aggregated and that customers borrow space from the provider and if they move they get given new address space by the new provider. This is agreed by IANA, the RIRs, the ISPs.
Steve
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Johnny Eriksson wrote:
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can
I take my cell
number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him.
--Johnny
Worse case scenario. I think this is a bad precedent, and poor judgement on the part of the defendent ISP, for the small number block they have. The long term potential harm could result in small ISP's not being able to get number blocks thus making it more difficult for small companies to gain better backbone access, from their Tier 1 host counterparts and could trigger a potentional shakeout in the industry.
the current social environment encourages self-interest over responsibility. as i learned when doing the verio m&a of 60+ isps, "think locally, act globally" is the motto of the small to medium isp. as the market continues to 'mature' (think aerospace in the late '60s) the desperation of the small and the greed of the large will not lessen the pressures toward social irresponsibility. randy
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
"Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing table efficiency.
No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him.
All the places I have ever been, the address was assigned by somebody other than the building owner, ususally as a product of legislative action. A court order can not require the paramedics from New York to respond to a call now from Juneau.
Regardless, this is not a telephony issue ("Can I take my cell number with me?"), as the courts as seem disposed to diagnose these days, but rather, a technical one insofar as the IP routing table efficiency. No, this is not about taking a phone number. This is about a someone moving to a new apartment in a different part of town, and asking the court to force the owner of the old house to reassign the old street address to him.
[ hey johnny! long time no see. will you be at nordnog? if so, i will press even harder to go. or, if they wish to keep the phone analogy, it needs to be made clear to the relevant court that the phone number is analogous to the domain name, and the ip space is analogous to the actual coding in the switches. the question would seem to be one of who/how best to educate the court. their issuing a tro when they are not sure makes some sense. randy
participants (5)
-
Henry Linneweh -
Johnny Eriksson -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Randy Bush -
Stephen J. Wilcox