nanog mailing list archives
Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 13:59:45 -0800
On Jan 19, 2024, at 09:21, Charles Polisher <chas () chasmo org> wrote: Owen DeLong wrote:Some, but not a lot. In the case of the DTMF transition, the network and handsets were all under the central control of a single provider at a time when they could have forced the change if they really wanted to. After all, nobody was going to cancel their phone service altogether (or such a small fraction of subscribers as to count as a rounding error anyway) over the issue and AT&T could simply have shipped replacement phones with instructions for returning the older phone and done a retrofit operation if they really wanted to drive the transition.True, yet there's a missing piece to that description: ROI. In the regulated environment with a mandated X% Return On Invest- ment (X ≈ 15 IIRC) a bigger expense pie was a better pie because a bigger expense pie meant a bigger return. This was an inexorable force that influenced every substantive decision. An expanding rate base was the One True Path to advancing against the demon competitors: AT&T and other RBOCs.
You’re missing the fact that this particular set of events predates the formation of RBOCS or competitors in general. There was AT&T, there was GTE, and there were a handful of other ILECs sprinkled around the country, but each had 100% territorial exclusivity and monopoly and AT&T at the time was pretty much the only LD carrier, period.
In the Bell System setting, before and after Divestiture, a perpetual and costly migration from IPv4 to IPv6 with all the attendant cost burdens would have been well tolerated, even welcomed, in the "C Suite" anyways.
Absolutely, I’m actually surprised that the DTMF forced conversion and its attendant cost wasn’t foisted on the unsuspecting public, TBH. I really don’t understand how AT&T missed that opportunity. Sure, it would have lowered costs long term to a small extent, but the handset replacement process alone would have been a huge cost for several years. Let’s face it, those old AT&T phones were rock solid and in a pinch you could use one as a forging hammer. ;-) Owen
Current thread:
- Re: classic mail, was Vint Cerf Re: Backward Compatibility Re: IPv4 address block, (continued)
- Re: classic mail, was Vint Cerf Re: Backward Compatibility Re: IPv4 address block John Levine (Jan 13)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Matthew Petach (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 14)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 14)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 15)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Jay Hennigan (Jan 15)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Danny Messano via NANOG (Jan 16)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 19)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 19)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Charles Polisher (Jan 19)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 19)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 14)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Christopher Hawker (Jan 12)
- Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Randy Bush (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv4 address block Nick Hilliard (Jan 11)
- Reusable 240/4 Re: IPv4 address block Abraham Y. Chen (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Gaurav Kansal via NANOG (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Dave Taht (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Tom Beecher (Jan 11)
- Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block Matthew Petach (Jan 11)