Re: Backward Compatibility Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> 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