Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G

Simon Hobson <> Thu, 21 January 2021 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FCE3A1889 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_zxfBr_1Cei for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5099C3A0CF1 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:53:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 888DB1BC66 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:53:07 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
From: Simon Hobson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:53:06 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: IPv6 <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:53:15 -0000

Yucel Guven <> wrote:

> > "There is too big a power differential between the cellular user that want to be able to have multiple subnets and the telcos for free market economics to work."
> More explicitly?  Do you mean that cellular operators 'do not want you share your internet connection'  for free market economics to work?

There is that. My "gut feeling" from observation is that cellular operators don't (or didn't) want users to be sharing the connection - that means you are not paying them a separate fee for each device that's using bandwidth. I can't speak for the US market, but here in the UK it does seem that the attitude has changed over the years - possibly an acceptance that the worms are well clear of the can and aren't going back in.

And even though we have (I believe) a significantly more competitive market over here, there is still the situation that all the operators offer a similar  or even identical service regarding technical things like this - so the user has no "free market power" to move to an operator that does offer a better service. Until one operator breaks ranks, then as a group they hold ALL the power regarding technical operations - the user has one simple choice, take it or leave it. And as things stand, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for any operator to break ranks.