We ran out of them 20 years ago when we started using NATs and devices no longer get issued their own addresses. The reason why we don't recognize that we did is that the IP address is just a means and doesn't define the relationships in a post-mainframe world. Unfortunately we don't have standard alternatives soinstead of have lots of ad-hoc communities that use the Internet as a transport but don't play well with each other. More about this in http://rmf.vc/CILight.

In http://rmf.vc/CITransition I explain why we need fresh start rather than trying to bring the past forward.

OK -- replied to the wrong post and can't fix it. So much for trying to figure out this UI.

Oops - didn't mean to be anonymous. (Is there a way to edit my original comment to remove the anonymity)?

In http://rmf.vc/FCCPerspective?z=sdt I observe that the Internet is a larger concept then telecommunications. Both "sides' seem be accepting the idea that the Internet is just another telecommunications service and that is simply wrong.

Neutrality is a good principle but it doesn't address the inherent conflict of interest that comes from having service providers owning the physical infrastructure. I use the term "Broadband Internet" to distinguish the sliver of telecommunications capacity used for exchanging bits from the larger concept of a "Generative Internet".

The first step is to break free of the 19th century business model of selling services to pay for providers' private infrastructure. We need to own our local physical infrastructure and fund it as a commons. That is a sustainable model that generates the hypergrowth we elsewhere in computing and connectivity. For more see the essay and others such as http://rmf.vc/Demystify?z=sdt which go into the detail.