[kictanet] Fwd: Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges

Thu Aug 14 10:45:43 EAT 2008

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet
Interconnection Charges
To: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini at gmail.com>

Mwende,

I was not proposing "Kenyan Intranet", not at all! But attendees at
recent KeNIC IPv6 training attest "mutual AS Numbers Announcing" among
ISPs that I mentioned is practiced, I am very convinced even locally.
My question was should local traffic be charged at international
rates?

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini
<mwende.njiraini at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Harry,
>
> The Internet is a global network and its value is in provision of
> comprehensive end-to-end universal connectivity to end-users.  Unlike the
> public switched telephone network (PSTN) where operators were obligated to
> interconnect, firms providing Internet infrastructure and services are
> driven to interconnect by the economic force of positive
> externalities/effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_externality).
> As a result the internet now has a global spread leading to the promotion of
> economic growth, expanded social opportunities, improved process efficiency
> and responsiveness of institutions and markets, ease of access to
> information, resources and services, etc.
>
> Based on the forgoing argument, it would not be wise to have an entirely
> 'local' internet.  However, there are countries such as China and Russia
> that have threatened to create their own separate internet however such
> moves have been resisted based on the risk of "international isolation and
> government censorship" (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7563 and
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/84378/china-to-split-the-internet.html).
>
> Regards
>
> Mwende
>
> Disclaimer: The comments are the author's own.
>
>
> On 8/13/08, Harry Hare <harry at africanedevelopment.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mwende and Walu,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to
>> it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our
>> content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc
>> would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we
>> create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that
>> encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local
>> infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent
>> on international links?
>>
>>
>>
>> Kindest Regards
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> From: kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org at lists.kictanet.or.ke]
>> On Behalf Of mwende njiraini
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM
>> To: harry at africanedevelopment.org
>> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet
>> Interconnection Charges
>>
>>
>>
>> In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between
>> operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated
>> environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network.
>> (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have
>> benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement
>> scheme.  However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is
>> encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth.
>> The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international
>> ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing
>> countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting
>> international traffic.  What incentives need to be put in place to encourage
>> shared-cost peering?  Content development?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators
>> seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to
>> manage network congestion.  In the US, for example the recent Comcast case
>> has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory'
>> network management practices were illegal.  To overcome the challenge of
>> network congestion several proposals have been made including the
>> introduction of bandwidth metered services.  Vint Cerf, Google's chief
>> internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission
>> caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum
>> data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion."  Net
>> neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to
>> the current developments in national and international fibre optic
>> projects.
>>
>> References:
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mwende
>>
>> Disclaimer: Comments are author's own.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember
>> to pick the correct subject line.  Meanwhile today we should discuss one of
>> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in
>> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short)
>>
>> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand
>> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and
>> Relationships.  Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and
>> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers.   Each company is supposed
>> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the
>> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate
>> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its
>> bigger 'X' network/customers.
>>
>> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the
>> Internet.  The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone
>> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in
>> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet
>> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network.
>> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these
>> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their
>> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay
>> offline).
>>
>> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is
>> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or
>> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a
>> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to
>> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged
>> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller
>> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put
>> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet
>> Costs for the rich nations in the North.
>>
>> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the
>> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains.  The
>> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are
>> working, why should you try and fix them?'
>>
>> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme.
>>
>> walu.
>>
>> Ref: for some of the Studies:
>> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I,
>> ICAIS, p.3
>> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf
>>
>> The Half-Way Proposition.
>> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini at gmail.com
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmail.com
>
>