[kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
Brian Munyao Longwe
brian at caret.net
Thu Aug 14 10:43:15 EAT 2008
Hmm, interesting - I think that what Harry was alluding to is the
"build it and they will come" paradigm where we focus on the
development of our local internet i.e. content, applications,
infrastructure - and the rest of the world will notice and beat a
path to our door i.e. they will pay the cost of the infrastructure to
connect to us.
While this could be shrugged off as an idealist approach it has
worked very well for most of Asia and Europe. Of course, those
continents have had international fiber optic infrastructure to
support the "influx" from the developed countries. Methinks we will
see a shift in payments for transit once our fiber networks hit the
shore next year.
Brian
On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini 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: brian at caret.net
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/
> mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20080814/f84065e4/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list