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

Thu Aug 14 10:52:06 EAT 2008

Alex,

The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as
"
is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate
Internet<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet>
networks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_network> for the purpose of
exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure
definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that
neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each
derives revenue from its own customers.
"

Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable
infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements
where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high.

Regards,

Brian

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com>wrote:

> Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually
> accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept
> is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs
> international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet
> cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This
> becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted,
> and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic.
>
> Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that
> "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now
> in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;)
> potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million
> annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs
> would assist (and less NATs please)
>
> Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except
> affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end
> principle"<
> http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt>
> should be removed from the network. They include  privacy invading
> techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or
> DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to
> sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when
> determining through whom your traffic passes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini
> <mwende.njiraini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: blongwe at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
>

-- 
Brian Munyao Longwe
e-mail: blongwe at gmail.com
cell: + 254 722 518 744
blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com
meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20080814/a8789c96/attachment.htm>