[kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
waudo siganga
emailsignet at mailcan.com
Thu Aug 14 12:56:54 EAT 2008
Hi Charles,
First on a light note: the First President in the USA was
Lumatunga of the Comanche Tribe about 3,000 BC. I remember a
question from primary school "Who discovered America?" which was
framed to indicate that there were no people living there before
the 15th century!
Second, in the case of the ICT Board I think the major issue
there was its lack of adequate communication with stakeholders.
This, we were informed, will now be addressed. An organization
may be facing constraints but if it does not communicate, others
will form their own opinions. I am not sure about their strategic
plan but my suggestion when an organization is set up with high
expectations is that it should factor in some "quick wins"
within its strategy and also update regularly about its progress
or status. I think everyone wants to see these efforts
succeeding.
Waudo
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:10:57 +0000 (GMT), "charles nduati" <charlesnduati
2002 at yahoo.co.uk> said:
Hi All,
I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George
Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who
was known as the president of the confederation. George
Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of
independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original
states.
For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know
some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own
experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me
that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going.
The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system,
which turns out to be counter productive.
If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results,
lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the
public sector
cheers All
Charles
CHARLES N. NDUATI
BUSINESS MANAGER
JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD
JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA
P. O. BOX 79324-00200
NAIROBI, KENYA
TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438
MOBILE:254-722728815
EMIAL:charlesnduati2002 at yahoo.co.uk
www.jkuat.ac.ke
----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
To: charlesnduati2002 at yahoo.co.uk
Cc: kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet
Interconnection Charges
Alex,
The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering"
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as
"
is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate
[2]Internet [3]networks 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
<[4]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"<[5]http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endt
oend/endtoend.txt>
should be removed from the network. They include privacy
invading
techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or
DPI).<[6]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
<[7]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:
>
> [8]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html
>
> Regards
>
> Mwende
>
> Disclaimer: Comments are author's own.
>
> On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <[9]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
>> [10]http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf
>>
>> The Half-Way Proposition.
>>
[11]http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_13
0.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> [12]kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> [13]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> This message was sent to: [14]mwende.njiraini at gmail.com
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>
[15]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.n
jiraini%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [16]kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> [17]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: [18]alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>
[19]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexg
akuru.lists%40gmail.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
[20]kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
[21]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [22]blongwe at gmail.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at
[23]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blong
we%40gmail.com
--
Brian Munyao Longwe
e-mail: [24]blongwe at gmail.com
cell: + 254 722 518 744
blog : [25]http://zinjlog.blogspot.com
meta-blog: [26]http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_network
4. mailto:alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
5. http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
7. mailto:mwende.njiraini at gmail.com
8. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html
9. mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com
10. http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf
11. http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html
12. mailto:kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
13. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
14. mailto:mwende.njiraini at gmail.com
15. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/[email protected]
16. mailto:kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
17. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
18. mailto:alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
19. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/[email protected]
20. mailto:kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
21. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
22. mailto:blongwe at gmail.com
23. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/[email protected]
24. mailto:blongwe at gmail.com
25. http://zinjlog.blogspot.com/
26. http://mashilingi.blogspot.com/
People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20080814/c3f283c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list