[kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
Brian Munyao Longwe
brian at caret.net
Thu Aug 14 14:38:58 EAT 2008
Yes Eric,
But SAT-3's lack of impact was largely because it was controlled by
the big bad boys, who kept (and continue to keep) the price of
"getting in" very high. Which obviously creates barriers for both
sides. Anyway all of this is well documented (and you have written a
lot of it ;-) so you know where I'm coming from...
Regards,
Brian
On Aug 14, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Eric M.K Osiakwan wrote:
> Generally, thats how the world system works. You have to build
> internally and that becomes a value that people want so would
> coalise towards you. So many people criticise the governance system
> in China, including President Bush who even did so on his way there
> but all those people were and are in Beijing. There are emerging
> reasoning on how China is going to sharp the future of the Internet
> espeically because of their revoluionary lead in IPv6 research,
> watch that space....
>
> Brian, for your information SAT3 landed in Accra since 2001 and it
> did not change the payments for transit automatically, other
> factors come into play which we would must equally work on. That is
> why i advocate that our participation in the global fora on trade
> (WTO), IP (WIPO) finance, technology (ICANN, IGF, etc) etc is
> important but at the same time, we must be building more cables,
> ixps and the critical infrastructure on the continent. I would say
> lets allocate 80% of our resources on the internal building and 20%
> on the external works.
>
> Eric here
>
>
> On 14 Aug 2008, at 10:43, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> This message was sent to: emko at internetresearch.com.gh
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/
>> mailman/options/kictanet/emko%40internetresearch.com.gh
>
> Eric M.K Osiakwan
> ICT Integrator
> Internet Research
> www.internetresearch.com.gh
> emko at internetresearch.com.gh
> 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North
> Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 2031
> Fax: +233.21.258811
> Cell: +233.24.4386792
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a7099811/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list