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

Thu Aug 14 15:48:17 EAT 2008

Clearly Brian I am was not referring to peering but something within.
I shall locate and extract the lines from my 6deploy notes and post.

regards,

--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
> To: alex.gakuru at yahoo.com
> Cc: kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 12:52 AM
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: alex.gakuru at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com