[kictanet] Congratulations Jason!

Thu Aug 14 16:56:28 EAT 2008

Pretty cool to hear...

but makes me wonder about our xenophobic tendencies manifested on this list a while back...what really makes us kenyan?...the color of our skin, tribe, religion, passport or number of olympic records you break? but lets not go there otherwise we may not finish off the IG discussions.

but congrats to Jason and hope he gets some medal in the finals.

walu.
--- On Thu, 8/14/08, waudo siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com> wrote:

> From: waudo siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com>
> Subject: [kictanet] Congratulations Jason!
> To: jwalu at yahoo.com
> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 5:25 PM
> Sorry to interrupt with this non-ICT issue but then we all
> operate in
> the wider environment. While today's early headlines
> were all about
> Michael Phelps being the greatest Olympian, here pops up
> KENYAN Jason
> Dunford and smashes Phelps Olympic Record in the 100m
> butterfly. BIG
> CONGRATS.
> 
> Waudo
> 
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:48:17 -0700 (PDT), "Alex
> Gakuru"
> <alex.gakuru at yahoo.com> said:
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > kictanet mailing list
> > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> > 
> > This message was sent to: emailsignet at mailcan.com
> > Unsubscribe or change your options at
> >
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.com
> People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people
> work (Confucius).
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: jwalu at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com