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

[Gakuru, Alex]

Whereas last year CCK issued a directive capping mobile
interconnection rates, we should acknowledge interconnection
regulatory challenges. For example, "Grameenphone Fined For Using
Illegal VoIP Services" <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/33049.php>
and local "Exposed: How Telkom loses millions in income"
<http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Supplements/bw/07102003/story07107.htm>

[Thanks all for the pointers]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:43 AM, 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: alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmail.com
>