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

Gakuru, Alex alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 12:58:19 EAT 2008 

As promised earlier,
....
Here's how it works. When a user types a website name into his browser
or clicks "send" to launch an e-mail, a Domain Name System server
produces an IP address for the destination. A router belonging to the
user's ISP then consults a BGP table for the best route. That table is
built from announcements, or "advertisements," issued by ISPs and
other networks -- also known as Autonomous Systems, or ASes --
declaring the range of IP addresses, or IP prefixes, to which they'll
deliver traffic.
....

<http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html>

regards,


On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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: alexgakuru.lists at gmail.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmail.com
>

More information about the KICTANet mailing list