On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini
<
mwende.njiraini@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@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>
>> This message was sent to:
mwende.njiraini@gmail.com
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
>
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>