John Walubengo wrote:
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).
Today among the largest IXPs and transit points are not in the US they are in Europe that is LINX (London) and AMSIX (Amsterdam) other EU states like Sweden and France have large IXPs and there are multiple small IXPs in as well. Even more interesting to note is that the largest IXP (by aggregate data/traffic) is in Seoul Korea. By studying the regions history, one will see alot of similarities to what is going on in our regions today. At the time, the balance of traffic from Europe to the US and Asia was in favour of the US. The Europeans realised that they needed to do much more than and in terms of reducing the overall costs and increasing the amount of traffic that was peered locally within the region. As a result, interconnection took root in the region. Its important to identify the ties that bind. For instance the African region is subdivided into regional trading blocks and reviewing the EAC for example. It would be appear apparent that the communication that exists between the EAC is quite significant. But yet interconnection for Voice and Data between the EAC is somewhat in its infancy stages. If i was to give an analogy, the day we shall have data being billed like the way mobile operators have done it with the free-roaming products across the continent, then we can consider starting to see reviews in pricing and increased penetrations. Regards, Michuki.