From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com>
To: robert yawe <robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Sent: Thu, 30 September, 2010 16:46:03
Subject: Re: [kictanet] KIXP connectivity
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:23 PM, robert yawe <
robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Fiona,
> Thank you for the response, it helps to clarify an issue
Tis indeed helpful, looks like TESPOK needs help convincing
the
government that allowing non-license holders as peers is a good idea.
In fact, it is best current practice, along with carrier neutrality,
open access, etc.
so that some of us
> stone throwers can refrain, but that can only happen when we are in the
> picture.
>
> I believe from this response from KIXP is that the ministry of information
> and by extension the ICTBoard are not being truthful when they keep making
> it seem that the ISPs are refusing to lower their tariffs because they are
> greedy.
I don't see how one infers that from the KIXP reply. Not letting
non-licensed players peer at the IX does not equate with either
government untruthfulness or lower tariffs.
> Can the usual culprits please put this issue to rest, we seriously need to
> keep local content local
Well KIXP is serious about doing just that. If you have a
specific
issue where traffic that you think should go over the IX is going
overseas, then please send the traceroutes for diagnostic help.
I find it a bit ironic that someone who uses a .co.uk webmail account
bangs on about this issue. While I use webmail myself, it doesn't
cause me any guilt pangs in this age of (relatively) abundant
bandwidth. In the satellite age, I used a local email address,
which, sadly is no longer available to me.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel