Dear Mwende and Walu, This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent on international links? Kindest Regards Harry From: kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of mwende njiraini Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM To: harry@africanedevelopment.org Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges 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> 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

Hmm, interesting - I think that what Harry was alluding to is the "build it and they will come" paradigm where we focus on the development of our local internet i.e. content, applications, infrastructure - and the rest of the world will notice and beat a path to our door i.e. they will pay the cost of the infrastructure to connect to us. While this could be shrugged off as an idealist approach it has worked very well for most of Asia and Europe. Of course, those continents have had international fiber optic infrastructure to support the "influx" from the developed countries. Methinks we will see a shift in payments for transit once our fiber networks hit the shore next year. Brian On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini wrote:

Dear Harry,

The Internet is a global network and its value is in provision of comprehensive end-to-end universal connectivity to end-users. Unlike the public switched telephone network (PSTN) where operators were obligated to interconnect, firms providing Internet infrastructure and services are driven to interconnect by the economic force of positive externalities/effects (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_externality). As a result the internet now has a global spread leading to the promotion of economic growth, expanded social opportunities, improved process efficiency and responsiveness of institutions and markets, ease of access to information, resources and services, etc.

Based on the forgoing argument, it would not be wise to have an entirely 'local' internet. However, there are countries such as China and Russia that have threatened to create their own separate internet however such moves have been resisted based on the risk of "international isolation and government censorship" (http:// blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7563 and http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/ 84378/china-to-split-the-internet.html).

Regards

Mwende

Disclaimer: The comments are the author's own.

On 8/13/08, Harry Hare <harry@africanedevelopment.org> wrote: Dear Mwende and Walu,

This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent on international links?

Kindest Regards

Harry

From: kictanet-bounces +harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces +harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of mwende njiraini Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM To: harry@africanedevelopment.org Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges

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

This message was sent to: brian@caret.net Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net

Yes Eric, But SAT-3's lack of impact was largely because it was controlled by the big bad boys, who kept (and continue to keep) the price of "getting in" very high. Which obviously creates barriers for both sides. Anyway all of this is well documented (and you have written a lot of it ;-) so you know where I'm coming from... Regards, Brian On Aug 14, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Eric M.K Osiakwan wrote:

Generally, thats how the world system works. You have to build internally and that becomes a value that people want so would coalise towards you. So many people criticise the governance system in China, including President Bush who even did so on his way there but all those people were and are in Beijing. There are emerging reasoning on how China is going to sharp the future of the Internet espeically because of their revoluionary lead in IPv6 research, watch that space....

Brian, for your information SAT3 landed in Accra since 2001 and it did not change the payments for transit automatically, other factors come into play which we would must equally work on. That is why i advocate that our participation in the global fora on trade (WTO), IP (WIPO) finance, technology (ICANN, IGF, etc) etc is important but at the same time, we must be building more cables, ixps and the critical infrastructure on the continent. I would say lets allocate 80% of our resources on the internal building and 20% on the external works.

Eric here

On 14 Aug 2008, at 10:43, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:

...

Hmm, interesting - I think that what Harry was alluding to is the "build it and they will come" paradigm where we focus on the development of our local internet i.e. content, applications, infrastructure - and the rest of the world will notice and beat a path to our door i.e. they will pay the cost of the infrastructure to connect to us.

While this could be shrugged off as an idealist approach it has worked very well for most of Asia and Europe. Of course, those continents have had international fiber optic infrastructure to support the "influx" from the developed countries. Methinks we will see a shift in payments for transit once our fiber networks hit the shore next year.

Brian

On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini wrote:

...

Dear Harry,

The Internet is a global network and its value is in provision of comprehensive end-to-end universal connectivity to end-users. Unlike the public switched telephone network (PSTN) where operators were obligated to interconnect, firms providing Internet infrastructure and services are driven to interconnect by the economic force of positive externalities/effects (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_externality). As a result the internet now has a global spread leading to the promotion of economic growth, expanded social opportunities, improved process efficiency and responsiveness of institutions and markets, ease of access to information, resources and services, etc.

Based on the forgoing argument, it would not be wise to have an entirely 'local' internet. However, there are countries such as China and Russia that have threatened to create their own separate internet however such moves have been resisted based on the risk of "international isolation and government censorship" (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7563 and http:// www.pcpro.co.uk/news/84378/china-to-split-the-internet.html).

Regards

Mwende

Disclaimer: The comments are the author's own.

On 8/13/08, Harry Hare <harry@africanedevelopment.org> wrote: Dear Mwende and Walu,

This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent on international links?

Kindest Regards

Harry

From: kictanet-bounces +harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces +harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of mwende njiraini Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM To: harry@africanedevelopment.org Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges

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

This message was sent to: brian@caret.net Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: emko@internetresearch.com.gh Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/emko%40internetresearch.com.gh

Eric M.K Osiakwan ICT Integrator Internet Research www.internetresearch.com.gh emko@internetresearch.com.gh 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: +233.21.258811 Cell: +233.24.4386792

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: brian@caret.net Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net

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@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

...

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

...

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

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini@gmail.com> wrote: transmission 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...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...

...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: blongwe@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@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com

Sorry to interrupt with this non-ICT issue but then we all operate in the wider environment. While today's early headlines were all about Michael Phelps being the greatest Olympian, here pops up KENYAN Jason Dunford and smashes Phelps Olympic Record in the 100m butterfly. BIG CONGRATS. Waudo On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:48:17 -0700 (PDT), "Alex Gakuru" <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> said:

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@gmail.com> wrote:

...

From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges To: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet@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@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"<

...

should be removed from the network. They include

http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> privacy invading

...

techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or

...

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@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

...

international

...

ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost

...

...

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

...

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

1 or 2 themes, jst remember 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

...

...

...

reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller networks (read African networks), that must

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

1 day for comments, corrections and/or

DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to the fact that peering with ISPs developing the two is exchanged pay Transit Charges. Put them?' 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...

...

...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to:

alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com

...

Unsubscribe or change your options at

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...

...

...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: blongwe@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@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: emailsignet@mailcan.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.c... People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).

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 <[4]blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:

...

From: Brian Longwe <[5]blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges To: [6]alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Cc: [7]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 12:52 AM Alex,

The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet<[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> networks <[10]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

Josiah - It took only 51.14 seconds. Jason has actually broken the Olympic record [1]http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM021907.s html#SWM021907 And shame on state broadcaster KBC for being stuck with a basketball game between Angola and China while this history was being made by a Kenyan. KBC should pull up their socks bwana Waruru. Waudo On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:31:44 +0300, "Josiah Mugambi" <jmugambi@gmail.com> said: too bad it only lasted 9 minutes but congrats nonetheless.. 4th overall timewise is great! .. Now beating Phelps while in the pool at the same time would be even more enjoyable. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:25 PM, waudo siganga <[2]emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote: Sorry to interrupt with this non-ICT issue but then we all operate in the wider environment. While today's early headlines were all about Michael Phelps being the greatest Olympian, here pops up KENYAN Jason Dunford and smashes Phelps Olympic Record in the 100m butterfly. BIG CONGRATS. Waudo On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:48:17 -0700 (PDT), "Alex Gakuru" <[3]alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> said: 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 <[11]alexgakuru.lists@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"<

[12]http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endto end.txt>

...

...

should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or

DPI).<[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection>

...

...

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 <[14]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

...

international

...

ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost

...

...

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:

[15]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html

Regards

Mwende

Disclaimer: Comments are author's own.

On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <[16]jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day

...

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

1 or 2 themes, jst remember 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

...

...

...

reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller networks (read African networks), that must

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

1 day for comments, corrections and/or

Trust me to the fact that peering with ISPs developing the two is exchanged pay Transit Charges. Put them?' proposals on this theme.

...

...

...

walu.

Ref: for some of the Studies: International Charging Arrangements for

Internet Services, Module I,

...

ICAIS, p.3

[17]http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf

...

The Half-Way Proposition.

[18]http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act _130.html

...

...

...

...

---

...

...

...

kictanet mailing list [19]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

[20]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to:

[21]mwende.njiraini@gmail.com

...

Unsubscribe or change your options at

[22]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwend e.njiraini%40gmail.com

...

...

...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [23]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

[24]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to:

[25]alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com

...

Unsubscribe or change your options at

[26]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexg akuru.lists%40gmail.com

...

...

...

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [27]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

[28]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to: [29]blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

[30]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blong we%40gmail.com

...

...

-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: [31]blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : [32]http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: [33]http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [34]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke [35]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: [36]alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

[37]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex. gakuru%40yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [38]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke [39]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: [40]emailsignet@mailcan.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

[41]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/email signet%40mailcan.com People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius). _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [42]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke [43]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: [44]jmugambi@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at [45]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jmuga mbi%40gmail.com -- Josiah Mugambi +254 738 504418 Blog: [46]http://blog.josiahmugambi.com Do you Zunguka? Sign up for FREE on Zunguka.com and enjoy cheap SMS, mobile phone backup, mobile entertainment content, mobile video and other exciting services. References 1. http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/SW/C73A1/SWM021907.shtml#SWM021907 2. mailto:emailsignet@mailcan.com 3. mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com 4. mailto:blongwe@gmail.com 5. mailto:blongwe@gmail.com 6. mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com 7. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_network 11. mailto:alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com 12. http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection 14. mailto:mwende.njiraini@gmail.com 15. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html 16. mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com 17. http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf 18. http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html 19. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 20. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 21. mailto:mwende.njiraini@gmail.com 22. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini@gmail.c... 23. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 24. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 25. mailto:alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com 26. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists@gmail.... 27. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 28. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 29. mailto:blongwe@gmail.com 30. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe@gmail.com 31. mailto:blongwe@gmail.com 32. http://zinjlog.blogspot.com/ 33. http://mashilingi.blogspot.com/ 34. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 35. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 36. mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com 37. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru@yahoo.com 38. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 39. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 40. mailto:emailsignet@mailcan.com 41. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet@mailcan.com 42. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 43. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 44. mailto:jmugambi@gmail.com 45. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jmugambi@gmail.com 46. http://blog.josiahmugambi.com/ People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).

Pretty cool to hear... but makes me wonder about our xenophobic tendencies manifested on this list a while back...what really makes us kenyan?...the color of our skin, tribe, religion, passport or number of olympic records you break? but lets not go there otherwise we may not finish off the IG discussions. but congrats to Jason and hope he gets some medal in the finals. walu. --- On Thu, 8/14/08, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:

From: waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> Subject: [kictanet] Congratulations Jason! To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 5:25 PM Sorry to interrupt with this non-ICT issue but then we all operate in the wider environment. While today's early headlines were all about Michael Phelps being the greatest Olympian, here pops up KENYAN Jason Dunford and smashes Phelps Olympic Record in the 100m butterfly. BIG CONGRATS.

Waudo

...

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@gmail.com> wrote:

...

From: Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges To: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Cc: kictanet@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

...

...

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

...

...

high.

Regards,

Brian

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists@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

...

...

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

...

...

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

...

...

...

Regards,

Alex

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

...

...

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

...

...

...

international

...

ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost

the fact that peering with ISPs developing

...

...

countries thus forcing them to incur

...

...

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

...

...

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

...

...

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

...

...

terminate the 'Y' calls to

...

...

...

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

its 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,

...

...

...

...

...

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

Peer-to-Peer relationship which is the two is exchanged

...

...

...

reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller networks (read African networks),

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:48:17 -0700 (PDT), "Alex Gakuru" <alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> said: traffic, transport is too put, such the US$ passes. this based on the full the retail phone pays it to the that must

...

...

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

1 day for comments, corrections

and/or

pay Transit Charges. Put them?' 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...

...

...

...

---

...

...

...

...

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

...

...

This message was sent to:

alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com

...

Unsubscribe or change your options at

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...

...

...

...

---

...

...

...

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to: blongwe@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@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

...

This message was sent to: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: emailsignet@mailcan.com Unsubscribe or change your options at

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.c... People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com

Hi coming in late :) mwende njiraini 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.

Well i tend to think that the regulated environment leads to this scenario. For instance, in an non-regulated environment there would be more players resulting in increased competition. Consequently, a large player would not necessarily have more subscribers but more ARPU. In such a case, they would settle to interconnect on more favorable rates on both ends not on affect their ARPU. However in a heavily regulated environment we find that one player tends to dominate the market.

(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?

Good arguement - there are a number of things are that happening that we can take advantage of going forward. We have cheap land which can be converted into Internet real estate aka data centers. For the past 3 years Europe has been running short on collocation space and turning commercial buildings into datacenters was not scalable to the pockets of most investors. With quality data-centers we can reverse the follow of traffic from its current % over 80% internationally and less than 20% local to more competitive levels. This would mean that foreign ISPs would come to peer or buy transit from within the region to access content. This can be comparable to what has happened to the BPO sector and the shift of traffic into the reverse direction. I still hold the position that we lack sufficient relevant local content to draw the interest of critical mass into using the net to notable levels. For instance, if KRA made it mandatory for every individual to make their annual returns online, to eliminate the costs related with service provision on their end by having physical agents at drop off points, what would be the effect of that?. It would be similar to the effect we had on the release of the KCSE and KCPE results online. If such initiatives were sustained in addition to the introduction of making payments for most services i.e telephony, power, water and even online shopping services there would be a greater shift in penetration of Internet services out of choice as a convenience.

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.

Well this is a clear demonstration of the frustrations that service providers are going through as a result of the competition. There's a theory given some of the large operators that about 5 - 10 % of the subscribers consume over 50% - 80% of the bandwidth available. So the raving question would be why would 10% of the subscribers punish the rest? and what should the ISP do in this case?. Regards, Michuki.

Gakuru, Alex wrote:

For clarity's sake..

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michuki Mwangi

...

Well this is a clear demonstration of the frustrations that service providers are going through as a result of the competition.

Is competition a good or a bad thing? And for whom?

Its good and bad for the consumer - they gets cheap/affordable services with very poor QoS.

Alex, One has to agree with your argument. Remember when mobiles were costing above 200k shs a set. Then the regulatory environment allowed more than one player and a plethora of sets. We now have 3 shs a minute calls and sets not above 1000 shs. When more players roll out the 11 pm to 6 am free calls will go to free calls on weekends and public holidays. As for ISP, when even GSM (Zain has a 2,995 shs unlimited service while Safaricom has 300 MB bundle for 999 shs) have joined the earlier players (dial as in Telecom, Popote etc. wireless as in butterfly, iBurst etc. and the conventionals), the trend has been lower costs with better quality as the consumer has many choices. Sectors that support ICT like energy are the let downs as they are yet to liberalize i.e. Kengen has no serious competitors and KPLC is still a monopoly giving many Kenyans a raw deal. Those escalating energy costs are reducing the impacts that would have been felt by growth in ICT. David On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

Michuki,

This is not true of the market place dynamics. Also equating "cheap/affordability with very poor QoS" invites monopoly. Earlier we were told monopolies gave us expensive poor services and we had no choice but to use their services thus calls to liberalise the sector and ISP entered. Granted, this led to infamous oligopolies(mobiles) but opened a few more consumer choices. Increased competition ensures consumers keep their options open. I encourage you to read Mike Jensen's contribution at last year's IGF. <http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Access-13NOV07.txt>

Therefore, I strongly object to your statement and instead call for ever increased competition (see: "his consumer group is working to assure that the people of Kenya gain access to affordable, reliable networked communications from competitive carriers." <http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_interviews_2007.xhtml>)

regards,

Alex

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote:

...

Gakuru, Alex wrote:

...

For clarity's sake..

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Michuki Mwangi

...

Well this is a clear demonstration of the frustrations that service providers are going through as a result of the competition.

Is competition a good or a bad thing? And for whom?

Its good and bad for the consumer - they gets cheap/affordable services with very poor QoS.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com

David Otwoma wrote:

Alex,

One has to agree with your argument.

Remember when mobiles were costing above 200k shs a set. Then the regulatory environment allowed more than one player and a plethora of sets. We now have 3 shs a minute calls and sets not above 1000 shs. When more players roll out the 11 pm to 6 am free calls will go to free calls on weekends and public holidays.

Caution here .. when you talk of mobile calls - you are referring to an operator who owns a network and charges you for minutes you terminate within their own network. Imagine if you were browsing with your ISP and didnt have to exit their network and they owned their own-infrastructure or links to your premise - exactly how much do you think it would cost?. The costs will always scale upwards the moment you dial a number outside the mobile operators network. So this is a perfect example of what interconnection (read peering) should do to costs of Internet services. If the ISPs would be able to provide a local Internet service only - am certainly sure it would cost less than 1,000 Kshs a month for unlimited broadband links. But then again what would you use it for?

As for ISP, when even GSM (Zain has a 2,995 shs unlimited service while Safaricom has 300 MB bundle for 999 shs) have joined the earlier players (dial as in Telecom, Popote etc. wireless as in butterfly, iBurst etc. and the conventionals), the trend has been lower costs with better quality as the consumer has many choices.

Maybe i need to rephrase myself on this one. Competition is good for the customer because he gets a variety of options. The options allow him to select a provider that suits his pocket. However, that comes at a cost to the user with regards to the best effort service that they receive. In most cases the contention ratio will be higher as the prices goes lower. In recent case of Comcast, i would understand why they would filter out access to torrent/peer-to-peer applications. This is because about 5% of the users would consume over 50% of the bandwidth available therefore impacting negatively on the calculated contention ratio for the entire network. In a competitive environment that is driven by Costs vs. Qos you want to maintain your service quality for the 95% of the clients on the network and cap out those who are seen to "abuse" the network. After all bit-torrent is known to provide access to alot of "illegal" content. Also have you ever wondered why the service is impressive during the first 6 - 12 months of introduction of service and he quality sort of degrades with time to a point that its no longer worth considering despite the lower cost. Then the most common thing happens, a new provider or an existing provider launches a new product which is often lower priced compared to anything thats in existence in the market and you have this migration of folks for the next 6 - 12 months. After that the service quality goes down and the same pattern keeps repeating itself. That to me is not a good thing to the consumer for the following reasons; 1) It means the user has to change provider every year which is a huge inconvenience 2) The cost of setup in most cases means that the user builds a store of CPE that they may never resell or make use of - i have one modem with me that i cannot sell, am sure there are those with more than two. 3) 2 above means that the cost of investment per modem for the user per year is quite high and hence does not actual calculate into lower costs to the user but high costs if thats anything to go by. 4) Where there were contracts to be signed - terminating the contract can often lead into additional costs for the end user.

Sectors that support ICT like energy are the let downs as they are yet to liberalize i.e. Kengen has no serious competitors and KPLC is still a monopoly giving many Kenyans a raw deal. Those escalating energy costs are reducing the impacts that would have been felt by growth in ICT.

I agree with this and not only ICT is suffering a good number of sectors have been affected equally. But is it only because of lack of competition? I tend to think that we lack the motivation and interest to to go beyond the textbooks. I think the lack of creativity and innovation in most of our developing countries is a significant contributor to the status we have in ICTs. For instance in China where the Internet is highly censored the number of users has reached 253million surpassing the US. The following article might be a useful highlight to what innovation can do in such highly regulated and restricted environments. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/25/business/internet.php Regards, Michuki.

So this is a perfect example of what interconnection (read peering) should do to costs of Internet services. If the ISPs would be able to

Well, Actually it would cost nothing! We offered everybody to host free content for free on our portal which is accessible without charges! Kai -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+kai.wulff=kdn.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+kai.wulff=kdn.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Harry Hare Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 08:34 To: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Cc: 'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions' Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions,Internet Interconnection Charges provide a local Internet service only - am certainly sure it would cost less than 1,000 Kshs a month for unlimited broadband links. But then again what would you use it for? We focus 80% of our resources (Eric's Proposal) to build capacity to access and utilize "local internet", this will include applications, relevant content and infrastructure (Brian's proposal). Harry _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: kai.wulff@kdn.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kai.wulff%40kdn.co.ke -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

"no competition in the infrastructure/gateway provider space." Not missed it locally. Surely *any* ISP can afford 10K application fee for Gateway license? (i.e. what they charge one customer in a month) See: - 3. FIXED AND MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICES CATEGORY Public Commercial Satellite Uplink/Downlink Gateway Services (Gateway Services) Kshs. 10,000 0.5% of the annual gross turnoverof the business <http://www.cck.go.ke/html/child.asp?title=licensing&contcatid=9&childtitle=license+fees&childcontid=69> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote:

Gakuru, Alex wrote:

...

Therefore, I strongly object to your statement and instead call for ever increased competition (see: "his consumer group is working to assure that the people of Kenya gain access to affordable, reliable networked communications from competitive carriers." <http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_interviews_2007.xhtml>)

The interesting bit that you are missing in our local environment with regards to competition is that you have increased competition in one space that is ISP but no competition in the infrastructure/gateway provider space. As a result what we have is increased contention ratio's for consumers by ISPs and hence the poor QoS and more affordable costs.

Regards,

Michuki.