RE: [OT?] The great African internet robbery
This is an arguement of long standing. In APEC it is known as 'international Internet charging arrangements for services' or ICAIS and in ITU-T as Recommendation D(iii). Precisely the same phenomenon applies to New Zealand and until relatively recently to the whole world, including Europe. Europe now has 'in house' Internet exchanges and a growing volume of indigenous content so that there is less and less reliance on Internet US-centricity. Asia is slowly evolving the same way. Arguments around this matter have been rehearsed on this list previously, when I asked for comment on a New Zealand position to take to the APEC TEL Working Group about two years ago (and received very helpful feedback). My (v. concise) summary of the New Zealand Government position on this matter is as follows: "Noting that NZ has the highest percent of GDP expenditure on telecommunications world-wide (OECD, 2000): we recognise that there is a net economic cost to NZ arising from current charging arrangements, nevertheless, this is not having a perceptible dampening effect on Internet development and use in NZ. Relevant industry opinion in NZ is that there should be no government action taken with respect to the current arrangements." Incidentally, the lack of perceptable effect on Internet development applies throughout Asia as well, in my view. I would love to see a realistic break down of comparative costs to ISPs and to their customers internationally ... I would bet that 90% of end user costs are due to domestic tariff rates and policies.There is now a considerable pile of international policy papers on this matter in the ITU and APEC TEL as well as a number of other international fora. They can be summarised as saying 'no or very little effect, dont regulate' or 'disaster, discrimination, growing digital divide, its not fair, regulate'. Logic argues that there is nothing that can or should be done about it through regulation that would be effective but that does not seem to be having much influence on the international debate. I would be happy to receive (off list) any comments members might want to make on what the NZ Government position should be and I will provide further information on the international debate on request. Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wedgwood [SMTP:cw(a)f00f.org] Sent: Wednesday, 17 April 2002 13:16 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [OT?] The great African internet robbery
The same argument presumably applies to New Zealand (and Australia) here.
What the article fails to mention is there seems to be more interest on the whole for New Zealanders to access U.S. based content than for U.S. based users to access New Zealand based content.
I would guess, if the option were available for parity here, that many people in the U.S. would simple choose to ignore (cut off) NZ completely if they had to share an equal part of the cost burden (remember in a fair world whis would be circuits to Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe), however, I have to wonder what the incremental cost to the average U.S. based user would be of U.S. based carriers and suppliers did take half of the cost and could redistribute the burden over other transit and peer links.
--cw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1931000/1931120.stm
[...]
According to Kenya's Internet Service Providers (ISP) Association, the continent is being forced by Western companies to pay the full cost of connecting to worldwide networks.
[...] - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 09:55 , Frank March wrote:
This is an arguement of long standing. In APEC it is known as 'international Internet charging arrangements for services' or ICAIS and in ITU-T as Recommendation D(iii). Precisely the same phenomenon applies to New Zealand and until relatively recently to the whole world, including Europe. Europe now has 'in house' Internet exchanges and a growing volume of indigenous content so that there is less and less reliance on Internet US-centricity. Asia is slowly evolving the same way. Arguments around this matter have been rehearsed on this list previously, when I asked for comment on a New Zealand position to take to the APEC TEL Working Group about two years ago (and received very helpful feedback).
This may come as a shock, but Asia and Australasia have 'in house' Internet exchanges, too :) Europe and Japan have attracted the attention of large, primarily US-based ISPs in a way that Australasia, Africa and the rest of Asia have not. The Atlantic is densely packed with fibre, and it is frequently possible to get access to chunks of the US network from exchange points in Europe just as easily as it is in California (example: peer with MFN in Paris, and you get exactly the same access to MFN's customers as you would if you peered across the PAIX in Palo Alto). MFN operates and pays for two STM-64 circuits between the US and Europe. Peers generally pay nothing beyond a share of the physical interconnection (circuit) costs. Europe's content is localised and generally far less interesting to the US subscriber than content hosted in North America, so that doesn't seem like a tremendous driver for a US company to spend money to cross the pond. The reason for shelling out the cash, as far as I can see, is (a) the opportunity to sell transit, and (b) the opportunity to expand into a civilized and relatively familiar market on the strength of dot-com NASDAQ euphoria. Clearly (b) is no longer a driver, and probably not coincidentally the number of US operators building into Europe right now is low. None are pulling out, though, which either means they're all too busy wading through the sticky morass of chapter 11, or that (a) is still making the European business case work. Europe is a nice big market filled with regulated phone companies and a rich terrestrial infrastructure. The number of potential subscribers per mile of under-sea cable is fantastically higher than the South Pacific, which perhaps explains why nobody is hurrying to offer MFN-style global peering in Auckland. Much of Asia and Africa have large untapped markets, but suffer (from the US perspective) from political instability, unfamiliar culture and extremely marginal terrestrial infrastructure.
My (v. concise) summary of the New Zealand Government position on this matter is as follows: "Noting that NZ has the highest percent of GDP expenditure on telecommunications world-wide (OECD, 2000): we recognise that there is a net economic cost to NZ arising from current charging arrangements, nevertheless, this is not having a perceptible dampening effect on Internet development and use in NZ. Relevant industry opinion in NZ is that there should be no government action taken with respect to the current arrangements." Incidentally, the lack of perceptable effect on Internet development applies throughout Asia as well, in my view.
I cannot see a reason why the US would ever mandate their operators to help cover the cost of internet access in New Zealand, so a position which doesn't expect them to do so seems highly pragmatic and sensible :) Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
The number of potential subscribers per mile of under-sea cable is fantastically higher than the South Pacific
Oh yes, the demographics are superb, in an area the size of Thailand, Cambodia and Burma, you have a demographic mix only macthed by the east coast of the US. If the EU matched the Asean countries on the numbers and the regulatory environment, I doubt there would be even two Trans-Atlantic cable systems... --- Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ | TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | | Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au | +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (3)
-
Frank March -
Joe Abley -
Terence Giufre-Sweetser