Stan,
Speaking up a bit late ... some of us had actually tossed this idea around on a list a couple of months ago
1. As it is right now there actually does seem to be a regional exchange building up unintentionally - everyone who transits through Kenya & Kenyan operators is being peered at KIXP, so that includes UG, RW, Ethiopia ... so they're able to access Kenyan content, and vice versa.
Note this isn't really intentional, and obviously there could be better commercial models for this.
As a consumer right now - you can make sure you're using one of these ISPs in both countries I guess ... and this type of model works for "content" actually - but I would want more ...
2. I know there are plans for various operators to peer at more IXPs and build "regional networks". Currently some Kenyan operators have started peering at UG, TZ, RW exchange points. The UG IXPs already peer in Kenya as we see from point 1. If you let this run its course, then slowly you will have 3-4 regional operators that have networks covering all countries.
3. If you ask me - I would advocate still for the same thing I did in the other discussion - there needs to be someone who can just light up a lamda on fiber between the countries. Or for operators to swap capacity at a lamda level. This means that now there is 10G capacity running between the countries. It's not just content that uses that capacity - these operators can run IP networks & sell IP transit to customers regionally. If they can build up scale, the price of bandwidth can start at $10 per MB regionally and even come down to $1 per MB. Then we have a model similar to that of the rest of the world.
So it's not just content that can drive this - but also IP Transit. And IP is a much better way to be selling our capacities than the STM-1 and STM-4 level everyone is doing.
People already have 10G running from Mombasa to the Kenyan border. Others have 10G from Kampala to the UG border. We need to join the dots. There is a clear business case.
4. There are problems with model 3 above - some of these are related to some countries that don't just sell dark fiber. So independent operators HAVE to buy capacity on a per MB basis from the govt or govt operator - and so that price will always remain your base minimum for that country.
Other problems ... ???
R
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Stan Ngure
<stanngure@gmail.com> wrote:
So team,
How can consumers/content providers push this agenda?
On Monday, July 23, 2012, Kivuva wrote:
As an internet user footing the bill through my wallet, I'm not only
interested with the speed of access, but also the pricing. I think
local content and peering will make more sense when ISPs start
charging different (meaning cheaper) rates for traffic destined to
local hosts. This will also spur growth of hosting infrastructure,
growth of applications, and bring local content hosted abroad back
home. This is the same model Safaricom uses for voice calls, with
calls across networks charged a little bit higher than calls in
Safaricom network. So if local data peering at KIXP is charged cheaper
than international data, it will make a lot of sense. Charging the
same to access Safaricom.com or orange.co.ke with yahoo.com or bbc.com
is like KQ charging the same rates from Nairobi to Hethrow and Nairobi
to Mombasa. I believe this is the model used by most Asian content's
ISPs with the proliferation of local based online gaming. I believe
experts of IXP like Brian Longwe and Michuki can attest to this.
--
Lordmwesh
On 23/07/2012, Stan Ngure <
stanngure@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Kyle, the demand is there.
>
> The content is there in as much is doesn't compare to Japan or China.