[menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

[Osama Dosary (dosary)]

Hello Fahad,
Just to add another perspective to this issue: too much deregulation can also be very negative from many aspects including market health.
I've read of many examples to this, but the closest that comes to mind is what happened in the early stages of Saudi internet, when 25 ISP licenses were issued. Only a fraction of them were able to financially break even. That's not healthy.
Now, we have more than 50 licenses issued. But the situation might be better than it was (at least I hope). The main differences are: easier license, cheaper bandwidth, and the force to change old ISP business models because of the looming fear of the sleeping DSP giants.
Lets take it easy on CITC, I think overall they are doing a good job. 
As far as peering goes I know that CITC is encouraging it, and it is important to them.
But sometimes its not a good idea to force peering or IX participation.
I'm sure Bill or Phil address this point better.
Let me just add a plug for MENOG: We need to all encourage our colleges and all those regionly involved in the Internet to participate in the next MENOG to help raise awareness of such important issues.

Regards,
Osama
--
Sent by Mobile Phone on Good Messaging (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:fahad at 2connectbahrain.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 07, 2007 03:22 PM W. Europe Standard Time
To:	'Nasser A. Albakr'; menog at menog.net; 'Bill Woodcock'
Subject:	RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

Dear Nasser, 

Do you actually expect licensees to be effective competition with
infrastructure development in under five years? Some services will be
launched quickly, but really effective competition? It will take at least
that long.

Let me ask you this, Verizon is one of the licensees. Do you think their
business model is built around improved broadband penetration into the
Kingdom, or the US military in the GCC?

I assure you, they'll launch every service they can make money out off so
that is good. But that is a byproduct of their main interest. The rest is
secondary. Actually, I know a company that is going for the second round of
licenses. Their business plan is flawless. It is amazingly complete and
satisfies all the CITIC requirements. 

They have a secondary business plan. They'll pay you the penalties. They are
not actually going to meet minimum rollout but will continue to pay the fees
which are cheaper and will focus purely on MPLS product which they have a
ready customer base for. I can't tell you who it is as I am under
disclosure. But who knows how many others have the same idea in their mind?

What will happen then? Personally, I'd like to lobby for a few licenses
given out to companies with Greenfield experience that agree to the minimum
commitment and say a bigger fine if they don't meet it? I have to admit,
there are personal motivations there but hey, who of us is not slightly
personally driven ;)



Fahad.





-----Original Message-----
From: Nasser A. Albakr [mailto:nbakr at citc.gov.sa] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:28 PM
To: Fahad AlShirawi; menog at menog.net; Bill Woodcock
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering



Fahad,

For CITC, we listen to all the players in the country and the region. We
have cases where regulation changed or even a new license was introduced
driven by innovative ideas from small business and productive minds.
Changes should not be feared, but we should have big concerns for the
pauses and the inconsistence of the IT evolvement in the region.

COLT just like current DSPs (putting aside the monopoly state we had
before) have started small at 1992 and it took it almost 5 years before
it can even compete in Europe. The DSPs here are all from an ISP or IT
companies background.

I have to say again that sharing the experience and exchanging
information between the main players in the region will help a lot in
-not only- having a better structured operation, but well also make us
avoid mistakes.

So -everyone- please do share :-)

Regards,
-----------------------
Nasser A. Albakr				nbakr at citc.gov.sa
Senior Network & System Specialist
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)





-----Original Message-----
From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:58 PM
To: Nasser A. Albakr; menog at menog.net; 'Bill Woodcock'
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

Nasser,

I know about the bid. However, regulation dictates minimum size that is
not
reasonable if you are expecting entrepreneurs and people who have the
will
and innovative mindset to bring something new to what is the largest and
potentially the best Greenfield in the region. Let me give you an
example:
Colt. How large where they when they started? Under CITIC rules, they
would
have never been able to start.

They run one of the best networks in Europe and are a great partner.
Personally, I have a lot of praise for CITIC's minimum rollout
requirements.
I think those are more than enough to insure that no 'bottlenecks' exist
and
insure that the mistakes of other markets are not repeated. But I think
Saudi made the other extreme of the same mistake made in Bahrain and I
think
it will hurt long term.


Maybe we can get input from others?


Fahad.




-----Original Message-----
From: Nasser A. Albakr [mailto:nbakr at citc.gov.sa] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:42 PM
To: Fahad AlShirawi; menog at menog.net; Bill Woodcock
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering



Fahad,

I agree with you, this is a one of the lessons we have learned from
KACST days, and after the movement of the Internet Gateway service to
the three Data Service Providers (DSPs). The incumbents do not drive
innovation and initiatives. That's why the effort and the change should
be driven by the regulator and the incumbents side by side. This effort
should come with the understanding of the benefit of an IXP. Even other
players should be involved (Academic and Educational organizations,
ISPs, IT Companies, Vendors, etc). 

Large companies should handle liberalization of the Internet Gateway and
International landing. Otherwise, we will end up with small players that
are causing bottlenecks and reducing the quality and reliability. Here
is SA, there is a massive increase in the IT market. I think the main
benefit that Saudi will introduce to the region is connecting the GCC to
the rest of the ME. 

As for the regulation and the licenses for international and landing
operations, there was a bid for a Fixed Telecom License that was
released last April. The license gives its holder the ability to enter
the DSP market along with other services. Three other companies were
qualified for that, and others can apply in upcoming stages:
http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/SimpleText/tabid/103/cmspid/%7B92547EA
E-40E7-4CB2-BAD2-672B6CBAF7D8%7D/Default.aspx



Regards,
---------------------------
Nasser A. Albakr				nbakr at citc.gov.sa
Senior Network & System Specialist
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)




-----Original Message-----
From: Fahad AlShirawi [mailto:fahad at 2connectbahrain.com] 
Sent: 7/Aug/2007 12:58 PM
To: Nasser A. Albakr; menog at menog.net; 'Bill Woodcock'
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering

Nasser,

On point of major import is that innovation, even when old and basically
a
no-brainer in the rest of the world, is hardly ever driven by larger
incumbents. The regulation in Saudi dictates that only incumbents, or
operators so large and overwhelmed with their internal politics, are
welcome
for the full liberalization in the Kingdom. 

One of our fellow members (can't remember who off the top of my head)
commented that Saudi is the largest ISP market and that it's usage far
exceeds the rest of MENA. That is true. Saudi has the critical mass to
make
things happen and to give a solid business case to derive a technical
dream.
Will the regulation change any time soon? Why are there only three
licenses
for international Landing? Can't we have more? That is one market that
needs
to be opened up if we are to see IXs flourish.


Fahad.



-----Original Message-----
From: menog-bounces at menog.net [mailto:menog-bounces at menog.net] On Behalf
Of
Nasser A. Albakr
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:16 PM
To: menog at menog.net; Bill Woodcock
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering



Hello all,

I agree with you, everyone needs to peer and will end up doing that
eventually, with or with out an IX. However, it seems because of the
high competition in the market, not having a high demand on national
data transfer, and no return profit from providing this facility non of
the main players are interested. Otherwise, we would have seen an IXP or
even peering on the GCC region years ago. What we have ended up with is
a group of providers who share the same landing point but exchange
traffic over their transit providers at least one continent away.

In Saudi Arabia after the liberalization of the Internet Gateway almost
a year ago and having 3 main Data Service Provider instead of one, non
of them has decided to invest in starting an IX or peer with the other
providers. This caused customers to have DSP to DSP connection problems,
where the traffic goes to the Internet Provider and back to the other
DSP, as you mentioned digital divide problem on the country level.

Here at CITC (as a regulator) we are more concern with the quality of
service and reliability of the traffic and data transfer with in the
country and how can the peering of the main players (DSPs) and/or having
an IX will improve that. The players (even on the GCC and ME level) must
realize the benefits, how will that reduce the international expenses
and drive other services to them. Some have come to that conclusion and
have started working on that. However, everyone should catch up and
participate.

Such meetings and discussions are good opportunity in passing knowledge
and sharing the findings. My guess is that everyone is waiting for
everyone to make a move. In addition, the smaller players (ISPs,
companies, etc.) are waiting for the quality to increase and the cost to
decrease in order to but more effort on the local content and data
transfer, and having a free peering and IXP(s) in the region will
produce that.

As for the question where should the IXP be, I agree with Bill and the
others. An IXP or more should be introduced in each country and
connected to the other country's IXPs. This is the logical way and how
it was done in other regions (Europe, Africa, etc). Waiting for all
parties to agree on a central point will take forever. However, it is
not the quantity that we are looking for here, but the distribution and
quality of the IXPs (not only GCC but in ME region). 


Regards,
----------------------------------------------------------
Nasser A. Albakr				nbakr at citc.gov.sa
Senior Network & System Specialist
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)


-----Original Message-----
From: menog-bounces at menog.net [mailto:menog-bounces at menog.net] On Behalf
Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: 6/Aug/2007 7:50 PM
To: Baher Esmat
Cc: menog at menog.net; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Kais Al-Essa'
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering


      On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Baher Esmat wrote:
    > I must also say that I was a little bit puzzled with parts of the
discussion
    > as it appeared to me that we're not differentiating between the
Incumbents
    > like STC, Batelco, ect., (those incumbents are also ISPs) and
other smaller
    > ISPs. My understanding is that the Incumbents whether they have
bilateral
    > peeing among themselves or peer via IXPs, they remain the big guys
who own
    > the customers as well as most of the traffic. The small ISPs on
the other
    > hand have to have their own IXP setups and hence be in better
positions to
    > negotiate better deals with Incumbents, or with upstream providers
if ISPs
    > are allowed to connect directly to them.

Another way of putting it is to say that everyone needs to peer, in
order 
to grow.  The big guys know this (they couldn't have gotten big if they 
didn't), and will always peer, whether internationally (in London or 
Amsterdam or Hong Kong or elsewhere), or across private bilateral
sessions 
between each other.

It's the little guys who need the IXPs, in order to be able to
efficiently 
compete with that, and peer as well.  If the big guys grow, and the
little 
guys don't, you've got an increase in the digital divide problem.  If 
everyone grows, the whole market grows, and more new service is
available 
to all potential customers at lower, more competitive prices.

                                -Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.menog.net/mailman/private/menog/attachments/20070807/8071fc8e/attachment-0001.html