<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Oh absolutely. I don’t agree with too much or too little. That’s
why I love the network rollout bit!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Also, while I don’t agree with the rest of it, I think it’s far
better than the situation in Bahrain. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>As to peering, you can never force it. Get things right and
peering will take on a life of it’s own.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Fahad.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Osama Dosary
(dosary) [mailto:dosary@cisco.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Fahad AlShirawi; Nasser A. Albakr; menog@menog.net; Bill Woodcock<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Hello Fahad,<br>
Just to add another perspective to this issue: too much deregulation can also
be very negative from many aspects including market health.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
Lets take it easy on CITC, I think overall they are doing a good job.<br>
As far as peering goes I know that CITC is encouraging it, and it is important
to them.<br>
But sometimes its not a good idea to force peering or IX participation.<br>
I'm sure Bill or Phil address this point better.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Osama<br>
--<br>
Sent by Mobile Phone on Good Messaging (www.good.com)<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Fahad AlShirawi [<a href="mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com">mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 03:22 PM W. Europe Standard Time<br>
To: 'Nasser A. Albakr'; menog@menog.net; 'Bill
Woodcock'<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE:
[ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
Dear Nasser,<br>
<br>
Do you actually expect licensees to be effective competition with<br>
infrastructure development in under five years? Some services will be<br>
launched quickly, but really effective competition? It will take at least<br>
that long.<br>
<br>
Let me ask you this, Verizon is one of the licensees. Do you think their<br>
business model is built around improved broadband penetration into the<br>
Kingdom, or the US military in the GCC?<br>
<br>
I assure you, they'll launch every service they can make money out off so<br>
that is good. But that is a byproduct of their main interest. The rest is<br>
secondary. Actually, I know a company that is going for the second round of<br>
licenses. Their business plan is flawless. It is amazingly complete and<br>
satisfies all the CITIC requirements.<br>
<br>
They have a secondary business plan. They'll pay you the penalties. They are<br>
not actually going to meet minimum rollout but will continue to pay the fees<br>
which are cheaper and will focus purely on MPLS product which they have a<br>
ready customer base for. I can't tell you who it is as I am under<br>
disclosure. But who knows how many others have the same idea in their mind?<br>
<br>
What will happen then? Personally, I'd like to lobby for a few licenses<br>
given out to companies with Greenfield experience that agree to the minimum<br>
commitment and say a bigger fine if they don't meet it? I have to admit,<br>
there are personal motivations there but hey, who of us is not slightly<br>
personally driven ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Nasser A. Albakr [<a href="mailto:nbakr@citc.gov.sa">mailto:nbakr@citc.gov.sa</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:28 PM<br>
To: Fahad AlShirawi; menog@menog.net; Bill Woodcock<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad,<br>
<br>
For CITC, we listen to all the players in the country and the region. We<br>
have cases where regulation changed or even a new license was introduced<br>
driven by innovative ideas from small business and productive minds.<br>
Changes should not be feared, but we should have big concerns for the<br>
pauses and the inconsistence of the IT evolvement in the region.<br>
<br>
COLT just like current DSPs (putting aside the monopoly state we had<br>
before) have started small at 1992 and it took it almost 5 years before<br>
it can even compete in Europe. The DSPs here are all from an ISP or IT<br>
companies background.<br>
<br>
I have to say again that sharing the experience and exchanging<br>
information between the main players in the region will help a lot in<br>
-not only- having a better structured operation, but well also make us<br>
avoid mistakes.<br>
<br>
So -everyone- please do share :-)<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-----------------------<br>
Nasser A. Albakr
nbakr@citc.gov.sa<br>
Senior Network & System Specialist<br>
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Fahad AlShirawi [<a href="mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com">mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:58 PM<br>
To: Nasser A. Albakr; menog@menog.net; 'Bill Woodcock'<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
Nasser,<br>
<br>
I know about the bid. However, regulation dictates minimum size that is<br>
not<br>
reasonable if you are expecting entrepreneurs and people who have the<br>
will<br>
and innovative mindset to bring something new to what is the largest and<br>
potentially the best Greenfield in the region. Let me give you an<br>
example:<br>
Colt. How large where they when they started? Under CITIC rules, they<br>
would<br>
have never been able to start.<br>
<br>
They run one of the best networks in Europe and are a great partner.<br>
Personally, I have a lot of praise for CITIC's minimum rollout<br>
requirements.<br>
I think those are more than enough to insure that no 'bottlenecks' exist<br>
and<br>
insure that the mistakes of other markets are not repeated. But I think<br>
Saudi made the other extreme of the same mistake made in Bahrain and I<br>
think<br>
it will hurt long term.<br>
<br>
<br>
Maybe we can get input from others?<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Nasser A. Albakr [<a href="mailto:nbakr@citc.gov.sa">mailto:nbakr@citc.gov.sa</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:42 PM<br>
To: Fahad AlShirawi; menog@menog.net; Bill Woodcock<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad,<br>
<br>
I agree with you, this is a one of the lessons we have learned from<br>
KACST days, and after the movement of the Internet Gateway service to<br>
the three Data Service Providers (DSPs). The incumbents do not drive<br>
innovation and initiatives. That's why the effort and the change should<br>
be driven by the regulator and the incumbents side by side. This effort<br>
should come with the understanding of the benefit of an IXP. Even other<br>
players should be involved (Academic and Educational organizations,<br>
ISPs, IT Companies, Vendors, etc).<br>
<br>
Large companies should handle liberalization of the Internet Gateway and<br>
International landing. Otherwise, we will end up with small players that<br>
are causing bottlenecks and reducing the quality and reliability. Here<br>
is SA, there is a massive increase in the IT market. I think the main<br>
benefit that Saudi will introduce to the region is connecting the GCC to<br>
the rest of the ME.<br>
<br>
As for the regulation and the licenses for international and landing<br>
operations, there was a bid for a Fixed Telecom License that was<br>
released last April. The license gives its holder the ability to enter<br>
the DSP market along with other services. Three other companies were<br>
qualified for that, and others can apply in upcoming stages:<br>
<a
href="http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/SimpleText/tabid/103/cmspid/%7B92547EA">http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/SimpleText/tabid/103/cmspid/%7B92547EA</a><br>
E-40E7-4CB2-BAD2-672B6CBAF7D8%7D/Default.aspx<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
---------------------------<br>
Nasser A. Albakr
nbakr@citc.gov.sa<br>
Senior Network & System Specialist<br>
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Fahad AlShirawi [<a href="mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com">mailto:fahad@2connectbahrain.com</a>]<br>
Sent: 7/Aug/2007 12:58 PM<br>
To: Nasser A. Albakr; menog@menog.net; 'Bill Woodcock'<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
Nasser,<br>
<br>
On point of major import is that innovation, even when old and basically<br>
a<br>
no-brainer in the rest of the world, is hardly ever driven by larger<br>
incumbents. The regulation in Saudi dictates that only incumbents, or<br>
operators so large and overwhelmed with their internal politics, are<br>
welcome<br>
for the full liberalization in the Kingdom.<br>
<br>
One of our fellow members (can't remember who off the top of my head)<br>
commented that Saudi is the largest ISP market and that it's usage far<br>
exceeds the rest of MENA. That is true. Saudi has the critical mass to<br>
make<br>
things happen and to give a solid business case to derive a technical<br>
dream.<br>
Will the regulation change any time soon? Why are there only three<br>
licenses<br>
for international Landing? Can't we have more? That is one market that<br>
needs<br>
to be opened up if we are to see IXs flourish.<br>
<br>
<br>
Fahad.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: menog-bounces@menog.net [<a href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net</a>]
On Behalf<br>
Of<br>
Nasser A. Albakr<br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 12:16 PM<br>
To: menog@menog.net; Bill Woodcock<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
I agree with you, everyone needs to peer and will end up doing that<br>
eventually, with or with out an IX. However, it seems because of the<br>
high competition in the market, not having a high demand on national<br>
data transfer, and no return profit from providing this facility non of<br>
the main players are interested. Otherwise, we would have seen an IXP or<br>
even peering on the GCC region years ago. What we have ended up with is<br>
a group of providers who share the same landing point but exchange<br>
traffic over their transit providers at least one continent away.<br>
<br>
In Saudi Arabia after the liberalization of the Internet Gateway almost<br>
a year ago and having 3 main Data Service Provider instead of one, non<br>
of them has decided to invest in starting an IX or peer with the other<br>
providers. This caused customers to have DSP to DSP connection problems,<br>
where the traffic goes to the Internet Provider and back to the other<br>
DSP, as you mentioned digital divide problem on the country level.<br>
<br>
Here at CITC (as a regulator) we are more concern with the quality of<br>
service and reliability of the traffic and data transfer with in the<br>
country and how can the peering of the main players (DSPs) and/or having<br>
an IX will improve that. The players (even on the GCC and ME level) must<br>
realize the benefits, how will that reduce the international expenses<br>
and drive other services to them. Some have come to that conclusion and<br>
have started working on that. However, everyone should catch up and<br>
participate.<br>
<br>
Such meetings and discussions are good opportunity in passing knowledge<br>
and sharing the findings. My guess is that everyone is waiting for<br>
everyone to make a move. In addition, the smaller players (ISPs,<br>
companies, etc.) are waiting for the quality to increase and the cost to<br>
decrease in order to but more effort on the local content and data<br>
transfer, and having a free peering and IXP(s) in the region will<br>
produce that.<br>
<br>
As for the question where should the IXP be, I agree with Bill and the<br>
others. An IXP or more should be introduced in each country and<br>
connected to the other country's IXPs. This is the logical way and how<br>
it was done in other regions (Europe, Africa, etc). Waiting for all<br>
parties to agree on a central point will take forever. However, it is<br>
not the quantity that we are looking for here, but the distribution and<br>
quality of the IXPs (not only GCC but in ME region).<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
----------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nasser A. Albakr
nbakr@citc.gov.sa<br>
Senior Network & System Specialist<br>
Communication and Information Technology Commission (CITC)<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: menog-bounces@menog.net [<a href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net</a>]
On Behalf<br>
Of Bill Woodcock<br>
Sent: 6/Aug/2007 7:50 PM<br>
To: Baher Esmat<br>
Cc: menog@menog.net; 'Salman Al-Mannai'; 'Kais Al-Essa'<br>
Subject: RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Baher Esmat wrote:<br>
> I must also say that I was a little bit puzzled with
parts of the<br>
discussion<br>
> as it appeared to me that we're not differentiating
between the<br>
Incumbents<br>
> like STC, Batelco, ect., (those incumbents are also
ISPs) and<br>
other smaller<br>
> ISPs. My understanding is that the Incumbents whether
they have<br>
bilateral<br>
> peeing among themselves or peer via IXPs, they remain
the big guys<br>
who own<br>
> the customers as well as most of the traffic. The small
ISPs on<br>
the other<br>
> hand have to have their own IXP setups and hence be in
better<br>
positions to<br>
> negotiate better deals with Incumbents, or with
upstream providers<br>
if ISPs<br>
> are allowed to connect directly to them.<br>
<br>
Another way of putting it is to say that everyone needs to peer, in<br>
order<br>
to grow. The big guys know this (they couldn't have gotten big if they<br>
didn't), and will always peer, whether internationally (in London or<br>
Amsterdam or Hong Kong or elsewhere), or across private bilateral<br>
sessions<br>
between each other.<br>
<br>
It's the little guys who need the IXPs, in order to be able to<br>
efficiently<br>
compete with that, and peer as well. If the big guys grow, and the<br>
little<br>
guys don't, you've got an increase in the digital divide problem. If<br>
everyone grows, the whole market grows, and more new service is<br>
available<br>
to all potential customers at lower, more competitive prices.<br>
<br>
-Bill</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>