<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [menog] RE: [ncc-regional-middle-east] Peering</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>