Internet Exchange Points (Ixps) and Continental Backbone for Africa: Means to an End?

www.diplomacy.edu/ig

INTERNET GOVERNANCE RESEARCH PROJECT

Internet eXchange Points (IXPs) and Continental Backbone for Africa: Means to an End?

Researchers: John Walubengo Kenneth Msiska Timothy Kasonde Kasolo

DiploFoundation Tutors/Advisors: Veronica Cretu Valentin Katrandjiev

The research framework, main literature review has been provided by John Walubengo Case study on Malawi has been contributed by Kenneth Msiska Comments on ways of setting national IXPs in Africa have been delivered by Timothy Kasonde Kasolo

Research Plan Methodology: (John Walubengo)

PURPOSE To explore cost-effective means of connecting developing countries to the Internet Backbones.

APPROACH During the project write up the following problems were taken into consideration: ° The use of International Bandwidth for local traffic ° Poor backbone networks across the breadth of Africa ° Poor regulatory instruments in African countries ° High tariffs on imported infrastructure and equipment ° Lack of awareness about the importance of IXPs ° The above problems manifest themselves in the following ways: ° High cost of Internet access ° Poor connections with low bandwidth ° Poor competition among the service providers ° Resistance to setting up IXPs

PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION Access of Internet in particular and ICTs in general is hampered inter alia by problems relating to artificially high costs, expertise and poor telecommunications services in Africa. The exorbitant costs of accessing Internet in Africa are as a result of a combination of various factors namely the backbone networks and the use of International Bandwidth for local traffic. However, most people, let alone Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have not appreciated the fact that using international links for local traffic accounts for a larger portion in raising the rates for accessing the Internet in the majority of the African country. Although more than ten countries in Africa have set up IXPs with a dual view of bridging the digital and reducing the cost of connectivity, many more have not done so. Through the setting up of IXPs the African countries are expected to saving millions of dollars that would have been paid to the International Bandwidth Providers (IBPs). Delays in setting up IXPs-or lack thereof- still cost the respective countries colossal sums of money, which would have been saved and devoted to other development agendas. It is the considered view of the investigator that if the importance of IXPs in bridging the digital divide were brought to the fore more ISPs would come together to set their own IXPs.

RESEARCH DESIGN Interviews with various ISPs, IPBs focusing on Interconnection Issues shall be carried out through email, visits or telephone enquiry. International Working and Published documents shall also be reviewed appropriately. This shall include but not limited to:

The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) recommendations on Internet Interconnection; The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Work on Internet Interconnections WGIG; The International Charging Arrangement for Internet Services (ICAIS) debate; Local ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulation

Project Type: Exploratory

Participants: ISPs, IBPs, Experts on Interconnection, ITU and Other International Documents on Internet Interconnection

Data Collection and Literature Review: The Data Collected shall focus on highlighting the following: Historical and current development of Voice and Data (Internet) Networks; Historical and current International Interconnection Charging Models for Voice Networks; Historical and current International Interconnection Charging Models for Data (Internet) Networks; Impact of these Models on developing countries; Suggested (Alternative) Initiatives and Charging Models aimed at transforming or improving these Charging Models with regard to developing countries;

Data Analysis: Explore the potential impact (Political, Economical, Social and Technical) of the suggested Initiatives on developing countries; Identify appropriate (alternative) Interconnection Model for developing countries;

OBJECTIVES: To highlight the existing economic burden sustained by developing countries when Interconnecting to the Internet Backbones To explore and highlight existing Models for alleviating or reducing this economic burden To establish which Model would be appropriate for developing countries Outcome: A collection of resources describing Internet Interconnection Issues and how they impact on developing countries.

1. Literature Research and Analysis (John Walubengo)

1.1 Background

The Issues: The Internet Architecture for historical reasons is heavily concentrated in the Northern hemisphere particularly the US. The Internet Backbone is largely in the US and other countries wishing to Interconnect to it must establish linkages into the US and other developed countries in the North.

At the moment, those countries wishing to link onto the Internet Backbone must pay the full circuit costs (from their countries into the US) for making this connection. This model of Internet Interconnection has led to economic imbalance whereby developing countries in the Southern Hemisphere are indirectly subsidizing developed economies in the provision of Internet Services (ref.: Draft Issue Paper on International Internet Connections (IIC), WGIG 2005, p.2)

This turn of events was not pre-meditated by the pioneers of the Internet, but it is a rather a phenomena that has occurred out of the natural evolution of the Internet. The current Internet Interconnection regime, which is left to commercial agreements between privately owned Internet Backbone Providers (IBG) has indeed been claimed (ref.: The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones, author: Michael Kende, FCC Office of Plans and Policy’s Working Paper Series. 2000,) to be the reason behind the phenomenal growth of the Internet.

But as the Internet continues to increasingly redefine the way society lives, works, trades or plays, Governments and other International bodies are beginning to question if it is still safe to leave or trust the dynamics of the Internet, such as Internet Interconnection Tariffs to private individuals and entities (ref.: Internet Governance: Actors, Issues and Divides, authors: Jovan Kurbalija & Eduardo Gelbstein, DiploFoundation, 2005, p.7)

To understand how the current Internet Interconnection state of play came to be, one must look back at the historical development of both the traditional Voice and Data Networks (Internet). In addition, one must appreciate the prevailing Interconnection Charging models for both (Voice & Data) networks in order to explore appropriate Internet Interconnection models. Having reviewed these, the disadvantaged geographical and economical positioning of the developing countries in the South shall be better understood and possibly appropriate solutions established.

1.2 Historical and current development of Voice and Data (Internet) Networks

1.2.1 Voice (Traditional) Networks

The first telephone system was created in the late 1800s and has largely grown through predictable national boundaries. Each country would install Telephone exchanges in a strict hierarchical geometric sense. Typically, the exchanges would be designated, International, National or Regional. The International Exchange would route traffic from one country to the other. The National Exchange would route

traffic between the country’s major towns while the Regional Exchanges would router traffic within the Major towns.

These traditional networks were largely owned by national monopolies and were easy to regulate both locally and internationally. The linkages between the National Telecommunication Monopolies were easy to define and issues regarding traffic exchange and settlement relatively straight- forward (ref.: Interconnection as the Key to the Network of Networks, MIT Press, p.14)

1.2.2 Data (Internet) Networks

The Internet is a relatively recent development having matured out of a US Department of Defense (DoD) project in the early 1960s. The DoD in the US needed a communication network that would survive a perceived nuclear attack. Research in this direction lead to the creation of a communication protocol known as the Internet Protocol (IP) which continues to be at the heart of today’s’ Internet.

At the beginning, the Internet was a simple interconnection of a handful of computers (ref.: The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones, p.4) exchanging data traffic over the traditional (Voice) networks. These computers belonged to military installations and a few academic institutions engaged in research. By the early 1970s, this Interconnection of computers had evolved to include more networks from both the academic and business fraternity.

The US Government subsequently diminished its role in the day-to-day management of this Network of smaller Networks (Internet), preferring to transfer this mandate to the Academia and other interested private business entities. These groups continued to define how, when and where to interconnect existing networks and prospecting networks to each other. To date there are many global networks interconnected to form the Internet and the number increases by the minute.

1.3 Historical and current International & Local Interconnection Charging Models for Voice Networks

1.3.1 International Interconnection Charging Models (Voice)

Traditionally, International voice communication Interconnection Charges was based on a settlement scheme (ref.: The Interconnection Dispute, author: Mark A. Jamison, Public Utility Research Center (PURC), University Florida, p.4) where national monopolies would agree to compensate each other for terminating calls. Basically, if country A originates a call to Country B, Country B would be compensated for their effort to route such a call within their domestic network.

In principle, both countries would agree to meet the cost of accessing their own half of the International communication circuit while claiming compensation for calls terminated on behalf of each other. This type of Interconnection has largely favored developing economies since they were receiving the net flow of called minutes (ref.: Draft Issue Paper on International Internet Connections (IIC), WGIG 2005, p.1)Another method for compensation, though not widely practiced in the traditional Voice Network is the Bill and Keep approach (ref.: The Interconnection Dispute,

Mark A. Jamison, PURC p.3)which allows both the agreeing Telecommunication Operators to bill their respective clients for international calls without the intention to reconcile their accounts. This would probably work in a situation where both operators do exchange a similar volume of International traffic.

1.3.2 Local Interconnection Models (Voice)

With increasing liberalization and privatization of the local telecommunication industry, countries have had to come to terms with how to interconnect competing Telecom Providers within the country. Two emerging Interconnection models seem to dominate (ref.: The Interconnection Dispute, Mark A. Jamison, PURC p5) i) ECPR: The Efficient Component Pricing Rule In ECPR, the incumbent (formerly the monopoly) provider would charge an upcoming Telecommunications Provider an opportunity cost. This means that the competitor would be asked to pay the amount the Incumbent would have earned in that region, were it to provide the same service. ii) Cost-Based Pricing: In Cost-Based Pricing, the incumbent operator would charge the competitor the full cost of using its network. This would be in terms of distributing the cost of running the incumbents network to the competitor either on a pro-rata basis (traffic volumes) or on an incremental basis.

1.4 Historical and current International & Local Interconnection Charging Models for Data (Internet) Networks

1.4.1 International Interconnection Charging Models (Internet)

Unlike voice networks, the Internet by design does not have a predefined and fixed path for routing traffic (ref.: International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, ICAIS, p.3). It is therefore very difficult to implement the traditional charging models over the Internet. What is currently the practice is that the top (Tier 1) Internet Backbone Providers (IBP) interconnect their networks on a peering basis (The Interconnection Dispute, Mark A. Jamison, PURC p.4) A peering basis means that each of these top IBPs (mostly based in the US) interconnect their networks without charging each other. Each IBP simply promises to accept the others’ Internet traffic on a reciprocal basis. The next level of IBPs (Tier 2) then interconnects their networks to the Tier 1 IBPs on a transit basis.

A Transit basis implies a customer/supplier relationship. Tier 2 IBPs simply buys bandwidth from Tier 1 IBPs and meets the cost of accessing Tier1’s backbone (meets the transit costs that may include Satellite and Fiber costs incurred to reach the US backbone).

Tier 3 IBPs are mainly known as ISP (Internet Service Providers) and they in turn enter into a transit engagement with Tier2 IBPs who eventually deliver their Internet traffic to the Backbones in the Northern hemisphere.

1.4.2 Local Interconnection Models (Internet)

On a local (National) level, the same Peering or Transit arrangement exists for the Internet Service Providers. Basically the providers would enter into a peering or transit agreement on a privately agreed basis. In general, peering agreements prevail where two providers perceive each other’s networks as being of equal value. This value maybe in terms of number of customers, geographical reach, volume of traffic, etc . The bigger provider would prefer a transit engagement with what it feels is a smaller provider.

1.5 Impact of these Models on developing countries

1.5.1 Impact of International Interconnection Charging Models (Voice)

The current model for compensating Telecomm Operators terminating traditional voice has largely favored developing countries. In fact some developed countries have deliberately used this settlement scheme to subsidize Operators in the developing economies (ref.: Video by Bill Woodcock vol. 21.N 8 , KMB Video Journal of Telecommunication Policies and Practices, ). The Internet is therefore denying developing countries some revenue (ref.: Interconnection Costs. Mike Jensen. 2005. Association of Progressive Communities, p2) by gradually taking over traditional services like Voice, Video, etc from the Time Division Multiplexed (TDM) Circuits and placing them over Packet Switched (Internet) Networks that has a different and unfavorable charging model.

1.5.2 Impact of Local Interconnection Charging Models (Voice)

The Liberalized Telco Industry within countries seems to have largely benefited from the existing (Voice) interconnection models. Disputes between operators seems to be fairly and adequately resolved by these models (ref.: Ruling on Internet Service Providers dispute on services offered by Telkom Kenya Limited - August 2004.Communications Commissions of Kenya). Celtel vs TKL dispute resolution by CCK.

1.5.3 Impact of International Interconnection Charging Models (Internet)

By virtue geographical disposition and secondly by having ‘smaller’ networks relative to the IBP in the Northern hemisphere, developing countries in the South are actually subsidizing Internet Services for developed economies (Ref: Draft Issue Paper on International Internet Connections (IIC), WGIG 2005, p.2, ICAIS). The IBP and ISPs in developing countries ought to meet the costs of Interconnecting to IBPs in Europe and Northern America. The American Users benefit by using the same links to access content or send messages (emails) to users in the developing world. (ref.: The Half- Way Proposition. Background Paper on Reverse Subsidy of G8 Countries by African ISPs. Africa Internet Services Providers Association. Draft 4, 2002. p2,).

1.5.4 Impact of Local Interconnection Charging Models (Internet)

The economic burden of connecting to the Internet through the Northern Hemisphere is simply passed on to the local ISP and eventually the local Internet Consumers. On a

local level, developing countries are yet to mature their Internet Backbone to a point where local Internet Interconnection Issues are significant. All local ISPs seem to be at the moment concerned with how to reduce the International Internet Interconnection Charges.

1.6 Suggested (Alternative) Initiatives and Charging Models aimed at transforming or improving these Charging Models with regard to developing countries.

1.6.1 Status Quo

Most pioneers or the Internet argue that the Internet has largely benefited from the un- regulated, decentralized nature (ref.: The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones, p.39) and introducing bureaucratic mechanism and institutions of governing the internet would only discourage rather enhance its development. They recommend the ‘if it is not broken, don’t fix approach’ (ref: Video by Bill Woodcock vol. 21.N 8 )

1.6.2 ICAIS Model

The International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services (ICAS) Task Force is a study group created by the APEC Council after the incumbent Australian Telco Provider strongly expressed the need to be compensated for exchanging traffic with the IBP in the US. This Task force has increasingly expressed this opinion in various international forums including International Telecommunication Union which responded by publishing the D.50 recommendation. (ref.: Amendment 1 to ITU T Recommendation D.50 (2000) was agreed on 4 June 2004 by ITU T Study Group 3 (2001 2004).

This D.50 Recommendation largely supports the ICAIS model recommending that Internet Interconnection Charges should take into consideration compensation requirements based on traffic patterns, geographical distances, amongst others. It however remains a recommendation and cannot be effected by governments some of whom (e.g. the US, UK, Canada) have publicly opposed it.

1.6.3 Afrispa Model: (Half-Way Proposition, IXPs)

African Internet Service Provider Association (Afrispa) came up with a recommendation on how to reduce the interconnection charges (ref. The Half-Way Proposition. Background Paper on Reverse Subsidy of G8 Countries by African ISPs. Africa Internet Services Providers Association. Draft 4, 2002.). This recommendation termed the Half-Way proposition borrows heavily from the work of Packet Clearing House a research consortium that has been pushing for the development of local Internet exchange Points (IXPs).

An IXP is a meeting point for local Internet Service Providers to exchange their local traffic locally. Without local IXPs, traffic originating from a local country destined for a user across the road would still be routed through international links before getting back locally (ref.: Internet Governance: Actors, Issues and Divides, authors:

Jovan Kurbalija & Eduardo Gelbstein, DiploFoundation, 2005). By so doing, the traffic would incur un-necessary and high costs of International routing.

To avoid this, Afrispa recommends that IXPs would be created with a view to keeping local traffic local and if several neighboring countries have IXPs, they can then interconnect them, thus keeping even regional traffic local within the region. This model seems to have worked fairly well in Asian countries and should be easily replicated appropriately.

2. Results/Findings

2.1 Impacts of Suggested Interconnection Charging Models on developing economies

2.1.1 Status Quo:

Those advocating for the status quo are mainly the techno-biased individuals and the private sector who own the Internet Backbones. They believe that market forces i.e. commercially agreed Internet Interconnection Policies are the best method for regulation. Trying to impose the old regulations such as those applicable to the traditional voice networks would be detrimental to the development of the Internet.

If this thinking and approach is sustained, what would be the impact on developing countries? Developing countries would continue meeting the full-cost of International Circuits in order to terminate their traffic onto Backbones in the Northern Hemisphere. This money would have been saved and put to use into the more urgent and basic amenities such as improvement of telecommunication infrastructure, education, security or health.

The long term impact of the status quo is therefore going to continue depriving developing economies an opportunity to improve the quality of life for its citizens and increase the digital divide between the North and the South.

2.1.2 ICAIS Model

The ICAIS Model has been a key component of the Asia Pacific Economic Council in their endeavor to address this Internet Interconnection imbalance between the North and South. It is the strongest recommendation for adapting the old regulatory framework onto the Internet.

If this model is adopted, there would be issues of implementation since unlike the old, circuit switched network the Internet lacks or is not designed to monitor previously easily monitored charging values such call distances, call directions, call quality, etc. Introducing these tools may need a total overhaul of the underlying protocols and routers in order to provide sufficient mechanism for regulating the Internet using the traditional model.

2.1.3 Afrispa Model

The Afrispa Model seems to be recommending a middle ground between ICAIS and the Status Quo groups. It suggests massive investment in building up local and regional IXPs with a view to reducing the amount of internationally bound Internet traffic. In addition, it takes cognizance of the fact that developing countries lack the resources to build such an infrastructure and therefore appeals for support from the Donor communities.

If this model is adopted, it may still not reduce demand for US or Euro-Centric data given that very little ‘African’ content exists or appeals to the small African online communities. Deploying bandwidth capacities between and within local regions will not automatically result in the anticipated savings on International Circuits. Furthermore, in most developing countries the local access charges constitute the bigger cost of accessing the Internet and therefore reducing or even eliminating the costs of the International circuit may not translate to cheaper access to the Internet.

3. National IXP in Africa: Challenges We Face (Timothy Kasonde Kasolo)

In most African countries if you send an e-mail across town it first has to circulate to North America or Europe before going back to its intended recipient. This is because of latency, Connectivity charges, and Heavy dependence on Inter-Continental and Satellite connectivity.

What is the Solution? The solution is for Africa to Creation and has National IXPs.

What are the benefits of having an IXP? IXPs in Africa and Establishing an IXP Peering/IX initiative involve 10% technical work. The remaining 90% is relationships (socio-political engineering)Official regulatory support, Definition of internal peering policy framework, Critical factors for national IXPs, political Support Policy Reform, Regulatory “Provisioning” Existence of “Critical Infrastructure”

What needs to be done? Engage your country governments to support establishment of IXPs. Regulators need support ISPs and IXPs; Start process for establishing ISPAs (Internet Service Providers’ Association) Establishing regional IXPs;

4. The Case of Malawi (Kenneth Msiska)

4.1 A Historical Perspective on Malawi

Malawi like most of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) suffers from poor connectivity to the information superhighway. The major reasons for this are exorbitant prices for the services and lack of up to date infrastructure to support reliable connections. Until recently, Malawi largely depended on the services provided by Malawi Telecommunications Limited (MTL), which is a state controlled and as expected its activities are heavily protected by the government, hence creating some undue monopoly in the ICT sector. For example, MTL is the sole landline provider in the country aside from owning close to 40% shares in one of the two Mobile Network providers, Telekom Networks Malawi (TNM). MTL also provides the backbone for Internet connections in Malawi. Apart from providing the backbone, MTL is running a USAID funded initiative called the LELAND whereby it provides Internet services to people. This is not a health environment for the growth of Internet in Malawi due to inter alia monopoly and too much task MTL has to do.

Apart from the landline network provider, Malawi has two mobile network providers with a third one in the offing. The mobile network providers have do also provide Internet services, but the cost for the services leave so much to be desired. More needs to be done.

4.2 Interconnection Problems

Currently the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Malawi rely on the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) as a backbone. Only a few ISPs that are mushrooming now are using the Wireless Internet services. The use of PSTN (dial up networks) has so many negative repercussions on the access and connectivity. For example, the cost of dial up networks are on the higher side as compared to wireless connections. The foregoing is due to the fact that telephones tariffs are still high. The high costs in a way emanate from low tele-densities across Malawi and the landline service provider needs to make do with what they are dealt. Add to the foregoing the fact that Malawi is currently having obsolete infrastructure, which is a major hindrance that has to be surmounted if the digital divide is going to be bridged in Malawi. Propositions have been flying around to the effect that state owned Telco should bee privatized, but astonishingly, little success has been made. First, the Telco declares quite a lot of dividends to government more than any other parastatal organization in Malawi and for the past five ten years it was used to support the political activities of the former regime. Second, it is one of the biggest employer after the civil service and there has been too much outcry from the general public and human rights organizations about privatizing the firm. It must bee born in mind, however, that privatization of the state owned Telco in Malawi would be of great benefit and not harm as some commentators have portrayed. My belief is that once MTL is privatized there is going to be real competition among all the service providers in the industry and government would not at any point interfere with the regulatory regime.

4.3 Internet Traffic in Malawi

Just like the Kenyan experience where local Internet traffic had to traverse other countries in Europe before returning to its local destination, Malawi still has that burden. At the moment, Malawi Internet has to be routed via Germany and Israel before it gets back to its local destination. This arrangement is costing the Telco in Malawi large sums of money since International bandwidths are used for both local and international traffic.

4.4 The Way Forward

The ISPs have joined forces to form their own association, which is already working on establishing the first and only Internet Exchange Point (IXP) for Malawi. It is expected that the IXP will reduce significantly the costs the ISPs incur during the use of Internet bandwidth for its Internet traffic. It is also expected that as a trickle across effect the local masses will also benefit as a result of the corresponding decrease in the cost of Internet services.

There are strong indications of late that MTL may be privatized as suggested by the State President’s nod of approval. This is good news to all the loosely wired parts of Malawi.

5. Possible Way Forward (Conclusions) (John Walubengo)

The Internet has very quickly moved from an experimental tool into an indispensable tool for socio-economic development. Its impact has particularly been felt in the business world where it has increasingly become central to organizational interaction. The lessons learnt from the business world are being adopted to resolve non-business and often fundamentally human challenges such as disease, illiteracy and hunger.

It is therefore morally wrong to continue applying commercial or profit-oriented approaches to the Internet-Interconnection issues even in the face of what is definitely a humanitarian disaster in making such as those of prevalent in developing economies. Indeed, just as what the US did for Europe in the aftermath of the World War II (Marshall Plan) the same needs to happen for the developing countries in order to jump-start and welcome them into the Information Society. Leaving them at the mercy of ‘market-forces’ is as good as excluding them from 21st Century and condemning them to live in past.

However, rather than outrightly regulating Internet-Interconnection issues, it maybe prudent to appreciate the phenomenal growth the Internet has made with minimal regulation and replicate the same model in developing countries. The task of building local and regional IXPs simply acknowledges and replicates this model by re-enacting small instances and characteristics of the original Internet in other regions.

And just as it was in the beginning, the Internet Backbone needed more Governmental and less Commercial direction, the same approach would be required in building local and regional IXPs. Local and International government intervention or support will

be initially be indispensable. However this should be subsequently reduced appropriately as the IXPs mature and acquire their own nature under commercial terms and conditions.

Such a build up must also be done in parallel with initiatives for developing local content. In the absence of this, the IXPs will fail to meet their intended objectives of reducing the need for International bandwidth. Finally, local access infrastructure must also be developed in order to extend the reach and penetration of Internet Usage. Otherwise the beneficiaries of this model would remain the urban elite within the developing countries – thus entrenching the domestic digital divide even as the International divide is reduced.

References:

Definition of IXP from Wikipedia (including a list of national IXPs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXP

Draft Issue Paper on International Internet Connections (IIC), WGIG 2005, p.2 http://www.wgig.org/docs/WP-Peering.pdf

The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones, author: Michael Kende, FCC Office of Plans and Policy’s Working Paper Series. 2000 http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp32.pdf

Internet Governance: Actors, Issues and Divides, authors: Jovan Kurbalija & Eduardo Gelbstein, DiploFoundation, 2005, p.7 http://www.diplomacy.edu/isl/ig/

Interconnection as the Key to the Network of Networks, MIT Press, p.14 http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/0262140721/0262140721_ch1.pdf

The Interconnection Dispute, author: Mark A. Jamison, Public Utility Research Center (PURC), University Florida, p.4 http://www.ofta.gov.hk/zh/whats_new/firstcas.pdf

The Interconnection Dispute, Mark A. Jamison, PURC p.3 http://www.ofta.gov.hk/zh/whats_new/firstcas.pdf

International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, ICAIS, p.3 http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf

Video by Bill Woodcock vol. 21.N 8 , KMB Video Journal of Telecommunication Policies and Practices http://www.kmbvideojournal.com/Wav%20Files/KMB_Vol_21_No_8.wmv

Interconnection Costs. Mike Jensen. 2005. Association of Progressive Communities, p2 http://rights.apc.org/documents/interconnection_costs.pdf

Ruling on Internet Service Providers dispute on services offered by Telkom Kenya Limited - August 2004.Communications Commissions of Kenya http://www.cck.go.ke/html/child.asp?title=Policy+and+Legislation&contcatid=8&ch ildtitle=Rulings+and+Determinations&childcontid=137&pg=

The Half-Way Proposition. Background Paper on Reverse Subsidy of G8 Countries by African ISPs. Africa Internet Services Providers Association. Draft 4, 2002. p2 http://www.afrispa.org/HalfwayDocs/HalfwayProposition_Draft4.pdf

Amendment 1 to ITU T Recommendation D.50 (2000) was agreed on 4 June 2004 by ITU T Study Group 3 (2001 2004 http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com03/iic/docs/TRECD50-0406Amd1E.doc