Re: Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?

First of all, let us all agree (I guess there will be one notable
exception) that it is imperative to provide "Net Neutrality" or "Open
Internet" as USA calls it and that this is not a communist / socialist
endeavour but to serve the citizens / netizens.

The "interconnection charges" are discussed quite a lot at ITU (Study Group
3) level for interconnection between UN Member States and even this e-mail
has generated some revenue for a US carrier to be paid for by VSNL (now
Tata Telecom) since India does not have root DNS servers and address
packets are sent (typically) to a USA root DNS server for address
resolution.

"Interconnection" charges, as the name implies, is between two carriers (or
Network Operators - NO - as the term is used in many parts of the world.)
There are many different business models but typically the revenue is based
on traffic sent from one NO to the other and money exchanged when there is
(significant) traffic asymmetry.

In the old days, the main revenue was from voice traffic and many carriers
(not only in USA) had "all you can eat" for data traffic and of course with
IP networks replacing circuit switched networks and significant IP traffic
due to Internet, etc. now means that the "all you can eat" data traffic
model is out of date and new business models have been developed.

The pure transit networks typically share revenues as they have two
interconnections, one on either side.

As the FCC paper I distributed, the new business models have meant
significant broadband investments in USA by carriers and typically the end
user now pays for the traffic it generates/receives in terms of no. of
Gbytes/month, etc. Netflix, WhatsApp, FB, Skype, etc. are OTT services and
they pay for their connection to their "ISP" so they are contributing to
their last mile provider.

The case which was mentioned was carrier L3 (Level 3) not willing to share
its revenue with Comcast (the last mile provider) for the data asymmetry
(download of Netflix movies) to Comcast client/user. It refered the case to
FCC claiming that it formed part of the "Net Neutrality / Open Internet"
and the judgement from FCC was correct in that this is not a Net Neutrality
issue but business issue for transporting traffic.

The first e-mail from Arun is still pertinent: Should Zukerberg be allowed
to provide "walled garden" service to make more billions? IMHO, NO; he
should provide Open Internet and if that is not economically viable for
him,then so be it. I think the Indian Government does have a role to play
in this - first as licencing authority for an ISP to provide the "free
service" and then as a regulatory authority to ensure that Net Neutrality
is being maintained. let Zuckerberg figure out with his partners how the
revenue stream is shared by FB utilising its "merchandise" of all the data
it collects (both as ISP and as service provider) of the "free" users he
gets on the net.

Best wishes,

On 3 January 2016 at 11:52, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> For eyeball networks fine but what about transit providers?
>
> And what when a provider is both eyeball (retail) and transit (wholesale)
> as is common in at least some markets?
>
> --srs
>
> > On 03-Jan-2016, at 3:46 PM, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > More to the point, the cost to carry traffic has fallen through the
> floor. To me, the question isn't whether each network should be allowed to
> charge for every bit that is carried, it should be whether each carrier is
> building our sufficient capacity to meet the demand.
>
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii