Governance in Cyberspace: Content and Carriage
box a STARNET.IT
Sab 10 Mar 2001 13:41:06 CET
Scusate ma non sarebbe piu' giusto che il traffico in Mb che va dagli USA
all'Europa lo paghino gli americani e che il viceversa lo paghino gli
europei? Mi sembra un criterio corretto ed inoppugnabile rispetto a strane
Tral'altro bisogna anche discutere di altre belle cosine, ad esempio se il
mio server web viene visitato da molti utenti io permetto ai loro
rispettivi carrier di guadagnare mentre il costo della banda e' a mio
totale carico. Non sarebbe giusto prevedere almeno uno sconto sui costi?
At 10.42 10/03/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Questo è un problema molto serio.
>In più c'è un ulteriore aspetto che il messaggio non tratta:
>le tariffe di peering con gli ISP americani.
>Il GARR, e tutte le altre reti della ricerca Europee
>lo stanno vivendo sulla propria pelle.
>Mentre sono significativamente diminuiti i costi dei
>circuiti transatlantici (che come detto sono comunque
>interamente a carico degli europei), le tariffe di peering
>con gli ISP americani stanno diventando il costo dominante.
>Anche per queste gli ISP USA pretendono di essere pagati
>interamente, sostenendo che gran parte del traffico va nella
>Si tratta di una posizione oltre che iniqua totalmente sbagliata,
>che non rende ragione agli stessi clienti USA degli ISP.
>Infatti è chiaramente interesse dei clienti USA di fare
>giungere il loro materiale al pubblico più vasto possibile, e l'Europa
>costituisce un pubblico circa pari a quello del nord america.
>Tanto è vero che molti clienti pagano servizi appositi
>di content delivery (Akamai) per assicurare che i loro contenuti
>giungano rapidamente agli utenti dei loro servizi.
>Ritengo quindi che i costi di interconnessione (circuiti e peering)
>vadano ripartiti, non in base al traffico, ma in base al numero
>di utenti delle rispettive reti.
>Il problema è molto serio e andrebbe portato all'attenzione
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stefan Probst (by way of chiari mario <chiari.hm a flashnet.it>)"
><stefan.probst a opticom.v-nam.net>
>To: <isoc_forum a listserver.isoc.it>; <ita-pe a NIC.IT>
>Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:21 PM
>Subject: Governance in Cyberspace: Content and Carriage
>> [Hi, qualcuno sa chi si occupa di questi temi in Italia?]
>> By Mark Armstrong and David Mitchell
>> Date: 08 Sep 1999
>> ... copied from this most interesting paper ...
>> Redressing carriage inequities?
>> Whilst the issues of content governance are now well-known, attention is
>> only beginning to focus on an issue which ultimately affects the cost of
>> cyberspace access for all Asian users and providers. That is the imbalance
>> in payment for carriage of Internet content between the US and other
>> Many ISPs in Asia argue that the commercial arrangements to access the US
>> Internet backbone disadvantage them as they have to pay for the whole link
>> to US irrespective of the direction of traffic flows. For example, the
>> largest Australian carrier has recently claimed:
>> The current situation where non-US carriers are paying the cost of
>> carrying significant amounts of trans-Pacific Internet traffic into and
>> out of the USA, while the US carriers pay nothing, is inequitable, [and]
>> does not, in our view, represent commercial reality in a truly competitive
>> global environment.
>> US interests argue, on the other hand, that they funded the early stages
>> of Internet development and that the focus has been to emphasise network
>> expansion and interconnection rather than profit maximisation. By
>> convention, each network joining the Internet backbone has been
>> responsible for its own costs of connection. Until recently, there was
>> sufficient bandwidth available to accommodate growth, and ISPs largely
>> interconnected without regard to traffic flows or measured settlements.
>> However, as traffic increases exponentially new infrastructure is required
>> to cope with the demand for bandwidth and carriers are increasingly
>> concerned by the US position.
>> The US has taken contrasting positions on international settlements for
>> telephony on the one hand and Internet traffic on the other. On the issue
>> of international settlement rates for telephony the FCC has taken an
>> interventionist approach, by setting maximum settlement rates that may be
>> paid by US carriers to non-US carriers. The FCC reasoned that the US
>> should not be subsidising other countries' telephone networks through the
>> settlement system. During the inquiry which led to this position, three
>> East Asian carriers filed a writ in the US courts objecting to the FCC's
>> new settlement rate regime: Telstra, Singapore Telecom and KDD. They
>> claimed that it was equally inequitable for foreign carriers to subsidies
>> US Internet users by being forced to pay the full circuit cost of US
>> Internet connections. While it appears that all countries have a traffic
>> imbalance with the US, the US demand for foreign content is increasing,
>> and it was argued that US users should pay for traffic which they
>> generate. However, the litigation did not succeed.
>> This paper is not concerned with the merits of the dispute. The point is
>> that it exists, and goes to the foundation of cyberspace. Remarks about
>> the current dispute can only indicate some of the issues, sufficient to
>> raise the issue about governance. The whole issue of charging for Internet
>> carriage is extremely challenging and complex, and analyses of it have
>> only recently started to appear. The APEC TEL Working Group has
>> established a Task Force to study international Internet traffic flows and
>> ways in which some kind of settlement system may be developed to redress
>> some of the current problems and allow for charges to be calculated on the
>> basis of network usage. The nature of packet-switched communications means
>> that there is no method akin to telephony's minutes of use to measure
>> Internet traffic and all over the world ISPs are struggling to develop
>> user-pays interconnection agreements for both domestic and international
>> What form of governance is available to resolve an international dispute
>> such as this? There are problems in relying on domestic regulators or
>> courts to resolve a contentious international dispute (the US authorities
>> in this case). In theory, the WTO or the ITU might be an appropriate
>> forum. But neither is simply an international tribunal, and there would be
>> all kinds of ramifications in trying to convert either of them into one.
>> Furthermore, the US would resist such changes, using the whole balance of
>> international trade policy to reinforce its position. So we are left with
>> an international arena devoid of anti-trust or competition law, at a time
>> when the Internet is profoundly affected by the domestic laws of the US
>> and other countries.
Dott. Ettore Panella
via D. Guadalupo 14
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista