Governance in Cyberspace: Content and Carriage
chiari.hm a FLASHNET.IT
Dom 11 Mar 2001 12:33:51 CET
tutte le volte che ci aiuti a capire un problema, reagisco sempre allo
stesso modo, non potevo fare eccezione questa volta :-) :
perchè non mettere su un WG isoc.it e scrivere un breve documento con i
termini della questione e qualche proposta?
a presto mario
At 10.42 10/03/01 +0100, Giuseppe Attardi 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.
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista