Re-Engineering the UK Internet Settlement Environment: Peering and Competition Insights
This presentation by Keith Mitchell outlines the transformation of the UK settlement environment concerning Internet and voice telephony. It discusses the historical context of per-minute settlement practices, the emergence of competitive dial-up service providers, and the role of regulators like Oftel. The importance of ISPs maintaining peering policies is emphasized to enhance autonomy and market fairness. Additionally, the UK Internet Exchange (LINX) is highlighted as a key facilitator in promoting open peering and the benefits of self-regulation for ISP competition and collaboration.
Re-Engineering the UK Internet Settlement Environment: Peering and Competition Insights
E N D
Presentation Transcript
The Changing Settlement Environment Keith Mitchell keith@linx.net Executive Chairman, London Internet Exchange Re-Engineering the Internet, 27th Jan 1998
Overview • UK Settlement Environment • Internet & Dial-up • Voice telephony • Internet Peering Environment
Voice Telephony Settlement • Traditionally per-minute settlement from call originating carrier to terminating carrier
UK ISP Dial-up • Local rate coverage needs 30-60 PoPs • OLOs introduced “vPoP” service for ISPs • Competition reduced prices, increased functionality • Some instances of call termination revenue PTTOLOISP
Telecoms Regulation • UK Regulator Oftel • Tension between: • Former PTTs • Licenced telco ISPs • Unlicenced ISPs • Other “independent” unlicenced Service Providers (iSPs)
Should ISPs setPeering Policy ? • In general, YES • key autonomy issue for ISP businesses • BUT: • may need to regulate players with significant market share • ideally take steps to avoid need to do this
Peering Policy Principles • “Self-regulatory” measures: • Peering policies should be: • registered • in public domain • consistently & fairly implemented • stable
LINX Background • LINX is UK national Internet Exchange Point • Represents 43 largest UK ISPs • Tries to encourage open peering and competition between ISPs • Does not “regulate” • Channel of communication between ISPs and regulators
LINX Peering Environment • Restricted but published & well-defined membership criteria • Minimum of interference in member peering autonomy • Peering agreements private matter between members • Incentives to peer • Disincentives to not peer
LINX Peering Practice (1) • Members must peer with >=20% of other members: • to remain member after 3 months • to acquire voting rights • may reduce and/or replace this “stick” with “carrot(s)”
LINX Peering Practice (2) • Members must: • publish peering contacts • respond to peering requests within 2 days • Peering matrix on web page converts routing registry data into end-user friendly format
Possible Peering Incentives • Additional membership status • Additional facilities • e.g. switch ports • access to VA services • Membership discounts
Peering Conclusions • Open peering can promote competition • Closed bi-lateral exchange can inhibit it • Open peering arbiter can facilitate competition: • as L1/L2 exchange • as organisational environment
