At the 8th Caribbean Internet Governance Forum held in Saint Lucia on 29—30 August, Bevil Wooding advocated for national Internet Exchange Points to be deployed.

Over the past year or so, the need for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the Caribbean has been promoted as a means of introducing connectivity efficiencies from which both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and consumers can benefit. At last week’s 8th Caribbean Internet Governance Forum, (CIGF) held in Saint Lucia, and organised by the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU), Bevil Wooding, Internet Strategist at Packet Clearing House, again made the case for the establishment of IXPs. This post summarises his talk. His presentation slides can be found on the CTU website.

IXPs are not only about connectivity efficiencies

Bevil Wooding, Outreach Manager, Packet Clearing House

In his talk, Wooding first established a context for IXPs by highlighting the types of arrangements Internet network operators enter into, in order to connect with other networks. He noted that Internet network operators must cooperate privately with each other in order deliver global connectivity, while publicly competing for customers. Two options are typically used to establish connectivity between operators: peering and transiting. Peering speaks to reciprocal arrangements between providers where they deliver each other’s traffic for free, whilst with transit arrangements, both parties pay each other to deliver each other’s traffic.

Peering is often used when relatively equitable benefits will be realised by the parties, e.g., if the traffic flow between them is more or less equal, and if they were to pay each other, the net difference would be minimal. In contrast, transiting arrangements are likely to be employed when one party has considerable leverage over, and/or will benefit more significantly than, the other. For example, transiting may be agreed when considerably more traffic flows in one direction that another, for example from the Caribbean to United States (US). Hence the recipient of the greater traffic could receive a significant net payment.  Hence, all ISPs aim to minimise transit costs. They try to exchange as much traffic as possible via peering, and pay for access for the rest.

In contrast, Wooding was quick to highlight that for network operators that do not peer with other providers and rely on transit arrangements exclusively, they are likely to experience the following repercussions:

  • expensive or unduly high operating costs
  • inefficient routing
  • poor Quality of Service for customers
  • needless export of capital.

Hence, IXPs are a part of the critical foundation to foster the domestic Internet economy. The domestic Internet economy develops when the users shift from just consuming content hosted outside of a country, to producing local content and facilitating local transactions on local networks.

Where is the Caribbean at re IXPs?

According to Wooding, Internet traffic exchange in the Caribbean is inefficient and expensive. Caribbean ISPs pay exorbitant transit charges to US Internet Exchanges, resulting in those costs being passed on to consumers and the providers offering reduced services.

Moreover, large ISPs (Internet carriers or Internet network operators) – which in the Caribbean would be Flow and LIME – own the primary transit routes that connect to the wider Internet, and have little incentive to peer with others. Consequently, the transit model discriminates against the development of local and regional digital content, in favour of US content.

In summary and through the establishment of national IXPs, countries in the region can create a more enabling Internet environment that would not only reduce Internet costs, but also improve transmission efficiencies, and foster the development of the local Internet ecosystem and economy. However, how many CARICOM countries have either established, or are in the process of establishing, IXPs? Table 1 provides the results as at the time of posting.

Table 1: Status of IXPs in the Caribbean (Source: Packet Clearing House)

 

Okay, so we decide to establish an IXP, then what?

In wrapping up his talk, and in the questions that followed, Bevil reiterated the fact that the deployment of IXPs sets the groundwork for a number of initiatives to follow.  For example, it is only after an IXP has been established – i.e. when the facility exists – that countries can invite providers such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Akamai, to locate some of their resources in-country. Additionally, IXPs are a critical Internet resource, which is an essential component in any national cyber defence strategy, as was outlined in Escalating cyber security up the political agenda. Hence, although there are clear and immediate benefits that can be realised from deploying IXPs, the bigger picture and longer-term gains include, fostering:

  • local innovation and entrepreneurship
  • local content generation
  • economic growth
  • capacity building, and ultimately
  • national development.

 

Image credits:  CTU, Bevil Wooding

_______________