Cost of transit and options in APAC
franck at genius.com
Fri Aug 13 01:41:34 CDT 2010
It always amaze me how the word de-regulated is so misused.
When there is a monopoly the regulation is in fact very very light: Acme co is the monopoly and government cash in dividends/license fees and just check they don't do anything really silly.
When there is competition this is when you have a heavy regulation, because all the players have now to play nicely with each others (access to each other network, anti competitive practices, keeping your number, roaming, inter-exchange, spectrum allocation,...). When competition comes the regulatory unit becomes bigger.
In short competition increase regulation, it certainly does not decrease it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se>
To: "Benson Schliesser" <bensons at queuefull.net>
Cc: "nanog" <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Friday, 13 August, 2010 5:20:04 PM
Subject: Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Further, how does the situation compare to past examples like Europe?
Countries in Europe are all in different phases of competition and
pricing. There is at least 10x difference in transit prices across Europe,
with central and northern Europe being the cheapest, and southern and
eastern being the most expensive.
I agree totally with Mr Gilmore that it's all about competition. When
there are 3+ (preferrably 4+) providers or something and the market is
de-regulated then you get huge downward pressure on price and you soon hit
levels of 5-20% operating margin and a mature market.
More information about the NANOG