Smaller ISP’s out in the cold due to JINX’s Equivalent Line Charges
JINX serves to provide a mechanism for ISPA’s (Internet Service Providers Association) members to interconnect their networks and exchange traffic.
In principle it is a great concept, but currently JINX is not fulfilling its potential.
JINX is a hot topic among many ISP’s, and many feel that if something is not done soon the service will be suspended which is what happened to CTIX (Cape Town Internet exchange) due to a lack of support.
JINX is managed by ISPA, an organization with around 100 members with most larger ISP’s like Internet Solutions, UUNet, DataPro, Sentech, MWeb and MTN-NS all members.
It is noteworthy that TelkomInternet, one of South Africa’s large ISP’s, is absent from ISPA’s member list.
The reasons for Telkom’s absence are unclear, but some people feel that they are unwilling to subscribe to ISPA’s policies.
JINX was created to enable ISP’s to peer internet traffic and to route local traffic, not destined for international locations. It is essentially a few computer racks with a set of Ethernet switches, hosted by Internet Solutions in Rosebank.
ISP’s are responsible for bringing their own connectivity to the JINX racks via the Telkom Martis (Diginet) node in order to exchange traffic with other ISPs.
ISP’s then install and supply routers in the JINX racks, and connect the Diginet interfaces to the JINX network via Ethernet.
This all sounds rather logical, so why is the facility not a buzz of activity?
The general costs associated with JINX are affordable, but one point of contention is a cost called ‘Equivalent Line Charges ’.
The "host" of the INX (Internet exchange) itself, Internet Solutions, does not have to pay for Diginet line connection costs to JINX, seeing as they can simply connect Ethernet cables and be hooked up to the INX instantly. The same holds for other ISP’s in the same building.
This is seen as an unfair advantage, and a solution called Equivalent Line Charges were introduced.
The purpose of these equivalent line charges’ was supposed to be to level the playing field, as explained on the ISPA website.
“Prior to the introduction of the equivalent line charges, some companies connecting to the INXes enjoyed an unfair advantage over others. While most participants must lease data lines to connect to an INX, ISPA members located in the same building can connect to the INX at minimal cost. The equivalent line charges are intended to ensure that all INX participants enjoy equitable and fair access to the INXes.”
This however limits the interest in making use of JINX.
Many ISP’s have strong feelings on this matter. Roelf Diedericks, an Internet Specialist from Jawug, is one of them.
“The stifling EQL practice has to make one wonder if Jinx isn’t actually making a profit and that perhaps the reason for the remaining of EQL charges is that it actually suits JINX or certain parties?” he says.
A possible solution will be to allow ISP’s to self provide into JINX. While there are legal aspects associated with this move, it is a step in the right direction according to Diedericks.
“Operators such as MTN’s license now allow them to self provide connectivity, and with MTN’s wholesale buy out of MTN Network Solutions it is now conceivable that they could, legally supply their own connectivity.”
“Should they still pay an EQL charge then, based on a TELKOM rate? Hardly? I believe it’s time for a change in the Jinx EQL charge policy.”
“ISP’s balk everyday at how unfairly Telkom treats them but they have not been able to collectively overcome the policy hurdle that is EQL by themselves,” Diedericks said.
It is not surprising to learn that many ISP’s rather peer with each other directly in private agreements when one considers the way JINX is currently operating.
It is clear that action is needed to maximize the value of this great resource. A good start will be for ICASA to introduce relaxed self-provisioning and "peering" regulations to aid non-profit peering organizations such as JINX.
It looks like there are no easy solutions to the objective of supplying cheap peering facilities.
Telkom’s exorbitant Diginet rates, stifling regulation regarding self-provisioning and disputes regarding a fair JINX business model are all factors inhibiting the true realization of the JINX model.
Until these issues are resolved we will most likely continue to see the larger ISP’s signing individual agreements while smaller ISP’s will simply have to sit and watch the action.
Loading ...