Salman Sb.,
The issue was raised with PTA in a meeting with them last month. Their point
of view was that since there is no regulatory issue involved in it PTA is
not a party to that. However, the chairman assured that he would like to
have both PTCL and ISPs in a joint meeting and would listen point of view of
both the parties.
He further pointed out that PTCL is already working on NAP which will
facilitate to exchange local traffic locally.
I suggest that let PTCL be also called up in the meeting.
Regards
Ahmad Nadeem Syed
----- Original Message -----
From: salman ansari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: A.R. Nasir Qureshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Naeem Haq
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ISPAK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: ISPAK: Re: Peering to Exchange Local Emails Among ISPs
> Can ISPAK nominate a small team. I would like to go to PTA with them on
this
> issue.
> Salman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of A.R. Nasir Qureshi
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:24 AM
> To: Naeem Haq
> Cc: ISPAK
> Subject: RE: ISPAK: Re: Peering to Exchange Local Emails Among ISPs
>
>
>
> I think what PTA and PTCL are doing to us is all we deserve. PTCL
> came in the IP business, and we all rushed to get bandwidth from them,
> where as no body ventured to make or support a private company selling IP
> bandwidth. Several proposals and several times were placed before ISPAK to
> make a consortium, and to distribute bandwidth among ourselves, but no one
> came forward.
>
> In Pakistan, we business people have a tendancy to make our own Mosques,
> instead of sharing. We all are willing to risk our business by buying
> bandwidth from the faulty STM-1, but no one is willing to support
> any private concern or even make a consortium.
>
> Now as we all have strengthened PTCL's IP network and business model, PTCL
> will move forward to take our corporate and individual clients from us.
> PTCL will make the PIE and we all will be forced to take bandwidth
> from it, and live with what ever they do in terms of filtering etc.,
> because no one thought and made a private NAP, and if some one did think,
> we never supported him, but we supported our Big Brother PTCL, and now we
> all will face the consequences.
>
> We ourselves have given the power to PTCL to rule us and ruin us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nasir.
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Naeem Haq wrote:
>
> > Dear All ,
> >
> > I really dont know why PTA makes rules which are downright against the
> > national interest . I recall several meetings / presensations on this
> topic
> > and as far as I am concerned , PTA should encourage inter-ISP links and
> not
> > discourage them . Please kinldy note that in my mind the "National
> Interest"
> > is more supreme than PTA making money from ISPs . Its a shame that ,
> unlike
> > India we have been bestowed with a body which not only ignores the
> national
> > interest but is more interested in making money and retarding the growth
> of
> > the Internet Industry . I think its time that someone shoule make an
> effort
> > to make this understand to PTA that Private Peering is in Pakistan's
> favour
> > and should be encouraged . Not only does peering exchange local
> information
> > locally ( thereby saving foreign exchange ) but also creates a meshed
> > network which is more fault resilient .
> >
> > Secondly , PTCL's PIE is a name change for the NAP .... mind you NAP was
> > shelved by the Minister but PTCL in the garb of delivery mechanism for
> STM-1
> > has been able to justify the PIE . All I can say here is that , there
is
> no
> > level playing field in this country ( despite all claims ) and PTCL will
> > continue to bully us all and try to take our livelihoods away .Over the
> last
> > year or so , I have lost all of my corporate ( router port ) clients to
> PTCL
> > due to predatory policies , but PTA has not done anything . I wonder if
> > someone has done a study of models used in other countries , for example
> in
> > Israel to protect the ISPs the PTT cannot sell direct via dialup and can
> > only sell to ISPs / DNOPs . NO effort has been made here to actually
come
> up
> > with a model which will survive these troubled times . Please note that
> PTA
> > is supposed to regulate the market in a manner that the consumer
interest
> > and the investor interest is protected .... but PTA is carelessly
issuing
> > licences , without planning anything ; the results are inevitable a
> handful
> > may survive , the rest will be wiped off . I think its time for PTA to
> > wakeup from this deep slumber and start working for the purpose they
were
> > established .
> >
> > Recent rumors have suggested that PTA is contemplating issuing voice
> > licenses for $100M+.. good luck as in the post deregulated period PTA
will
> > surely be endorcing monopolies ( something which is definitely against
the
> > consumer interest ) .
> >
> > All I can say is it time to wake up .
> >
> > Naeem Haq
> > NEXLINX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jamal Nasir Khan
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:20 AM
> > To: Wasim Tauqir
> > Cc: SBHUTTA; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: ISPAK: Re: Peering to Exchange Local Emails Among ISPs
> >
> >
> > Wasim sb:
> > Peering is an interconnect to route traffic meant for interconnected
> > parties. I agree with Bhutta sb that the demand raised by you can be
> > investigated from the point of view of knowledge base from the Web.
> Details
> > regarding peering are available on Web.
> >
> > Bhutta sb,
> >
> > As far as I know there is no regulatry issue in the peering
arrangement
> > and it is only meant to efficiently manage the traffic by ISPs without
> > puting unnecessary load on International circuits. I dont know why did
you
> > applied in the first case to PTA and secondly if there is a reglatory
> issue
> > then how come PTCL was able to implement the project of PIE.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jamal
> >
> >
> > SBHUTTA wrote:
> >
> > Mr.Wasim Tauqir,Director S&S PTA. Dear Sir, It is very simple
demand
> > that connectivity through DXXamong ISPs be allowed if ISPsalready have
> > international bandwidth from PTCL. Details demanded by are not
concerned.
> > However your mail is being is being forwarded to ChairmanTechnical
> Committee
> > of ISPAK Mr.Jamal Nasir Khan for more information. Best regards.
Sanaullah
> > Bhutta,President ISPAK.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wasim Tauqir
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:12 AM
> > Subject: Fw: Peering to Exchange Local Emails Among ISPs
> > original message forwarded owing to email address error.WT.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wasim Tauqir
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sunday,
September
> > 02, 2001 9:07 PMSubject: Peering to Exchange Local Emails Among ISPs
> > In order to understand the above subject clearly, please provide
a
> > detailed network plan i.e. network connectivity and network access plan
> and
> > routing. Also indicate end-to-end call connection and routing in the
form
> of
> > a detailed logical/ functional block diagram highlighting the
differences
> in
> > the current configuration versus the desired one.
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Wasim Tauqir,
> >
> > Dir S&S, PTA
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
> ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
> ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
> -------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
> ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
> ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
> -------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
>
------------------------- ISPAK --------------------------
ISPAK Discussion List. Members are limited to officials of
ISPs and ESPs of Pakistan and select media representatives.
-------------- http://ispak.net.pk -----------------------
