On Friday, August 13, 2010 06:27:27 pm 
[email protected] wrote:

> On the GCC I think google made some mistakes in uganda. 
> The two organisations that have the GCC do not seem to
> understand what sharing means.

Agree, although it is not uncommon for Google to deploy the 
GGC within a network that represents the most amount of eye-
balls to them.

It would, by some measure of reasonable assumption, also 
indicate that such a network can provide reasonable transit 
to the Internet so the GGC can be reliably filled on a 
regular basis.

> The MTN deal however I
> understand was under a separate arrangement.

Interesting...

> However on
> the UTL arrangement I have heard it clearly from UTL
> that to them the UIXP is not fit to be the home of the
> GCC...

On this point, I would have to agree.

> nor a point for others to connect to the GCC.

Here, I thoroughly disagree.

> They
> would expect anyone who connects to have a private link
> that goes to telephone house.

That would be fine, provided that link is provided free of 
charge (maintenance included) and is able to sustain the 
amount of bandwidth operators would be pulling off the GGC.

Short of that, UTL have another thing coming if they think 
the exchange point is not a useful location across which to 
reach the GGC. And these are the kinds of tactics that will 
lead to the GGC being pulled.

> So Mike if you do that
> you are setting a bad precedence.  We need to insist on
> meeting at the IX.

Yes!

> I do not care where the physical
> server is located but the open access model that google
> want should be respected by whoever hosts the server.

Implicitly, I reckon Google would be open to relocating the 
GGC provided the alternate facility can meet the minimum 
environmental and connectivity requirements, and it is 
sufficiently demonstrated that their initial partner (UTL) 
are unwilling to share.

Take it away from UTL if they aren't making it freely 
accessible to all, I say.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
LUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug

LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to