A few salient points to this discussion. In terms of retail tariffs DISTANCE DOES NOT MATTER for International Private leases. What matters is AGGREGATE VOLUME, which in turn dictates retail pricing. Its cheapest to run leased lines to the point where all the other lines run to. Distance is irrelevant. Accordingly Guam and Hawaii are pretty shocking exchange locations - the fibre facilities are, as pointed out, simply points where the photons come up for air and a quick blow dry before taking another deep breath and getting wet again. For about the past 5 years the defacto Asia Pacific exchange location has been the US west coast. Why? - its the cheapest common termination point - the facilities there are ok - its the cheapest common termination point - the onward transit issue is far easier to solve - its the cheapest common termination point - the time penalty is about 120ms - which is ok - its the cheapest common termination point - its assumed to be politically stable Now it would be REALLY GOOD to find an international exchange point well within this region of the world rather than on the western edge. In the longer term (and here I'm talking 5 - 10 years) widespread use of use a facility could result in a cheaper and better Internet facility for this region, and the greater dispersion of traffic would remove critical earthquake-prone regions of the globe from their role in underpinning a large hunk of Internet connectivity. But to get from now to then is a process of interaction which includes the undersea cable systems, Internet peering, transit and settlement structures, technology-dictated degrees of freedom and common strategic purpose to pull it off.
Personally, after working this issue for 3 1/2 years, international neutral IXs will not work in Asia Pacific.
I don't share Barry's absolute pessimism here, but I think it will require patience as well as effort. Thanks, Geoff Huston