Cable and Wireless partners with Reliance to set up datacenters in India
http://cwidc.com/JP/EN/news_events/media_center/2004/02_04_2004_16.html Says they're offering managed IP-VPN QoS besides other stuff like data center hosting, ATM, frame relay etc.. I'm sure they're going to be really happy with the proposed "tax" on managed VPN providers in India. srs -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh@outblaze.com gpg # EDEDEFB9 manager, security & antispam operations, outblaze limited
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Doesn't this in theory mean any isp who hands you any pipe that you can slap a linksys VPN router on is also liable? Where does it begin? When it's the ISP who provides the router? What about colo? Isn't a dedicated box (with KAME/Ipsec/OpenVPN/etc) enough to do that? What about companies who provide ipv6 connectivity over ipv4? Or is this going to get to the point where there's going to be a requirement for protocol detection and ISPs will have to perform due diligence and scan/block -- or pony up? -Dan
http://cwidc.com/JP/EN/news_events/media_center/2004/02_04_2004_16.html
Says they're offering managed IP-VPN QoS besides other stuff like data center hosting, ATM, frame relay etc.. I'm sure they're going to be really happy with the proposed "tax" on managed VPN providers in India.
srs
-- "Hey Guys, does anyone know what 'poon tang' is?" -C.S. Dave, July 8, 2K, about 12:30AM --------Dan Mahoney-------- Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---------------------------
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Doesn't this in theory mean any isp who hands you any pipe that you can slap a linksys VPN router on is also liable? Where does it begin? When it's the ISP who provides the router? What about colo? Isn't a dedicated box (with KAME/Ipsec/OpenVPN/etc) enough to do that?
you are preaching to the choir :) please do add your comments here - http://www.india-gii.org/wiki/index.php/Position_Papers/VPN_Tax srs -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh@outblaze.com gpg # EDEDEFB9 manager, security & antispam operations, outblaze limited
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Doesn't this in theory mean any isp who hands you any pipe that you can slap a linksys VPN router on is also liable? Where does it begin? When it's the ISP who provides the router? What about colo? Isn't a dedicated box (with KAME/Ipsec/OpenVPN/etc) enough to do that?
you are preaching to the choir :)
please do add your comments here - http://www.india-gii.org/wiki/index.php/Position_Papers/VPN_Tax
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the business of legacy/incumbent carriers :(
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the business of legacy/incumbent carriers :(
C&W being a legacy / incumbent carrier in several countries themselves, it will be interesting to see how they cope with this :) srs (the biter bit?) -- suresh ramasubramanian suresh@outblaze.com gpg # EDEDEFB9 manager, security & antispam operations, outblaze limited
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the business of legacy/incumbent carriers :(
C&W being a legacy / incumbent carrier in several countries themselves, it will be interesting to see how they cope with this :)
funny thing is, they were the PTT behind the panamanian laws :) what goes around comes around?
At 11:34 PM 11/16/2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the business of legacy/incumbent carriers :(
C&W being a legacy / incumbent carrier in several countries themselves, it will be interesting to see how they cope with this :)
In Panama, they are the incumbent being "protected" by the ban on VOIP. Was anyone truly surprised C&W failed in the US marketplace? They seem only able to make money when they're the government-sanctioned monopoly. It'll be interesting to see if they can handle competition in India any better than they did in the US.
Daniel Senie:
Was anyone truly surprised C&W failed in the US marketplace? They seem only able to make money when they're the government-sanctioned monopoly. It'll be interesting to see if they can handle competition in India any better than they did in the US.
Last march I did a long interview with Farooq Hussain about the economics of peering and Cable and Wireless's role in the collapse of the tier one peering proposition. Farooq was absolutely scathing in his indictment of Cable and Wireless' arrogant behavior. Apparently, they (C&W) learned nothing and are now waltzing into an indian partnership where the indian partners don't know anymore. See http://www.cookreport.com/13.03.shtml and http://www.cookreport.com/13.05.shtml -- ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Worldcall to use ISDN interconnec- tion to offer equivalent of ILEC UNE platform at: http://cookreport.com/13.09.shtml =============================================================
participants (5)
-
Christopher L. Morrow -
Dan Mahoney, System Admin -
Daniel Senie -
Gordon Cook -
Suresh Ramasubramanian