NIXI Fee Structure based on ports. What? Does a managed switch cost them a lot less to maintain if they configure it at a speed of 2Mbps. Did someone explain to NIXI that their aim is not to be a for-profit company, and they shouldn't be buying 2Mbps transit bandwidth but figuring out how to peer the ISPs at multi-100-megabit speeds by asking government/BSNL to subsidize transit for small ISPs/Content producers/hosts/Open Source software mirrors through leased line circuits over citywide metro-ethernet(s) they have created.
ISPs will continue to pay lip-service to NIXI, until more IT managers buying premium corporate bandwidth start asking tough questions about local peering, which incidentally affects the quality of service for their users more than an average home user. More often than not I used to get clueless looks from salespeople who came to sell bandwidth when asked about peering in India. Some of higher-ups in the ISPs would claim to have several E1 circuits to the NIXI(not at which POP and which ISP's do they actually peer with).
For sure an ISP letting botnet infected subscribers continue to connect to Internet, shoving more DDOS/SPAM traffic to other ISPs should be paid at the rate of Rs. 50/GB, talk about incentives for evil. Worse they don't want to pay the datacenters the same settlement fee as the ISPs.
Would someone file an RTI query(I am too lazy a blogger) with BSNL, MTNL and NIXI as to what port speeds and at what POPs (Point of Presence) do the ISPs with largest number of Broadband subscribers connect peer at with which other ISPs.
The prices of co-location in India do not provide enough incentive for content providers to move content from US/Europe to India not even for content hosts in say geographically close countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand etc. The Indian non-IT content companies do get taken in by the promise of lower latency(due to geographical closeness) from Indian datacenters to indian subscribers but it ends up being an endless wait for promised future improvement in services(or perhaps Datacenters are able to blame it away on poor last mile connectivity, or the content hosts never saw what local content delivery should look like with local hosting).
Is it so hard to figure out that NIXI trying to act as a carrier neutral telecom hotel for content hosting instead of a Peering POP will not work.
