Tony Chan writes, in part:
> ..... Without an
> international link, even an operator will an "open" policy, like DoCoMo,
> would not be able to provide access to overseas Web sites.
Excuse me, but I just can't see the reasoning here. While DoCoMo
almost certainly enjoys excellent direct international network connections
(choose your parents well!) it doesn't actually need them in order to
connect to the Internet globally.
Packets get to where they need to go (subject to filtering, of course)
by being routed -- if DoCoMo connects to something that has an
overseas connection (however indirectly), packets will get through,
though not necessarily with satisfactory speed or latency.
> Economically, it is very hard to justify the expense of international
> bandwidth just for a handful of users.
So? Buy a fraction of that bandwidth from a broker. Very old
telecom business model.
There is an embarrassment of riches in already-laid transoceanic
fiber. And an embarrassment of poverty in internal Japanese
connections. A lot of long-haul packet traffic in Japan goes through
California because, believe it or not, it's taking the best available
route. (At one time, anyway; things might have improved since the
mid-90s.) Basically, if you live in a large enough coastal city in
the developed world, packets can quite reasonably go overseas
more cheaply than they can cross land -- even when their
destination is another city a few hours drive down the same
coast. Most of the cost is in amortizing last-mile investments.
There is nothing amazing about DoCoMo or J-Phone serving
up Australian content -- or pages from Malta or Montenegro
or Iceland or Alaska. The Internet is the Internet. Either they
are connected to it or they're not. And they are. End of story.
-michael turner
leap@gol.com
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Tue Jul 3 12:14:29 2001