Summary

  • Taiwan’s Ministry of Education adopted TANet connection principles in 1996 and amended them repeatedly; the detailed ISP conditions documented here come from 2000 and 2006 versions.
  • The rules permitted reviewed interconnection but required providers to bring their own backbone, connect across regions, report traffic and avoid using TANet’s international circuits or domestic backbone.

The boundary appeared in the verbs. An ISP could connect to the Taiwan Academic Network, but it could not treat the network’s own international Internet circuits or domestic backbone as its general carriage. The Ministry’s rules framed connection as a conditional exchange: commercial providers could reach a research and education network if they brought capacity, met technical requirements and accepted review.

That distinction mattered because TANet already exchanged traffic with commercial networks. A National Taiwan University retrospective says TANet connected to Hinet over T1 in early 1994 and to SEEDNet by 10 Mbps Ethernet that June. The 1996 principles therefore did not announce the first link between separate networks. They set terms for later interconnection as domestic Internet use and requests to join expanded.

The rule began on 21 June 1996, according to the Ministry’s legal record. Its official consolidated copy lists amendments in 1997, 1999, twice in 2000 and in 2006. The surviving July 2000 archive gives a detailed view of what admission required. A licensed second-category telecom ISP had to submit a plan describing its backbone, services, operations, network management, proposed interconnection and expected cooperation. TANet’s technical group reviewed it first; the Management Committee reviewed it next. Approval preceded connection.

Capacity requirements made the boundary physical. The 2000 text required at least three T3 (45 Mbps) backbone points across northern, central, southern or eastern Taiwan. Providers had to connect at more than half of TANet’s regional network centers in different regions, carry traffic over their own backbone and provide at least T1 (1.544 Mbps) at each point. Traffic crossing TANet for non-local exchange was capped at one-tenth of TANet’s minimum backbone bandwidth. Providers also submitted monthly high, low and average traffic reports. At 70% average utilization, the rule required an expansion plan within a month and completion within three.

The 2006 text retained the ban on using TANet’s international circuits and domestic backbone, the three T3 points, multi-region connections and own-backbone carriage. It explicitly required BGP4 and consistent routing at each connection point. Its capacity trigger was different: a one-way flow had to remain at the link’s maximum for at least eight hours per day on five consecutive days before the provider submitted an expansion plan. The rule also required providers to supply their circuits, routers and other equipment.

This version history changes the story from a single 1996 prohibition into an operating contract that evolved. In 2000, the text bounded non-local traffic crossing TANet and reacted to average utilization; by 2006, it described routing exchange and a sustained saturation test. Both versions paired permission to interconnect with an obligation to furnish independent reach and capacity.

The rules provided a formal path to termination after a confirmed failure and an unremedied notice; termination also carried a two-year bar on reapplication. That is evidence of an enforcement mechanism on paper, not proof that it was invoked. The documents do not show provider compliance, real traffic, prices or competitive effects. TANet’s rules establish where the Ministry drew the boundary, not what every ISP did once connected.

Sources and limits

The rule states required conditions; these sources do not establish their universal implementation, actual traffic, enforcement, prices, market effects or the reasons for each amendment. Detailed 2000 and 2006 provisions should not be projected unchanged onto the initial 1996 text.