North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: ATM Utility
- From: Tim Salo
- Date: Tue Nov 08 03:49:00 1994
> From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
> Subject: Re: ATM Utility
> To: boone@prep.net (Jon 'Iain' Boone)
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:41:52 -0600 (CST)
> Cc: avg@sprint.net, tjs@msc.edu, nanog@merit.edu, nap@hq.si.net
> [...]
[A long time ago, I wrote:]
> > > >cost-effective in a number of applications today. In particular,
> > > >the cost of wide-area DS-3 ATM services can be very attractive
> > > >when compared to a number of point-to-point DS-3s.
> [...]
> > But, if you don't need the full 45 Mb/s, you can find a more
> > cost-effective solution in the wide-area Fast-packet services. In the
> > case of the MCI Hyperstream offerings, you don't have to pay for the
> > full amount of a circuit from point A to point B -- you simply pay a
> > monthly subscription fee and then a usage charge per Megabyte of data.
> >
> > So, you can build a multi-megabit/s backbone that is (say) 10 Mb/s and
> > not end up having to purchase the entirety of the DS3 circuits needed to
> > provision it.
>
> Tell you what -- go run the numbers for any reasonable-sized IP provider,
> and tell me whether or not they are better off on "metered" service of this
> type, or with full-time dedicated circuits.
>
> Metered service will *always* be more expensive at reasonable to high loads,
> because the metering and billing costs money to do!
Right answer, maybe, but wrong question.
Most ATM pricing I have seen has a "committed information rate"
component, which assures a minimum available bandwidth. This is not
the "metered" pricing to which you are responding.
-tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
