North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
- From: Vadim Antonov
- Date: Mon Mar 25 19:44:54 1996
This is betting on ATM prices being low for a long time --
long enough for investments to ATM equipment to pay off.
>From the point of view of ISPs which get lines at cost this
is a no-brainer choice.
>From email@example.com Mon Mar 25 14:49 PST 1996
Received: from postman.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA28341; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:49:36 +0800
Received: from noc.msc.edu by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA08921; Mon, 25 Mar 96 14:50:57 PST
Received: from uh.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324))
id AA12387; Mon, 25 Mar 96 16:50:22 -0600
Received: (salo@localhost) by uh.msc.edu (8.7.1/8.6.6) id QAA04516; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Salo)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:09:51 +0800
> From: email@example.com (Vadim Antonov)
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
> The pricing on ATM transport is merely an artefact of "pilot"
> status of ATM networks. Carriers lose money on that. When
> market will be established the prices are bound to rise to
> that of native IP transport, or, likely, more (as ATM does not handle
> levels of overcommitment found in IP backbones now).
Hmmm... Does that imply that the NSP that can take advantage of
underpriced services, (perhaps including ATM, if you are correct),
will have a competitive advantage?