North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ATM Utility
> From: [email protected] (Karl Denninger) > Subject: Re: ATM Utility > To: [email protected] (Jon 'Iain' Boone) > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 15:41:52 -0600 (CST) > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > [...] [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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|