|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
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. --vadim >From [email protected] Mon Mar 25 14:49 PST 1996 Return-Path: <[email protected]> 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: ([email protected]) by uh.msc.edu (8.7.1/8.6.6) id QAA04516; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST) From: [email protected] (Tim Salo) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Cc: [email protected] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 667 Status: R > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:09:51 +0800 > From: [email protected] (Vadim Antonov) > To: [email protected], [email protected] > 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? -tjs
|