Re: ATM Utility

[tjs () msc edu (Tim Salo)]

> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -