nanog mailing list archives
Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
From: salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:09:51 +0800 From: avg () postman ncube com (Vadim Antonov) To: jogden () merit edu, nanog () merit edu 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
Current thread:
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead], (continued)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 20)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Jon Zeeff (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] William Allen Simpson (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Shikhar Bajaj (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Jeff Ogden (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Wolfgang Henke (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Vadim Antonov (Mar 21)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Kent W. England (Mar 22)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 25)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 25)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Vadim Antonov (Mar 25)
- Re: MCI [ATM overhead] Tim Salo (Mar 20)