nanog mailing list archives
Re: Point to Point Ethernet
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:39:44 -0400
Brian Raaen wrote:
Hate to say it, but also some of the cost on the circuits can be blamed on uncle Sam. ATM circuits are currently tariffed that same way are voice circuits. These tariffs are not charged to Ethernet because it is a 'data circuit'. At least that was the case a little while back.
Are you sure it's "Uncle Sam"? My experience is that voice tariffs are always cheaper than data; telco's mantra is still "I Smell Dollars Now". The telcos were mightily pissed when we redesigned protocols to pass over voice circuits instead of requiring data circuits. Usually, non-tariffed lines seem to be much more expensive, as the account manager says "Oh, that special order will have to be approved by HQ".
Current thread:
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet, (continued)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Cayle Spandon (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Zartash Uzmi (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 09)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Rod Beck (Jul 11)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet sthaug (Jul 12)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jul 12)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Ricky Beam (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Chris Adams (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Seth Mattinen (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Brian Raaen (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet William Allen Simpson (Jul 11)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jul 11)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Dylan Ebner (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Joel Jaeggli (Jul 09)