Re: Customer AS

[Dave Morton <Dave.Morton () ecrc de>]

> | We can't pretend to be able to replace the phone networks until we can
> | achieve similar reliability. Phone networks typically are spec'ed to
> | two minutes a year downtime. 
>
> Uh huh, while I agree with you that the Internet is not
> remotely as stable as voice networks are, I think that 
> this has a great deal to do with the revenue difference.
>
> Consider that a T3, eating 690 DS0s, at 10 cents/minute/DS0,
> is worth ($52560 * 690) some thirty-six million dollars a year
> in revenue on the voice network.

Sean - not picking nits but should that not be 28 T1s i.e. 24 * 28 
giving 672 DS0s ?

Given the cost of even the cheapest voice tariff from DE to the US 
as another example I get an annual worth of 311 million dollars
for the same DS2 circuit. Given that a leased transatlantic DS3 costs 
between 6.5-7 million dollars p.a. this again reinforces your point below.

Dave

> I think you will agree that a T3 for Internet connectivity
> is not worth a very large fraction of that.
>
> Moreover, a backbone T3 for voice going down costs 
> (at roughly 10 cents/minute/DS0) $4000/hour in lost 
> billable revenue.
>
> If the money figures for Internet connectivity were anywhere
> near the figures for voice, and was billed by use in small
> increments, you would expect greater investment in reliability,
> as one sees on voice networks.
>
> Frankly, where there is significant competition and little
> or no loss-leading and cross-subsidy, the Internet 
> is precisely as reliable as people are willing to pay for.
>
>       Sean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -