Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity

["Frank Bulk - iNAME" <frnkblk () iname com>]

I found this section of a Telephony Online article interesting:

        Though networking trends point toward an evolution 
        to mesh networks, nationwide carrier networks 
        currently lack the physical diversity that would 
        help carriers realize the benefits of true mesh 
        networking, Poll said. Qwest, for example, has 
        about three or four cross-country arteries that 
        correspond to railway rights of way. Replacing 
        that with a more mesh-like architecture would 
        increase the complexity of operating the network. 
        For one thing, it would require more uniformity 
        in the capacities of various network routes.

        "You'd have to have units of 10 Gb/s traffic 
        between all points on the network before this 
        becomes economically viable," Poll said. "When 
        you place IP capacity, you have to place a lot 
        of standby capacity to carry traffic along 
        different paths. If we could get greater 
        physical diversity in place, we could greatly 
        diminish the amount of standby capacity we 
        have to take."

        In order to realize the benefits of mesh 
        networking, Poll said, carriers will need to 
        cooperate with each other more than they 
        currently do, using fiber swaps to increase 
        the geographic diversity of network paths.
http://telephonyonline.com/access/news/ofc-qwest-optical-0226/

To keep this OT as much as possible, my question is if a mesh-configuration
of backup routes (where one link could provide 'protection' for many) would
be considered a sufficient replacement for SONET rings, or if the Qwest CTO
is really trying to get out of providing sub 50-msec protected loops and
encouraging L3 and above protection schemes, so that they can even further
over-subscribe their network.

Frank