MCI [ATM overhead]

Mon Mar 25 07:13:23 UTC 1996

This is betting on ATM prices being low for a long time --
long enough for investments to ATM equipment to pay off.

>From the point of view of ISPs which get lines at cost this
is a no-brainer choice.

--vadim

>From salo at msc.edu Mon Mar 25 14:49 PST 1996
Return-Path: <salo at msc.edu>
Received: from postman.ncube.com by butler.ncube.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA28341; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:49:36 +0800
Received: from noc.msc.edu by postman.ncube.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA08921; Mon, 25 Mar 96 14:50:57 PST
Received: from uh.msc.edu by noc.msc.edu (5.65/MSC/v3.0.1(920324))
	id AA12387; Mon, 25 Mar 96 16:50:22 -0600
Received: (salo at localhost) by uh.msc.edu (8.7.1/8.6.6) id QAA04516; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
From: salo at msc.edu (Tim Salo)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:50:29 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199603252250.QAA04516 at uh.msc.edu>
To: avg at postman.ncube.com
Subject: Re: MCI [ATM overhead]
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 667
Status: R

> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:09:51 +0800
> From: avg at postman.ncube.com (Vadim Antonov)
> To: jogden at merit.edu, nanog at 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