[115891] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rod Beck)
Sat Jul 11 07:08:12 2009
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:02:59 +0100
From: "Rod Beck" <Rod.Beck@hiberniaatlantic.com>
To: "William Allen Simpson" <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
>?=20
>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".
Strictly speaking, it's not Uncle Sam, but the PUCs who review the =
tariffs.=20
I would view it fundamentally as a lack of competition. Who can provide =
ATM backhaul from central offices? In many cases just the incumbent. =20
Roderick S. Beck=20
Director of European Sales=20
Hibernia Atlantic=20
