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". Strictly speaking, it's not Uncle Sam, but the PUCs who review the tariffs. I would view it fundamentally as a lack of competition. Who can provide ATM backhaul from central offices? In many cases just the incumbent. Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic
