You assume things like "nobody's business" has something to do with "extracting money".
-- TTFN, patrick Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. > On Jun 19, 2016, at 13:02, David Barak <thegame...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just > give you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :) > > I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wire > twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is different > from SMF etc. what gets run over it is nobody's business but the person > controlling the end points. > > David Barak > Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts > >> On Jun 19, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: >> >> Actually, back in the T1/T3 days, colos frequently asked what you ran on the >> cable and then charged you based on the capacity of the circuit - even when >> it was the same exact cable. Of course, none of us would ever ask for T1 >> xconn then run ethernet over it. >> >> Colo providers are absolutely worried about drops in xconn revenue. Look at >> some large colo providers who are public and split out their numbers. You’ll >> see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is usually more than >> double the percentage of their revenue from xconns. Put another way, if >> xconn revenue drops by 10%, their profit drops by over 20%. How many public >> companies can shrug off a 20% drop in EPS? I submit: Not very many. >> >> This is not surprising. When you build your business on the ignorance of >> your customers, you are in a world of hurt once your customers learn even a >> little bit more. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> >>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, jim deleskie <deles...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't buy this. They sold you one cable before, they sell you cable now. >>> Little difference then we moved customers from a T1 to T3 back in the >>> 90's. If Colo's can't understand more then 20+ yrs of evolution its hardly >>> right to blame it on the market. >>> >>> >>> -jim >>> Mimir Networks >>> www.mimirnetworks.com >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Before 100G, you'd need ten cross connects to move 100G. Now you'd need >>>> only one. That's a big drop in revenue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: "Brandon Butterworth" <bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk> >>>> To: br...@pobox.com, d...@temk.in >>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 8:55:57 AM >>>> Subject: Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh >>>> >>>> Dave Temkin <d...@temk.in> wrote: >>>>> And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the >>>>> impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster >>>> than >>>>> 100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around >>>>> regardless. >>>> >>>> If they've based their model on extracting profit proportional >>>> to technology speed then they've misunderstood Moore's law >>>> >>>> brandon >>
