The rise of WAN Ethernet services is a fascinating and exciting phenomenon for those of us who have watched the telecommunications industry develop over the past 25 to 30 years. I see two particularly salient points in this move. First, this greatly simplifies connectivity from the user/customer perspective. Rather than having to learn about and possibly implement a new protocol every three to five years (e.g. from dedicated circuits to frame relay to ATM to MPLS), the user is able to stay with one VERY familiar protocol that they already know. This move toward a managed service leaves all of the details of WAN service transport to the provider. Secondly, the user is removed from caring about the efficiency of the transport protocol as high bandwidth has become more or less a commodity. This is a result of the steadily decreasing price per bit-per-second. (But I do have a question about the pricing in a related post.) The bottom line is that in order to survive in the current and coming economic conditions, users will have to continue to evolve from the old BYOB (Be Your Own Bell) model to a more service-based approach. Looking forward to your comments on this.

One of the parameters mentioned in the Global crossing specs is a Committed Data Rate (CDR). This is a "bigger than a breadbox" topic, so I invite you to join an in-depth discussion at: http://tinyurl.com/yj5oo8j

To Global Crossing... When you say "globally available," can you be more specific as to how many cities, countries, etc.?

The Global Crossing EtherSphere WAN services are supported by numerous access methods. Through the company's EtherExtend(SM) Flex access service and UK EtherSphere service, enterprises will be able to connect to Ethernet transport services from 150 locations, including nearly 80 Cisco 7600 series provider edge routers, supporting 26 countries in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia.

The service offerings today from Global Crossing (and other service providers) range from private line to ATM to MPLS to IP-VPN to Ethernet. What are some guidelines for a company to decide whether Ethernet is "better" solution than the other options - both in general and in comparison to other Global Crossing offerings in particular?

Enterprises today have a range of WAN transport solutions from which to choose, but most companies rarely have a one-size fits-all implementation. For example, depending on whether a company is starting from a green field or migrating from a legacy data service – the solution can vary from a phased technology migration to starting out with Ethernet end-end. We also expect WAN strategies to comprise an interworking, or hybrid model, including a mix of IP VPN and Ethernet WAN elements. Ethernet WAN solutions are well suited to interconnecting data centers or hub sites requiring high bandwidth and maximum routing control. At the same time, IP VPN solutions fit better for remote locations with say T1 or DSL connectivity requirements, and where there is a considerable number of sites to be interconnected. Essentially, MPLS and VPLS are complementary WAN options and the “better” solution is one that meets the overall cost and operational objectives of the organization.