Akmike, perhaps as a primary, but not as an exclusive.
In some cases you may find this to be the case in the future, but this will probably not be a widely accepted practice for several long standing reasons. And even if most of those reasons go away, then there is always the following and primary one:
Even if a given carrier's network were to be ubiquitous enough to support such a scheme, most prudent organizations purely from a basic reliability standpoint would never put all of their eggs in one, sometimes even two, baskets.
This is a plain and simple fact of life in major league enterprise networking. In fact, this was Bob A.'s battle cry, the "don't-put-all-your- eggs-in-one-basket" theme, that he used to help put TCG on the map in the first place. R&D. Redundancy and Diversity: The two qualities in prudent networking which must always be honored.
There are also many other reasons, such as pricing leverage; interlocking requirements to other carriers who serve areas not served by the primary; and so on. And the mere fact that the "reach and service blend requirements" for all forms of networking will very likely not be met by a single entity, anytime soon. Can one carrier provide point to points to multiple locations around the world? Sure. Can they meet all of the requirements at all points, alone? Not likely.
Nor would they want to, anyway, since to do so would put them back in time, into older generations of legacy networking situations, the same ones which they want supplant in due time, by newer means.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
