|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
The wholesale agreements by which transit is sold is very different from the notion of "transit" from a routing table perspective. Therefore these articles should not be merged. Elencticdeictic 18:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Then, as I just said on the talk page for the "IP transit" article, that difference needs to be made explicit within a single context, rather than in a separate, undifferentiated and competing article. If there's something you feel needs to be said in this article, please say it, rather than continuing the competing article without explaining rationale within the article. Bill Woodcock 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Bill -- I think a simple Google search will suffice to demonstrate the differences in usage of the terms: Searching on "IP Transit" will show a number of advertisements and wholesale bandwidth services for wholesale bandwidith. "Internet Transit" will not show any of these items. Therefore, I think your contention that "IP Transit" and "Internet Transit" compete as generally accepted terms is incorrect. The usage of IP transit has grown to mean "wholesale IP bandwidth". Internet Transit primarily refers accessing to routes on the "entire Internet". Quite simply, the "competing" Internet Transit article does not describe how either IP bandwidth is now wholesaled nor is it the the term which has emereged as the description for that service -- as my Google search example demonstrates. If you want to discuss directly, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or we can talk at NANOG. Are you suggesting that on the merge, "IP Transit" is no longer defined in Wikipedia? If not, then I think it could makes sense to merge and I'll make my edit to the new "merged" article. Keep in mind that when I created IP Transit about a year ago, the Internet Transit article did not refer to how IP bandwidth was wholesaled. Also, you may wish to edit the external link at PCH since it seems to require that you login to get the information. Elencticdeictic 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Several points... First: I wasn't meaning to suggest that the _terms_ "Internet transit" and "IP transit" were competing, but that the _articles_ were. I think that as people use them in conversation, it could well be that they have, or are gaining, the usage you're suggesting, and I don't have any argument with that assertion. I was saying that the _articles_ were competing, in the sense that both appear to purport to be comprehensive, and neither acknowleged the existence of the other. Thus, I was agreeing that they needed to be merged and disambiguated. Second: It was my assumption that "IP transit" would be made a redirect to "Internet transit" with an explanation in the Internet transit article of the distinction that you're positing. Third: Re the external link, I was able to replicate the login problem you encountered, I've asked one of our admins to get it fixed, and I've removed the link for now. Bill Woodcock 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
These should be a single article, IMNSHO. What little difference that exists (if any) should be clearly spelled out in a single place. jzp 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like the above was talking about merging IP transit? I just now proposed merging in Network service provider too. Although in the generic sense one could argue that NSP would be a more general concept, the article there only talks about wholesale Internet bandwidth sales, which is that this article talks about. The generic concept could always be spun out if there is another kind of provider that becomes notable. But having one referenced article might be better than several stubs with no sources. W Nowicki (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I vote to merge this little content to Internet_service_provider because this way, we don't miss the point, that a NSP can also provide layer one services like physical Dark fiber (that's where I originally came to this article). --Never stop exploring (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a very confusing unit. Shouldn't it be Mbit/s Month, ie Mbps times Month? (eg. It's also called kWh, not kW/h)
Ortherwise it would be proportional to Mbit/s^2. Does this measure the rate at which the data transfer rate changes??
Or or perhaps it means Mbit/(s/Month)? That would be odd too, since Mbit/s is a commonly known unit, and s/Month isn't.
Whoever knows the answer, please explain in the article. Klafubra 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)