ATM-based WANs are therefore one of the most efficient yet costly approaches for ensuring a high degree of responsiveness to global teams working collaboratively on complex, involved projects.
The majority of global teams however rely on Frame Relay WANs that average 45 Mbps and cost significantly less than ATM networks. Frame Relay WANs support both switchable and fixed configuration, are scalable to support bursts in audio and digital traffic and also have global wide availability. As more projects become more global in scope, Frame Relay as a WAN technology option is increasingly being chosen in mid-size and small companies. Smaller businesses that have global partnerships are using new techniques to optimize their Frame Relay networks to gain the cost advantages and lower total cost of ownership that is possible using VoIP and data interchange standards (Awan, Shih, Durresi, 2008). Frame Relay and ATM networks are prevalent in globalized companies that require a high degree of collaboration across time zones.
Conversely, for local workgroups the use of T1 Services, ISDN, or DSL-based services, all of which are significantly lower in price relative to ATM and Frame Relay networks, have the disadvantage of being fixed in configuration (with the exception of ISDN) and dont support QoS functionality as part of their inherent design.
However for smaller localized workgroups, the ability to transmit both data and voice over T1, ISDN and DSL-based LANs and WANs favor these technologies and their lower total cost of ownership.
For global teams, ATM and Frame Relay are the most efficient and capable of supporting the levels of response times and collaboration necessary for projects to get accomplished on such a wide scale. The total cost of ownership for these types of telecommunication and distributed networks is relatively high, yet these often have hundreds or thousands of users and teams using them. Conversely the lower number of users on local networks makes the use of T1, ISDN, and DSL more cost effective and capable of delivering the levels of performance necessary to ensure collaboration.
Irfan Awan, Timothy Shih, Arjan Durresi. (2008). Advances in modelling and evaluation of communication systems. Telecommunication Systems, 38(3-4), 69-70. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1495475821).
Arjan Duresi, Vamsi Paruchuri. (2008). Adaptive backbone protocol for heterogeneous wireless networks. Telecommunication Systems, 38(3-4), 83-97. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1496121791).
Liang-Jie Zhang, Yu Long, Tian Chao, Henry Chang, John Sayah. (2004). Adaptive integration activity management for on demand business process collaboration. Information.