Bandwidth Trading 2.0?

By Gary Kim May 14, 2012

There are signs of renewed interest in bandwidth trading in some quarters of the capacity business, a development that might be mildly surprising after the complete meltdown of the so-called practice by Enron, its foremost proponent, in 2001.

 It wouldn’t be the first time a concept that was “before its time” got a second chance in the market. Tablet computers have been produced, without mass adoption, for at least a decade. “Application service providers” mostly failed during the Internet bubble, but have assumed new life in the ‘software as a service” business.

 Might bandwidth trading get another shot at success? Some appear to hope so. A new site provides some evidence. Some believe exchanges provide evidence for the notion. Band-X and Arbinet, in addition to Enron, tried to create bandwidth exchanges. Others argue that “lit capacity” and “bandwidth” cannot be traded like commodities. Neil Tagare, at, is among those who haven’t lost faith in the concept.

 Primus Telecommunications, which now owns Arbinet, also is among firms that never abandoned the concept. Andreas Hipp, Epsilon Telecommunications CEO, also is among those who believe a market exists for anonymous, managed, set-rate exchange of network capacity. Cable & Wireless Worldwide plc and Sprint Nextel Corp. appear to have signed as anchor tenants for the Epsilon Capacity Exchange, the company's bandwidth trading platform.

For some observers, the biggest problem is that capacity is not really “liquid” enough to be generally traded, even if that might be true on some routes, to some locations, at some times.

 There also are reasons suppliers might not be anxious to support bandwidth trading. Any online exchange, selling any “commodity,” will tend to experience higher price competition when those products are sold on an exchange.

 And in a business where price competition is vigorous, anything that makes competition even more intense will tend to find significant resistance, in some quarters. As often is the case, the interest might well bifurcate along "buyer and seller" lines. Buyers might well welcome the chance to buy in a more liquid fashion, in the expectation that prices will be lower. 

Sellers, just as obviously, will not want to risk a move that could lead to higher pricing pressure and therefore lower margins.

Edited by Brooke Neuman

Contributing Editor

Related Articles

Four Reasons to Reach for the Cloud after World Earth Day

By: Special Guest    4/23/2018

The World Earth Day agenda offers a chance to flip the rationale for cloud adoption and highlight environmental benefits that the technology brings pr…

Read More

Bloomberg BETA: Models Are Key to Machine Intelligence

By: Paula Bernier    4/19/2018

James Cham, partner at seed fund Bloomberg BETA, was at Cisco Collaboration Summit today talking about the importance of models to the future of machi…

Read More

Get Smart About Influencer Attribution in a Blockchain World

By: Maurice Nagle    4/16/2018

The retail value chain is in for a blockchain-enabled overhaul, with smarter relationships, delivering enhanced transparency across an environment of …

Read More

Facebook Flip-Flopping on GDPR

By: Maurice Nagle    4/12/2018

With GDPR on the horizon, Zuckerberg in Congress testifying and Facebook users questioning loyalty, change is coming. What that change will look like,…

Read More

The Next Phase of Flash Storage and the Mid-Sized Business

By: Joanna Fanuko    4/11/2018

Organizations amass profuse amounts of data these days, ranging from website traffic metrics to online customer surveys. Collectively, AI, IoT and eve…

Read More