Recently reached out to Zayo and found out we have a new account manager, and also discovered they were acquired by a company called ENA... Bill ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+william.murphy=uth.tmc.edu@nanog.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:19 AM To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net> Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Zayo woes External: Increase caution when handling links and attachments. I've never understood companies that acquire and don't completely integrate as quickly as they can. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen@network1.net> To: "JASON BOTHE" <jbothe@me.com> Cc: "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:01:03 PM Subject: Re: Zayo woes The problem we have run into is that there does not appear to be a "Zayo." There are dozens of acquisitions of regional providers with completely different infrastructure and teams and they have done a very poor job at gluing it all together. I have seen service orders that have gone *years* without being complete. There are also currently some breaking-the-entire-regional-network sorts of outages going on currently. I am guessing what clued employees they still have are quite tied up. -Randy ----- On Sep 18, 2023, at 7:06 PM, JASON BOTHE via NANOG nanog@nanog.org wrote:

Does anyone know what’s happening at Zayo? Tickets are taking weeks and months to get resolved, much less get a tech assigned to them.

The folks answering the noc phone are mere order takers and are only reading from a script, manager on duty/escalation lines go to voicemail.

If anyone can help get to a human in the transport group, that would be great. I’ve given up all hope at this point.

Appreciated.

Jason

I blame not the network nerds, but the management that put them in that position. The problem with C is that unless the networks *ARE* integrated quickly, the synergies won't happen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> To: "Bill Murphy" <William.Murphy@uth.tmc.edu> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen@network1.net>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:41:35 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:19AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: [...] I've never understood companies that acquire and don't completely integrate as quickly as they can. Ah, spoken with the voice of someone who's never been in the position of: a) acquiring a company not-much-smaller-than-you that b) runs on completely different hardware and software and c) your executives have promised there will be cost savings after the merger due to "synergies" between the two companies. ^_^; Let's say you're an all J shop; your scripts, your tooling, everything expects to be talking to J devices. Your executives buy a company that has almost the same size network--but it's all C devices running classic IOS. You can go to your executives and tell them "hey, to integrate quickly with our network and tooling, we need to swap out all their C gear for J gear; it's gonna cost an extra $50M" The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and denying the request for money to convert the acquired network to J. You can go to your network and say "hey, we need to revamp our tooling and systems to understand how to speak to C and J devices equally, in spite of wildly different syntaxes for route-maps and the like-it's going to take 4 more developer headcount to rewrite all the systems." The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and deny the request for developer headcount to rewrite your software systems. The general result of acquisitions of similar-sized companies is that the infrastructure runs in parallel, slowly getting converted over and unified as gear needs to be replaced, or sites are phased out--because any other course of action costs more money than the executives had promised the shareholders, the board, or the VCs, depending on what stage your company is at. Swift integrations cost money, and most acquisitions promise cost savings instead of warning of increased costs due to integration. That's why most companies don't integrate quickly. :( Matt

*nods* Differences between long term money and opportunistic money, which I admit is starting to trend away from NANOG's purpose, but still kinda related as it pertains to integration of networks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Delong.com" <owen@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:22:26 PM Subject: Re: Zayo woes You’ve got the blame right, but the fact that the cost savings don’t materialize quickly seems to get forgiven more easily than a sudden (albeit one-time, temporary) increase in costs to accelerate that transition. Result: In general, no additional money, limp along and realize the cost savings over time. Certainly not idea from a technical perspective. Probably not ideal from a bottom line perspective over the long haul. Almost certainly ends up looking better on the first couple of 10Qs and by the 3rd 10Q, everyone is paying attention to something else. Owen On Sep 19, 2023, at 07:44, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote: I blame not the network nerds, but the management that put them in that position. The problem with C is that unless the networks *ARE* integrated quickly, the synergies won't happen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> To: "Bill Murphy" <William.Murphy@uth.tmc.edu> Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen@network1.net>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:41:35 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:19AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> [...] I've never understood companies that acquire and don't completely integrate as quickly as they can. Ah, spoken with the voice of someone who's never been in the position of: a) acquiring a company not-much-smaller-than-you that b) runs on completely different hardware and software and c) your executives have promised there will be cost savings after the merger due to "synergies" between the two companies. ^_^; Let's say you're an all J shop; your scripts, your tooling, everything expects to be talking to J devices. Your executives buy a company that has almost the same size network--but it's all C devices running classic IOS. You can go to your executives and tell them "hey, to integrate quickly with our network and tooling, we need to swap out all their C gear for J gear; it's gonna cost an extra $50M" The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and denying the request for money to convert the acquired network to J. You can go to your network and say "hey, we need to revamp our tooling and systems to understand how to speak to C and J devices equally, in spite of wildly different syntaxes for route-maps and the like-it's going to take 4 more developer headcount to rewrite all the systems." The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and deny the request for developer headcount to rewrite your software systems. The general result of acquisitions of similar-sized companies is that the infrastructure runs in parallel, slowly getting converted over and unified as gear needs to be replaced, or sites are phased out--because any other course of action costs more money than the executives had promised the shareholders, the board, or the VCs, depending on what stage your company is at. Swift integrations cost money, and most acquisitions promise cost savings instead of warning of increased costs due to integration. That's why most companies don't integrate quickly. :( Matt </blockquote>

On 9/19/23 16:48, Mike Hammett wrote:

As someone that has been planning to be in the acquiring seat for a while (but yet to do one), I've consistently passed to the money people that there's the purchase price and then there's the % on top of that for equipment, contractors, etc. to integrate, improve, optimize future cashflow, etc. those acquisitions with the rest of what we have.

I blame this on the success of how well we have built the Internet with whatever box and tool we have, as network engineers. The money people assume that all routers are the same, all vendors are the same, all software is the same, and all features are easily deployable. And that all that is possible if you can simply do a better job finding the cheapest box compared to your competition. In general, I don't fancy nuance when designing for the majority. But with acquisition and integration, nuance is critical, and nuance quickly shows that the acquisition was either underestimated, or not worth doing at all. Mark.

On 9/19/23 17:54, Mike Hammett wrote:

Well sure, and I would like to think (probably mistakenly) that just no one important enough (to the money people) made the money people that these other things are *REQUIRED* to make the deal work.

Obviously, people lower on the ladder say it all of the time, but the important enough money people probably don't consider those people important enough to listen to.

The ISP world is not a normal market place :-). Mark.

Laughing out Loud, really, good views all... Having been through this a few times.. and being one of those who is now the one of the hated C level guys.. Much truth is spoken here. EBITA and size are the issues IMHO in our current system. Having been the owner of a few "smallish" retail ISPs in the west.. I can say with certainty that size is an issue. in the world of today a small/medium ISP can do OK, but can never access the funds or resources necessary to actually be a long term survivor. To that end we look at sources of money that require us to sell a majority interest in our company to make it to the next level, that and exhaustion from staying awake nights wondering how to make next payroll because we spent a couple million on new gear. This money seeking then comes with an interview system where we court the guys with money and they court us.. The outcome is always iffy. You can partner with money that has a good plan or one that sucks (done both). Even if you get good money, you will suffer from culture issues. Small ISP's tend to focus on the people and the customers, the larger you get the more important the money becomes (EBITA) which for a lot of the employees is, well, hard. But staying small in general = extinction so you do what you do to keep employees working (at least that's what I tell myself). Good views all, and I totally agree with @Matthew Petach miracles statement.. I'm no longer that guy, but I like to think I was in the past, and I've got a bunch of them working for me now, so I try really hard to appreciate it and to recognize that that is what is happening, I fight for the money to do it as right as possible.. but I do depend on .... you miracle workers. /thanks /rh On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:30 AM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:21 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

Well sure, and I would like to think (probably mistakenly) that just no one important enough (to the money people) made the money people that these other things are *REQUIRED* to make the deal work.

Obviously, people lower on the ladder say it all of the time, but the important enough money people probably don't consider those people important enough to listen to.

Not quite.

It's more of what Mark said:

" I blame this on the success of how well we have built the Internet with whatever box and tool we have, as network engineers."

I have worked time and time again with absolute miracle workers in the networking field. They say over and over again "to make this work, we need $X M to get the right hardware", even directly to the CFO.

They get handed a roll of duct tape, some baling wire, a used access point and a $25 gift card from Office Depot, and they turn it into a functional BGP-speaking backbone, because that's what they're good at.

The CFO and the rest of the executives that said "no" to the request for $X M to make the integration work properly pat themselves on the back, saying "see, we knew they didn't really NEED that money to make it work."

A year down the line, customers are posting to NANOG wondering why things are going to hell in a handbasket at ISP A, as the BGP-speaking access point with some duct tape, baling wire, and SFPs purchased from Office Depot that ties the two networks together starts failing.

As network engineers, we collectively set ourselves up for this by being so damn good at pulling miracles out of our backside to keep things running. We've effectively been training our executives that if they habitually turn down our requests for resources, we'll still find some way of making things work.

We pride ourselves on being able to keep a dozen spinning plates going like a circus performer, without letting any of them crash to the floor.

It's a hard thing to do, but one lesson I've taught junior network engineers of all ages is that sometimes, you have to step back, and watch a plate smash into the floor, *even if you could have rescued it*, if it seems like that's the only way your executive team will understand that if requests for necessary resources are denied, there will be operational impacts.

Now, it's not something you should do lightly, and not something to do without first working with the executives to understand why the resource request is being denied. If you are working at a startup, and the money is running out, and the company is one step ahead of the creditors, probably not the time to put the foot down and intentionally let things crash and burn.

But if the company is doing well, has the money, and the executives just want the numbers to look good for wall street analysts, then it's time to pause the miracle working, and help them understand that they cannot simply expect you to pull a miracle out of your backside every time, just so they can look good.

If we continue to pull off miracles after telling executives that additional resources are required, it's no wonder they don't take the requests as seriously as they should. ^_^;

Matt

...

------------------------------ *From: *"Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10:28:26 AM *Subject: *Re: Zayo woes

On 9/19/23 16:48, Mike Hammett wrote:

As someone that has been planning to be in the acquiring seat for a while (but yet to do one), I've consistently passed to the money people that there's the purchase price and then there's the % on top of that for equipment, contractors, etc. to integrate, improve, optimize future cashflow, etc. those acquisitions with the rest of what we have.

I blame this on the success of how well we have built the Internet with whatever box and tool we have, as network engineers.

The money people assume that all routers are the same, all vendors are the same, all software is the same, and all features are easily deployable. And that all that is possible if you can simply do a better job finding the cheapest box compared to your competition.

In general, I don't fancy nuance when designing for the majority. But with acquisition and integration, nuance is critical, and nuance quickly shows that the acquisition was either underestimated, or not worth doing at all.

Mark.

If it makes you feel any better, we have been waiting for a simple BCI Circuit from Comcast for over a year (not 100% their fault, they had to permit a canal crossing). Two weeks ago, we received a construction completion email from our account manager, and I scheduled a turnup for the following week. Then the construction crew showed up the next day.... michael brooks Sr. Network Engineer Adams 12 Five Star Schools michael.brooks@adams12.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss" On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 11:04 AM Billy Earley via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

Navigating the Zayo maze has become my five-month odyssey, attempting to breathe life into a new wave circuit. Yet, at every turn, the elusive Letter of Authorization (LOA) emerges as a formidable opponent, adorned with syntax problems or entangled in the chaos of already occupied ports.

Securing new LOAs has evolved into a drawn-out saga, reminiscent of a never-ending loop that defies both reason and resolution. Weeks are spent coaxing these documents into existence, only to find myself caught in the clutches of the same cycle, ad infinitum.

Communication with Zayo has been challenging. Phone calls always go unanswered. Persistent radio-silence despite emails promising regular updates. Zayo's website boldly touts "waves on demand" with a 24-hour turn-up, a tantalizing promise that seems more mirage than reality in my current struggle.

Wish me luck as I continue my quest through the Zayo wilderness. May the waves finally align in my favour some day soon. If anyone at Zayo is reading this - I would love to hear from you off-list.

On Sep 21, 2023, at 01:15, Richard Holbo <holbor@sonss.net> wrote:

Laughing out Loud, really, good views all... Having been through this a few times.. and being one of those who is now the one of the hated C level guys.. Much truth is spoken here. EBITA and size are the issues IMHO in our current system. Having been the owner of a few "smallish" retail ISPs in the west.. I can say with certainty that size is an issue. in the world of today a small/medium ISP can do OK, but can never access the funds or resources necessary to actually be a long term survivor. To that end we look at sources of money that require us to sell a majority interest in our company to make it to the next level, that and exhaustion from staying awake nights wondering how to make next payroll because we spent a couple million on new gear. This money seeking then comes with an interview system where we court the guys with money and they court us.. The outcome is always iffy. You can partner with money that has a good plan or one that sucks (done both). Even if you get good money, you will suffer from culture issues. Small ISP's tend to focus on the people and the customers, the larger you get the more important the money becomes (EBITA) which for a lot of the employees is, well, hard. But staying small in general = extinction so you do what you do to keep employees working (at least that's what I tell myself). Good views all, and I totally agree with @Matthew Petach miracles statement.. I'm no longer that guy, but I like to think I was in the past, and I've got a bunch of them working for me now, so I try really hard to appreciate it and to recognize that that is what is happening, I fight for the money to do it as right as possible.. but I do depend on .... you miracle workers.

/thanks /rh

On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:30 AM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:21 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

Well sure, and I would like to think (probably mistakenly) that just no one important enough (to the money people) made the money people that these other things are *REQUIRED* to make the deal work.

Obviously, people lower on the ladder say it all of the time, but the important enough money people probably don't consider those people important enough to listen to.

Not quite.

It's more of what Mark said:

" I blame this on the success of how well we have built the Internet with whatever box and tool we have, as network engineers."

I have worked time and time again with absolute miracle workers in the networking field. They say over and over again "to make this work, we need $X M to get the right hardware", even directly to the CFO.

They get handed a roll of duct tape, some baling wire, a used access point and a $25 gift card from Office Depot, and they turn it into a functional BGP-speaking backbone, because that's what they're good at.

The CFO and the rest of the executives that said "no" to the request for $X M to make the integration work properly pat themselves on the back, saying "see, we knew they didn't really NEED that money to make it work."

A year down the line, customers are posting to NANOG wondering why things are going to hell in a handbasket at ISP A, as the BGP-speaking access point with some duct tape, baling wire, and SFPs purchased from Office Depot that ties the two networks together starts failing.

As network engineers, we collectively set ourselves up for this by being so damn good at pulling miracles out of our backside to keep things running. We've effectively been training our executives that if they habitually turn down our requests for resources, we'll still find some way of making things work.

We pride ourselves on being able to keep a dozen spinning plates going like a circus performer, without letting any of them crash to the floor.

It's a hard thing to do, but one lesson I've taught junior network engineers of all ages is that sometimes, you have to step back, and watch a plate smash into the floor, *even if you could have rescued it*, if it seems like that's the only way your executive team will understand that if requests for necessary resources are denied, there will be operational impacts.

Now, it's not something you should do lightly, and not something to do without first working with the executives to understand why the resource request is being denied. If you are working at a startup, and the money is running out, and the company is one step ahead of the creditors, probably not the time to put the foot down and intentionally let things crash and burn.

But if the company is doing well, has the money, and the executives just want the numbers to look good for wall street analysts, then it's time to pause the miracle working, and help them understand that they cannot simply expect you to pull a miracle out of your backside every time, just so they can look good.

If we continue to pull off miracles after telling executives that additional resources are required, it's no wonder they don't take the requests as seriously as they should. ^_^;

Matt

...

------------------------------ *From: *"Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10:28:26 AM *Subject: *Re: Zayo woes

On 9/19/23 16:48, Mike Hammett wrote:

As someone that has been planning to be in the acquiring seat for a while (but yet to do one), I've consistently passed to the money people that there's the purchase price and then there's the % on top of that for equipment, contractors, etc. to integrate, improve, optimize future cashflow, etc. those acquisitions with the rest of what we have.

I blame this on the success of how well we have built the Internet with whatever box and tool we have, as network engineers.

The money people assume that all routers are the same, all vendors are the same, all software is the same, and all features are easily deployable. And that all that is possible if you can simply do a better job finding the cheapest box compared to your competition.

In general, I don't fancy nuance when designing for the majority. But with acquisition and integration, nuance is critical, and nuance quickly shows that the acquisition was either underestimated, or not worth doing at all.

Mark.

-- This is a staff email account managed by Adams 12 Five Star Schools.  This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.

On 9/19/23 16:41, Matthew Petach wrote:

c) your executives have promised there will be cost savings after the merger due to "synergies" between the two companies.

Couldn't have said the exact same words any better myself - "cost savings from synergies" :-). Always interesting when a year later, the projected savings from synergies are nowhere near reality, and all consolidation analysis work has completed :-). Mark.

It can be even less customer-facing and more entrenched than that… A uses ISIS and MPLS, B uses OSPF and native circuits. Putting (e)BGP sessions across the border between those two is pretty quick and easy. Integration would essentially require shifting one system onto the other methodology and is neither trivial, nor fun and either direction of shift is equally problematic. Owen

On Sep 19, 2023, at 12:35, Brian Knight via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

On 2023-09-19 09:41, Matthew Petach wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:19AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

[...] I've never understood companies that acquire and don't completely integrate as quickly as they can. Ah, spoken with the voice of someone who's never been in the position of: a) acquiring a company not-much-smaller-than-you that b) runs on completely different hardware and software and c) your executives have promised there will be cost savings after the merger due to "synergies" between the two companies. ^_^; Let's say you're an all J shop; your scripts, your tooling, everything expects to be talking to J devices. Your executives buy a company that has almost the same size network--but it's all C devices running classic IOS. You can go to your executives and tell them "hey, to integrate quickly with our network and tooling, we need to swap out all their C gear for J gear; it's gonna cost an extra $50M" The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and denying the request for money to convert the acquired network to J. You can go to your network and say "hey, we need to revamp our tooling and systems to understand how to speak to C and J devices equally, in spite of wildly different syntaxes for route-maps and the like-it's going to take 4 more developer headcount to rewrite all the systems." The executives respond by pointing at c) above, and deny the request for developer headcount to rewrite your software systems.

Never mind C vs J, the difference in supported features alone is enough to cause heartburn. Example: the acquired company supports and offers E-LAN service; the acquiree doesn't. From a systems perspective, the acquiree has no way to track those without dev effort.

And I guarantee IT's #1 focus is not generating route maps or interface config. They're focused on processes and reports for the money people. If the engineering org has no developers, you're either running parallel or you're in for some long nights.

...

The general result of acquisitions of similar-sized companies is that the infrastructure runs in parallel, slowly getting converted over and unified as gear needs to be replaced, or sites are phased out--because any other course of action costs more money than the executives had promised the shareholders, the board, or the VCs, depending on what stage your company is at. Swift integrations cost money, and most acquisitions promise cost savings instead of warning of increased costs due to integration. That's why most companies don't integrate quickly. :( Matt

-Brian

On Sep 19, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

Sometimes it does not add any material value to either network. Sometimes it takes too long.

And sometimes the acquisition is really just about acquiring the assets, such as the customer list*, and then they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it. *Yes, even in these industries. Do I sound cynical? Well, cynical != not accurate. :-( Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

Some of it is scale-related. Someone's operating just fine at the size they are, but the next order of magnitude larger enjoys many benefits from that size, but it takes either A) luck or B) the right skills to be able to move up to get those benefits. In terms of network operators, there's a big difference between a company of 1 and a company of 2. Again a big difference between a company of 2 and a company of 10. Another big difference between a company of 10 and a company of.. I dunno, 100? 1G waves and 100G waves aren't *THAT* different in price anymore. However, if 1 is doing you just fine, the much better cost per bit of 100 won't do you a darn bit of good and will probably hurt. The hurt is not only due to the higher MRC, but now the higher NRC for equipment with 100G interfaces. If you can put enough bits on the line to make it worth it, you've got yourself tremendous advantage. The acquisition pays for itself in marginally higher costs for much higher revenue. The company may have been doing just fine before, but couldn't afford the move up to 10 or 100 because their present market couldn't justify it and the larger market wasn't obtainable until they had it. Catch 22 that can't really be overcome by most. Enter M&A. Someone just can't get to the next level they need to compete with those that can. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10:51:39 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes On 9/19/23 17:40, Anne Mitchell wrote: And sometimes the acquisition is really just about acquiring the assets, such as the customer list*, and then they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it. Right, buying the revenue to prop up the top and bottom line is also a reason to acquire. Usually, this is based on assessed profitability, but what tends to go unseen during the due diligence process is what is actually contributing to that profitability. I mean, typically, if a company is doing very well, it won't try to get itself sold. Well, not easily anyway... Mark.

they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it

Buy enough Dark Fiber providers, you'll eventually acquire an ISP Buy enough ISPs, you'll eventually acquire a Colo Buy enough Colos, you'll eventually acquire a small Cloud Buy any small Clouds and you're guaranteed to acquire managed services for small companies. Now you've gone from being Layer 0 only catering whales, to dabbling in Layer 7 at Dr. Morris's Family dentistry. Spin off what you don't want, and repeat. -Matt On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 9:40 AM Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:

...

On Sep 19, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

Sometimes it does not add any material value to either network. Sometimes it takes too long.

And sometimes the acquisition is really just about acquiring the assets, such as the customer list*, and then they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it.

*Yes, even in these industries. Do I sound cynical? Well, cynical != not accurate. :-(

Anne

-- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

-- Matt Erculiani, NREMT ERCUL-ARIN

Ugh... Just as much NOT ISP as ISP. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> To: "Matt Erculiani" <merculiani@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:39:49 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes Well sure, but what started this tangent is that to me, anyway, it seemed like ENA had just as much ISP as it had ISP, if not more. It would be like buying a farm to get farm-fresh eggs in your kitchen. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Erculiani" <merculiani@gmail.com> To: "Anne Mitchell" <amitchell@isipp.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:06:57 AM Subject: Re: Zayo woes

they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it

Buy enough Dark Fiber providers, you'll eventually acquire an ISP Buy enough ISPs, you'll eventually acquire a Colo Buy enough Colos, you'll eventually acquire a small Cloud Buy any small Clouds and you're guaranteed to acquire managed services for small companies. Now you've gone from being Layer 0 only catering whales, to dabbling in Layer 7 at Dr. Morris's Family dentistry. Spin off what you don't want, and repeat. -Matt On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 9:40 AM Anne Mitchell < amitchell@isipp.com > wrote:

On Sep 19, 2023, at 9:23 AM, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

Sometimes it does not add any material value to either network. Sometimes it takes too long.

And sometimes the acquisition is really just about acquiring the assets, such as the customer list*, and then they are left with having to run something that they never really wanted until they can figure out what to do with it. *Yes, even in these industries. Do I sound cynical? Well, cynical != not accurate. :-( Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) -- Matt Erculiani, NREMT ERCUL-ARIN