Verizon acquiring Terremark
With Verizon acquiring Terremark does the group fell the NAPs will change from being carrier-neutral environments to pro Verizon? Has Verizon acquired carrier-neutral centers in the past? Cheers Ryan
From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-wil... Scott. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey < ryan.finnesey@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
With Verizon acquiring Terremark does the group fell the NAPs will change from being carrier-neutral environments to pro Verizon? Has Verizon acquired carrier-neutral centers in the past?
Cheers Ryan
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents, Jeff On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au> wrote:
From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-wil...
Scott.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey < ryan.finnesey@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
With Verizon acquiring Terremark does the group fell the NAPs will change from being carrier-neutral environments to pro Verizon? Has Verizon acquired carrier-neutral centers in the past?
Cheers Ryan
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents,
Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an indelible conflict of interest; a highly suspect claim that cannot be cleared up merely by internal policies. It's easy to tell the media that nothing is changing; textbook PR / perception management stuff, adding a little paint to hide the dings, so new buyers will not be alarmed. But what about years from now? Seems they retain the right to impose requirements, make changes in the future, or give their parent organization preferential treatment; with no real promise not to (at least not that we've seen so far). If they are serious about keeping colocation carrier neutral, they should spin off that business (or spin off the IP carrier / transit business), so that one entity has no governance control or appearance of control of the other. -- -JH
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents,
Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an indelible conflict of interest;
One of my colleagues was discussing this today. http://bit.ly/emZ7uA -> http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/... Equinix has been claiming to have carrier neutral exchanges since Oct 2009. Who is using them and are they, in your opinion, being completely carrier neutral? Maybe it is possible. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like it. Taken to its logical conclusion this is the "no one person or corporate entity is 'neutral'" rationale/argument - so what? For-profit business organizations (both VZ and TMRK are publicly traded for-profit with shareholders and dividends to pay out) engage in competition and cannot be 'neutral' in at least one definition of the word. What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and will continue to sells services, which I am sure they would like you to 'prefer' over others. So off topic on this list... ::sleeps:: On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral. My two cents,
Agreed. An organization being a fully owned subsidiary of one carrier, and claiming to be completely carrier neutral, is an indelible conflict of interest; a highly suspect claim that cannot be cleared up merely by internal policies. It's easy to tell the media that nothing is changing; textbook PR / perception management stuff, adding a little paint to hide the dings, so new buyers will not be alarmed.
But what about years from now? Seems they retain the right to impose requirements, make changes in the future, or give their parent organization preferential treatment; with no real promise not to (at least not that we've seen so far). If they are serious about keeping colocation carrier neutral, they should spin off that business (or spin off the IP carrier / transit business), so that one entity has no governance control or appearance of control of the other.
-- -JH
Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: ernesto@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu> wrote: [snip]
shareholders and dividends to pay out) engage in competition and cannot be 'neutral' in at least one definition of the word. There is nothing wrong with a non-neutral facility, being a non-neutral operator of a facility, or locating at a non-neutral facility.
The thing I wouldn't like is saying something is neutral, and creating circumstances that will make it impossible for it to stay true.
What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and
It is the same concept as network neutrality. An example of a non-neutral IP network is one where a competitor's website or service is blocked by the network operator. A facility is carrier neutral if it is operated by an independent organization. An example of a non-neutral exchange is one that only allows specific tenants to connect to other tenants; other tenants besides the chosen ones are forbidden from connecting to anyone besides a preferred tenant, or have to pay higher rates for each connection to another provider who is not a 'preferred' tenant. -- -JH
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and
It is the same concept as network neutrality. An example of a non-neutral IP network is one where a competitor's website or service is blocked by the network operator.
A facility is carrier neutral if it is operated by an independent organization. An example of a non-neutral exchange is one that only allows specific tenants to connect to other tenants; other tenants besides the chosen ones are forbidden from connecting to anyone besides a preferred tenant, or have to pay higher rates for each connection to another provider who is not a 'preferred' tenant.
I don't know - it's an oversimplification. Even the "independent organization" is still trying to pull in revenue. Given the opportunity to make money on interconnections, they do so. And the idea of "neutral" is pretty hard to define, when you mix together all of the participants' different business relationships and incentives, operating margins and price variations, etc. They'll say: "Sure you can connect to anybody you want. As long as you pay a monthly cross-connect fee. And as long as the other party is paying for a presence in my facility, too." But do you know who pays how much? In the end, are you sure that a carrier "neutral" facility offers a better price than a non-neutral facility, for any given connectivity? I'd suggest that "carrier neutrality" is subjective and isn't really the metric you need in a colo / datacenter facility. Cheers, -Benson
Paul, I'm sure everything will be fine in practice as others have indicated, I was merely making a point of the inherent conflict of interest. Best regards, Jeff On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> writes:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
My two cents,
my experience running PAIX when it was owned by MFN was not like you're saying. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:22:39 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
I'm sure everything will be fine in practice as others have indicated, I was merely making a point of the inherent conflict of interest.
ah. if you mean "it's unusual" or "it's difficult" rather than "it cannot be" then i have no arguments. the reason PAIX got traction at all, coming late to the game (1995-ish) as we did, was because MFS was then able to charge circuit prices for many forms of cross connect down at MAE West. and i did face continuous pressure from MFN to go after a share of PAIX's carrier's circuit revenue. (which i never did and which none of my successors have done either.) noting, the game as moved on. if verizon behaves badly as terremark's owner then the presence of equinix in the market will act as a relief valve. i think the "neutral and commercial" model is very well established and that verizon will not want to be the only carrier in those facilities nor have their circuit-holders be the only customers for the real estate. it's an awful lot of space to use just as colo, and it's both over- and underbuilt for colo (vs. an IX). re:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> wrote:
Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> writes:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
My two cents,
my experience running PAIX when it was owned by MFN was not like you're saying.
I wonder if the price point will change. Having been in PAIX/S&D/Equinix facilities for several years things have certainly changed with regard to contract negotiations and pricing. Equinix is not very flexible. The shuffle of techs has also resulted in a much less helpful group to work with. On 02/02/2011 09:20 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:22:39 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon<jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
I'm sure everything will be fine in practice as others have indicated, I was merely making a point of the inherent conflict of interest. ah. if you mean "it's unusual" or "it's difficult" rather than "it cannot be" then i have no arguments. the reason PAIX got traction at all, coming late to the game (1995-ish) as we did, was because MFS was then able to charge circuit prices for many forms of cross connect down at MAE West. and i did face continuous pressure from MFN to go after a share of PAIX's carrier's circuit revenue. (which i never did and which none of my successors have done either.)
noting, the game as moved on. if verizon behaves badly as terremark's owner then the presence of equinix in the market will act as a relief valve. i think the "neutral and commercial" model is very well established and that verizon will not want to be the only carrier in those facilities nor have their circuit-holders be the only customers for the real estate. it's an awful lot of space to use just as colo, and it's both over- and underbuilt for colo (vs. an IX).
re:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Vixie<vixie@isc.org> wrote:
Jeffrey Lyon<jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> writes:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
My two cents, my experience running PAIX when it was owned by MFN was not like you're saying.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Jason LeBlanc <jml@packetpimp.org> wrote:
I wonder if the price point will change. Having been in PAIX/S&D/Equinix facilities for several years things have certainly changed with regard to contract negotiations and pricing. Equinix is not very flexible. The shuffle of techs has also resulted in a much less helpful group to work with.
On 02/02/2011 09:20 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:22:39 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon<jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>
I'm sure everything will be fine in practice as others have indicated, I was merely making a point of the inherent conflict of interest.
ah. if you mean "it's unusual" or "it's difficult" rather than "it cannot be" then i have no arguments. the reason PAIX got traction at all, coming late to the game (1995-ish) as we did, was because MFS was then able to charge circuit prices for many forms of cross connect down at MAE West. and i did face continuous pressure from MFN to go after a share of PAIX's carrier's circuit revenue. (which i never did and which none of my successors have done either.)
noting, the game as moved on. if verizon behaves badly as terremark's owner then the presence of equinix in the market will act as a relief valve. i think the "neutral and commercial" model is very well established and that verizon will not want to be the only carrier in those facilities nor have their circuit-holders be the only customers for the real estate. it's an awful lot of space to use just as colo, and it's both over- and underbuilt for colo (vs. an IX).
re:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Vixie<vixie@isc.org> wrote:
Jeffrey Lyon<jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> writes:
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
My two cents,
my experience running PAIX when it was owned by MFN was not like you're saying.
You might try TelX, we've had good luck with them. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
participants (11)
-
Benson Schliesser -
Ernie Rubi -
Jason LeBlanc -
Jeffrey Lyon -
Jimmy Hess -
Mehmet Akcin -
Paul Vixie -
Peter Beckman -
Randy Bush -
Ryan Finnesey -
Scott Howard