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.
Scott.
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
My two cents,
Jeff
One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
i bet you also don't believe in santa claus
randy
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.
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
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::
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
Cell: 786-282-6783
[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.
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
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,
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
One does NOT have to be carrier neutral to provide good service.. I am sure those who have experienced great Terremark service will stick to them.
mehmet
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:
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.
You might try TelX, we've had good luck with them.