On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ernie Rubi <erne...@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
