On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Jason LeBlanc 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 h
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
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:22:39 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Lyon
>
> 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
On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>> One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
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
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 wrote:
> Jeffrey Lyon writes:
>
>> One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier n
Jeffrey Lyon 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
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 o
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ernie Rubi 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
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 sharehol
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
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
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
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 highl
> One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
i bet you also don't believe in santa claus
randy
rier-neutral/
>
> Scott.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey <
> ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
>
>> With Verizon acquiring Terremark does the group fell the NAPs will
>> change from being carrier-neutral environments to pro Verizon?
>From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-will-remain-carrier-neutral/
Scott.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey <
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com> wrote:
> With Verizon acquiri
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
