nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:25:14 -0600
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
Current thread:
- Verizon acquiring Terremark Ryan Finnesey (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Scott Howard (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Jeffrey Lyon (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Jimmy Hess (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Peter Beckman (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Ernie Rubi (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Jimmy Hess (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Benson Schliesser (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Jeffrey Lyon (Jan 31)
- Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark Scott Howard (Jan 31)