Verizon acquiring Terremark
vixie at isc.org
Wed Feb 2 08:20:08 CST 2011
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 03:22:39 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at 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).
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org> wrote:
> > Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at 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.
More information about the NANOG