Verizon acquiring Terremark
jml at packetpimp.org
Wed Feb 2 08:54:17 CST 2011
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.
On 02/02/2011 09:20 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> 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