[136055] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ernie Rubi)
Mon Jan 31 23:03:35 2011
From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBztKJ-q1HtBbcP29Kvn01emCXqteu+DGFbqj1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:00:56 -0500
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like =
it.=20
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 =
shareholders and dividends to pay out) engage in competition and cannot =
be 'neutral' in at least one definition of the word.
What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling =
and will continue to sells services, which I am sure they would like you =
to 'prefer' over others.
So off topic on this list...
::sleeps::
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> One cannot be owned by a carrier and remain carrier neutral.
>> My two cents,
>=20
> 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 highly suspect claim that cannot be cleared up merely =
by
> internal policies. It's easy to tell the media that nothing is
> changing; textbook
> PR / perception management stuff, adding a little paint to hide the =
dings,
> so new buyers will not be alarmed.
>=20
> But what about years from now? Seems they retain the right to impose
> requirements, make changes in the future, or give their parent
> organization preferential treatment; with no real promise not to (at
> least not that we've seen so far). If they are serious about keeping
> colocation carrier neutral, they should spin off that business (or
> spin off the IP carrier / transit business),
> so that one entity has no governance control or appearance of control
> of the other.
>=20
>=20
> --
> -JH
Ernesto M. Rubi
Sr. Network Engineer
AMPATH/CIARA
Florida International Univ, Miami
Reply-to: ernesto@cs.fiu.edu
Cell: 786-282-6783
