[136060] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Mon Jan 31 23:26:22 2011
In-Reply-To: <C0EE67C6-F059-459B-81C6-D10190BCED10@cs.fiu.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:25:14 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu>
Cc: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 b=
e
> '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? =A0Terremark 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 organizat=
ion.
An example of a non-neutral exchange is one that only allows specific
tenants to connect to other tenants; other tenants besides the chosen on=
es
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
