![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:06:36 -0600
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,
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. 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. -- -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)