nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark


From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:25:14 -0600

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 be
'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?  Terremark 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 organization.
An example of a non-neutral exchange is one that  only allows specific
tenants  to connect to other tenants;   other tenants besides the chosen ones
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


Current thread: