Don't take this the wrong way but vote with your feet if you don't like it.
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.l...@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 Ernesto M. Rubi Sr. Network Engineer AMPATH/CIARA Florida International Univ, Miami Reply-to: erne...@cs.fiu.edu Cell: 786-282-6783
