|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Network for Sale
Nick, Savvis was first by a very long time. As I understand it, they cooled to the idea after a while. InterNAP came later, and executed (at least marketing and sales-wise), much better. Regardless of the hype, there's a big difference between a PNAP/POP from one of these guys, and what is conventionally thought of as a NAP. - Daniel Golding On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Kampeas, Nick (EPIK.ORL) wrote: > > Now that you brought up that point, let me interject with two question. > What is the difference between Internap and Savvis (short of the names and > financial status)? Who came up with the minnaps first? > > Nick Kampeas > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:20 PM > To: Majdi S. Abbas; Alex Bligh > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Network for Sale > > > > InterNAP has done the tier-0 marketing dance for some time. Quite > successfully, as a matter of fact. Secret Sauce sells like hotcakes. Wall > Street likes it as well. Not much of a performance increase, though. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > Majdi S. Abbas > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:09 PM > > To: Alex Bligh > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Network for Sale > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:51:30PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > If you refuse to peer with anyone at all, you can be tier-0. This > > > can be achieved with considerable savings to phone line utilization. > > > > Actually, we already have a tier-0. See: > > > > http://www.opnix.net/perl/PressRelease.cgi?article=100032 > > > > (And many other things on their website.) > > > > Particularly amusing is: > > > > http://www.opnix.net/whatwedo/performance.shtml > > > > --msa > > >
|