|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities)
We have always had more of an issue with "Union Members" rather than "Verizon Employees" per se. If you don't use Union Labor to install in Boston or New York you had best have a secured cabinet or else 25 pair bundles seem to spontaneously develop slices. ----- Original Message ----- From: "N. Richard Solis" <[email protected]> To: "Sean Donelan" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:17 PM Subject: RE: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities) > > The RBOCs have a long history of using the "security" card to attempt to > squelch the requirement for physical collocation by the FCC and the PUCs. > In my experience, the colo providers had more to worry about from the > employees of the RBOC w.r.t. equipment sabotage than other colo customers. > I saw this in Florida during the 95-96 timeframe and I'm sure that it's been > repeated elsewhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Sean Donelan > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Eliminating physical colocation (was Re: Shared facilities) > > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Since Sept 11, my experience probably doesn't cut the mustard, but that's > > how it has been to this point. > > Consider the various public statements on colocation security. > > http://www.state.ma.us/dpu/catalog/6688.htm > > "Verizon MA believes that the most effective means of ensuring network > safety and reliability is to eliminate physical collocation entirely in > all its COs, converting existing physical collocation arrangements to > virtual and requiring that all future collocation arrangements be > virtual only." > > Of course, this is a very different colocation model than used by > companies such as Equinix. Just because they use the same terms doesn't > make them the same thing. > > >
|