|
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 seen disgruntled Union members hit the EPO in data centers in Union-friendly cities. Not pretty outcome, no matter how much redundancy you have. Fire code is not compatible with Union rules. DJ (Disclaimer, I have a completely unbalanced view of Union workers, all bad. I know there are good Union workers, but I have never met any professionally -- I have met plenty AFTER retirement though). > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Vincent J. Bono > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:50 PM > To: N. Richard Solis; Sean Donelan; [email protected] > Subject: 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. > > > > > > > > >
|