North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Network for Sale
- From: Daniel L. Golding
- Date: Tue Feb 20 01:38:18 2001
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@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:20 PM
> To: Majdi S. Abbas; Alex Bligh
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Majdi S. Abbas
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:09 PM
> > To: Alex Bligh
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > 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