On Jan 2, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Bil MacLeslie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 12/31/14 10:49 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> 
>> How much are your cross connect fees?
> 
> Marty,
> 
> Without sounding like a "us too" message, I'm also publicly offering 
> that ipHouse become a leaf node. Many of you heard from me off list 
> about this last fall.
> 
> Connecting a leaf node to the core of MICE is something that needs to be 
> considered before making any decision as how to expand the exchange.  An 
> important differentiator for ipHouse, we have the capacity to get to the 
> 511 via our existing connection.
> 
> We are proposing that we connect the ipHouse facility to MICE with 10G 
> optics (expandable as growth occurs) on our existing dark fiber 
> connection. We can provide MICE any necessary space and power within the 
> ipHouse facility.
> 
> To answer your question directly about cross connects, there are fees to 
> connect into the ipHouse data center from elsewhere in our building, but 
> for those who are colocated within our data center, a GigE cross connect 
> to MICE is included with colo.
> 
> Our facility is very well connected, below is a list of carriers with 
> networks in our building. There are several individual networks under 
> common ownership here (e.g. Zayo or Windstream), but the individual 
> network footprints have reach, which could be attractive to potential 
> members of MICE.
> 
> CenturyLink / Qwest (QC/QCC)
> Cologix / MN Gateway / FWR
> Enventis (Hickorytech / CP Telecom)
> Integra (Electric Lightwave / Frontier)
> Level3 (Global Crossing / Time Warner Telecom)
> TDS Metrocom  (US Link)
> Verizon / MCI / WorldCom / Metropolitan Fiber Systems
> Windstream (KDL / McLeod / Norlight/ PAETEC)
> Zayo (360 Networks / American Fiber Systems / Touch America)
> 
> It sounds like this is a topic that should be on the agenda.
> 

Hey Bill. 

Agreed. I have a few points with respect to this, but I'll keep it brief. Without port fees or donations, MICE has no capital for hardware. In the scenario above, I'd argue it would be better to deal with a building owner directly (where the owner isn't also in retail colo) to insure neutrality and to keep interconnection costs to a minimum. Not having to traverse a suite would keep the extended interconnect fees at or near null. Finally, this would also address the density issue we are facing here. The bigger the exchange grows in its single location, the more dense the colo becomes network wise and the less likely we're going to be able to see a robust and distributed internet. You don't need to look far to see that in the big metros everyone builds wave systems back to a SPOF. This market is still not that mature and doing something now vs. later would likely benefit it. For some data center operators, this is may be hard pill to swallow which is why exclusivity arrangements should be verboten. For most, it means having access to the differentiator and creating competition based on the real estate and energy costs. Thats good for network operators and good for the market IMHO.


Best,

-M<