 |
 |
On Dec 5, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Steve Howard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 12/05/2014 03:01 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Reid Fishler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> We covered this in a couple of our last meetings. There is a full Onvoy/Zayo facility. There isn't much interest there as its full, and its mostly voice carriers there. There is a Viawest facility opening, but Shaw has that covered. There is a facility that houses most of the Canadian carriers, but they aren't interested in peering. >> So ViaWest and Zayo don't want to compete? I'll make a few calls and check on that. >> > > Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but what benefit would MICE gain > or what problem is this trying to solve ? I'd like to have at least one or two more places to tap into the IXP from so that I can use it as leverage when I negotiate space and power with all of you. Especially for PNIs which is on the horizon. When an IXP grows, it make sense to peel off traffic vs. leave it all on the exchange. A variety of reasons including cost. In fact, if a fee were to be implemented for ports you'd probably see some of that happen with more frequency than you do now. But when I do that, I want choices and I want to still be able to connect. Cake. Ice Cream. Save Money. Best, -M<