Re: RE: [REPForum] REPforum get-together
"Jere Retzer" <[email protected]> Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:47:24 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.rep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_FDA2AD79.B8D833B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>> [email protected] 03/03/03 11:29AM wrote >>Where new exchanges have been successful in the proximity of an incumbent is usually that they offer compelling value over the incumbent. There are plenty of examples of this at=20 the national level (MAEs vs neutral locations, ATM vs GigE,=20 public vs private peering).=20 Or product differentiation. Seattle has three seemingly successful = exchanges in the Westin Building but they all appeal to a different value = model and the three are interconnected =AF a free peering exchange, a tier = 1 exchange and an international research & engineering exchange (my = characterization).=20 Don't think the answer is quite so simple outside the top ten markets. = That's our main challenge. I think that the top 100, certainly the top 25 = markets would benefit significantly from a "major" exchange or a network = of exchanges like they have in Seattle but the problem is putting together = the value model and story to get the majors to play. Jere --=_FDA2AD79.B8D833B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"= > <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4727.700" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 12pt Verdana; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px"> <DIV><BR><BR>>>> [email protected] 03/03/03 11:29AM wrote</DIV>= <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>>Where new exchanges have been successful in the proximity = of<BR>an=20 incumbent is usually that they offer compelling value<BR>over the = incumbent.=20 There are plenty of examples of this at <BR>the national level (MAEs vs = neutral=20 locations, ATM vs GigE, <BR>public vs private peering). </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Or product differentiation. Seattle has three seemingly successful=20 exchanges in the Westin Building but they all appeal to a different value = model=20 and the three are interconnected — a free peering exchange, a tier 1 = exchange=20 and an international research & engineering exchange (my characterizati= on).=20 </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't think the answer is quite so simple outside the top ten = markets.=20 That's our main challenge. I think that the top 100, certainly the top=20 25 markets would benefit significantly from a "major" exchange = or a=20 network of exchanges like they have in Seattle but the problem is = putting=20 together the value model and story to get the majors to play.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jere<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML> --=_FDA2AD79.B8D833B0--