Talk:Verio/Archives/2011

This is an archive of past discussions about Verio. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old posts

This page used to have one word "Verio!" and was marked for speedy deletion. I have added content and hope that it will not be deleted. Thank You! Stbalbach 23:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They ate my favorite ISP. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.58.56 (talk • contribs) 12:17, October 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stbalbach stated in an edit summary "deleting disgruntled ex-employee rant". unless you have some evidence that this is an ex-employee, disgruntled or otherwise, it is inappropriate to editorialize about their contribution. you are not assuming good faith. 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your right I dont know that, I am just but one myself and know it when I see it, have heard the same thing from others. Thank you for keeping an eye on things. --Stbalbach 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

believe me, if ever there were a bitter ex-employee, it's me - i was the sysadmin at west coast online, and what they did to 'my' company left an indelible impression on me about how *not* to run a company (e.g. lay off 4/5ths of employees the day before Thanksgiving). but i digress. mainly felt it should be reserved for the discussion page, rather than edit summary - but then, either is preferable to putting it in the article! Anastrophe 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Verio lied to NTT

In regards to this recently added text, moved to here:

In order for Verio management to sell the company to NTT, they had to lie to NTT that half a dozen premier datacenters were already built, online, and full of customers. Shortly after the sale Verio scrambled to build these multi-million dollar facilities, which ran over budget and due to the dotcom bust were unable to attract any new customers. Four rounds of Lay-offs followed a year later reducing the company to 1/10th of its original size.

This sounds like rumor at best, slander at worst. Needs to be verified. Hard to imagine that multi-million dollar data centers were overlooked during NTT's due-diligence process. --Stbalbach 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

I think www.verio.net and www.ntteuropeonline.com should be kept as official sites. The rest I've removed per WP:EL and WP:SPAM because they don't link to articles about Verio, or otherwise add value for the reader of the article.

Meanwhile, there's not a single reference or external link to articles about the company. --Ronz 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these are important external links, they are related to the company and would be the types of links a reader would be looking for when coming to this article. -- Stbalbach 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Look like promotional stuff to me. Just because a link is somehow related to a company doesn't mean it belongs. How are they important and not just spam? --Ronz 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is a commercial link doesn't mean its "spam" or promotional. It's related to the company which is the subject of the article. -- Stbalbach 12:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We certainly aren't going to list each and every link somehow related to the company. I'll seek third party opinions since you aren't offering anything other than personal opinions to support their inclusion. --Ronz 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not "somehow related to the company" they are official company websites that are important for readers looking for information about Verio. -- Stbalbach 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't waste editors time by just repeating your previous points while ignoring subsequent discussion. Thank you. --Ronz 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the external links "nag tag" ironic considering the only links there that are inappropriate are the ones about verio shutting down web controversial web sites. There is no mention of this in the article, and its notability is highly in question, ISPs shut down web sites all the time -- verio, and other ISPs, are in the news about this type of activity all the time, they have a full time staff of lawyers who deal with it. Meanwhile, the official verio web sites are called into question as "spam". If you insist on the "nag tag", I'll have no option than creating an RfC and bringing in outside opinion. -- Stbalbach 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like WP:DR offers lots of choices. --Ronz 19:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it only involves two parties Ive asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on the use of two nag tags. -- Stbalbach 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

The tag was in line with external links guidelines: there were more such links to Verio-owned and parent company sites than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. As per Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, I cleaned up the section and removed the tag. — Athaenara 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained to Ronz, Verio has a staff of full time lawyers who deal with nothing but legal cases - they are one of the worlds largest web hosting companies and deal with the FBI, Homeland Security etc on a regular basis. Sites being "shut down by verio" happens all the time, it's hardly notable, it's normal business that has nothing to do with Verio other than they happened to be the web host -- it would be like saying someone getting blocked on Wikipedia for policy violation is notable. But you removed the official verio website of the parent company who actually owns Verio. I'm at a loss. I guess there is no other option but to find other conflict resolution channels and bring in more parties to comment. -- Stbalbach 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely surprised at your repeated defensive responses to what I consider minor edits and minor issues. Why not instead cite the specific policy or guideline, and specific section or even sentence? Otherwise, this just looks like you being unhappy with others' edits, and perhaps some WP:OWN issues. (Sorry that I'm bringing these issues up here rather than on your talk page, but you've made it clear that I'm not allowed to discuss such issues there.) --Ronz 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have the link to the official home page per WP:EL. We've internal links to NTT and NTT Europe Online. Why are additional external links necessary? --Ronz 15:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The link you removed was for NTT America, which is a Verio parent company, which is not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia. Not that it can't be fixed with some solution, what do you suggest? I'm surprised I have to fight this hard to keep an official Verio external link from being deleted from Wikipedia.

Regarding the two "controversy" external links, I explained it all above, what do suggest we do about this? The external links are non-notable cruft of which I could find many more similar examples to fill up this article with if that's the kind of stuff you think belongs in an encyclopedia article. Verio is just like a telco, they shut down customers for policy violations all the time. The customers get angry and issue press releases which get run by cheap news agencies who run whatever comes across their fax machine. Unless there is some notable reason for keeping these external links they should be removed, they are run of the mill stories with dozens of examples. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Some of the ISPs purchased by Verio"

I think this list of purchased ISPs should be removed unless verified and deemed important through one or more impartial secondary sources. --Ronz 15:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you knew nothing about the company or had not read the article. But Verio was composed %100 of companies that it purchased - internally, and often externally, these companies still existed after Verio bought them, if not in name - Verio was kind of like a brand name around lots of little companies. -- Stbalbach 11:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So your opinion on this issue is what, and why does it belong in an encyclopedia? --Ronz 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is an important part of the companies past and present. -- Stbalbach 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And what do we have to support that? --Ronz 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, I worked at the company for 8 years and know the company and its history (in fact wrote of this article). It's an integral and important part of the companies history and make up. ~~What's your background and knowledge about Verio?~~ -- Stbalbach 17:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So you have some COI and bias. Perhaps you should refrain from editing the article. --Ronz 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. I no longer work for the company nor do I have any "bias" for or against the company. I happen to have expert knowledge about the company I'm not sure why you are so aggressively attacking me. -- Stbalbach 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss this on your talk page, I guess we do it here. I'm not attacking you in any way. Please let me know what you find "aggressive" or "attacking" and I'll refactor.

You've admitted having a conflict of interest - a very minor one that in no way should be a problem. However, you appear to be making it a problem by asking me to trust your opinion because of your expertise on the matter. Your questioning me about my expertise is inappropriate and I'm asking you to strike it out. --Ronz 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem Ronz. I've striken out the question ~~What's your background and knowledge about Verio?~~ per your request. -- Stbalbach 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the question was made in good faith, I'm sorry you took it otherwise. BTW I do wonder why your accusing me of being "biased" - I happened to know about this company from prior work experience (6 years ago) and in good faith decided to share that knowledge on Wikipedia, I started and wrote 90% of the article - maybe that was a mistake and we should delete this article. There is nothing controversial, the article is NPOV and fairly benign, there is nothing to be biased about in the article. -- Stbalbach 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"All editors and all sources have biases." (Wp:npov#Bias) I'm not using it as an insult or accusation. You are relying upon your own expertise and biases to determine content and weight of that content, rather than sources. --Ronz 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but, what specifically is my bias? Verio lover? Hater? Maybe I can't see it myself - maybe you can help me by showing me what my bias is? -- Stbalbach 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ownership of articles policy applies here - Stbalbach should read it. — Athaenara 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara should read the proposal below and take some constructive steps to improving the article by focusing on the content, and not the contributor. -- Stbalbach 02:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I tagged the article with {{primarysources}} because it lacks references other than links to company websites. If specific acquisitions listed in Verio#Some of the ISPs purchased by Verio were notable enough for news media coverage, there should be articles or columns which could be cited. — Athaenara 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a source for the company list. There are also SEC filings but they are less consistent than the Morgan Stanley source. -- 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)

Athaenara beat me to the third opinion, but I'll add that I agree that for a rollup, the companies purchased can be an important and very relevant part of the history. Indeed, much of the behavior of the company is hard to explain without reference to integration problems and culture clashes between acquired companies. As with everything, we require sources for the content, and if there are too many to fit nicely in the article, it may be better handled as a category or as a list. But it definitely can be pertinent. William Pietri 07:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri and I agree the section is important. I would ask Ronz that if he still thinks it non-notable that he get wider consensus before re-adding the nag-tag. -- Stbalbach 11:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, your persistent "nag-tag" disparagement of Wikipedia maintenance notices, which are intended to encourage the improvement of articles and actually do very often have that effect, is a borderline violation of the Civility policy. Ronz is a conscientious editor. How about having more respect for fellow editors and assume good faith? — Athaenara 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone - you, Ronz - needs to explain why the tag is there. In good faith, I have tried to do everything possible to make that section notable. I have explained the importance of the rollup -- I searched and found a source -- how exactly can it be improved? Seriously, I want to improve the article. What is missing? I really am at a loss what the problem is that it requires a tag. Maybe that is my fault, maybe I am too close to the subject and things seem obvious to me and not others. William seems to get it and understand, I know I'm not crazy. I guess if someone doesn't have a business background about rollup's, but I've tried to explain it - what is missing, where is the confusion? I'm not willing to just leave a tag there un-addressed. If we can't handle this here than I see no option than to seek wider conflict resolution so I hope you can provide actionable items required to remove the tag before needing to go that next step. -- Stbalbach 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

With the source, I think the section is shown to be important. My concern now is just that listing all these companies could give undue weight to the topic of Verio's acquisitions. Certainly though we should list those companies that have articles of their own. I read through the source quickly and didnt see the list of purchased companies. Did I just overlook it, or does the source only mention the number of companies? --Ronz 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on (or around) page 30 if I remember correctly. Ronz, no offense, this is a serious question, do you understand what a rollup is and how rollup companies are formed, structured and operate? Perhaps this article does not do a good enough job of explaining it is the problem. Myself and two other people familiar with Verio and/or rollups agree the section is notable and important. It's not like Google buying a small company, this is different - Verio is a shell, a husk, a wrapper. What's actually on the inside is notable and important. -- Stbalbach 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but did you read what I wrote? I said that I think the section should be kept now we have the Morgan Stanley. My question now is are we giving undue weight by listing all the companies?

The list of companies from the source (page 30 of the document, labeled as page 170) is not the same as what is listed here. Are there additional sources to verify the differences? (It's a 1999 report, so I'm assuming the others are more recent acquisitions.)

Given that the one source we currently have has 14 pages about Verio, and gives this list of companies as a simple table, aren't we giving it far too much weight duplicating the entire list here? --Ronz 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to list just some of the companies, it is a finite list and is most helpful as a historical reference to list all the companies. As far as I know a complete list does not exist anywhere online so this is a unique resource. Verio, now one of the worlds largest ISPs, is central in the history of the early ISP industry, the companies it purchased were all key players in the pioneering days of the ISP industry post-1992 when the Government first opened it up to commercial application, ending with the bubble burst of 2001. These companies could all easily have articles about them I'm surprised many have not yet but they could and hopefully will in the future. -- Stbalbach 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, p. 170, Table 2, "Verio acquisitions by region," I formatted that information in a rudimentary wikitable to give the general idea:

Operating region	Top 50 MSAS Served	Acquisitions
Verio Northwest	Seattle, WA Portland, OR	NorthWestNet Inc. Access One Inc.
Verio Northern California	San Francisco Sacramento San Jose Oakland	Aimnet Corporation CCnet, Inc. West Coast Online, Inc. NSNet
Verio Southern California	Los Angeles San Diego Riverside/San Bernardino Orange County	row 3, cell 3
Verio Texas	row 4, cell 2	row 4, cell 3
Verio East	row 5, cell 2	row 5, cell 3
Verio Midwest	row 6, cell 2	row 6, cell 3
Verio Rocky Mountain	row 7, cell 2	row 7, cell 3
Verio Web Hosting	row 8, cell 2	row 8, cell 3

This is not an argument in favour of inclusion without references which are more useful than a single massive pdf file which has only some of the pertinent information on just one of its many pages. — Athaenara 08:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent news

A couple articles I found that might be worth adding as external links or for sources:

--Ronz 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I figure they can't hurt to be added as external links at least in an article without references or any links other than to company websites. --Ronz 15:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

neutral third party

"I am not real happy to find that when I asked for a neutral third party help in a dispute between two people, the third party has a previous good working relationship with one of the disputed parties, and who has not only taken up his side, but aggressively edited the article in favor of his side. Third party opinion are supposed to be neutral opinions, not a call to arms taking sides in an edit dispute. I take it you were not asked by anyone to provide an opinion, because you have been asked by that person in the past for help. -- Stbalbach 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

The post above was put on my user talk page, so I forwarded it here. — Athaenara 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The excitement on this Talk page seems to have drawn the attention of several people who often help out at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. (I hope you won't think of us as a cabal). Although Verio is not listed at WP:COI/N, this Talk page seems to be discussing some of the issues that often arise on that noticeboard. I too am not convinced of the notability of the complete list of Verio acquisitions. As in any list, if most of the entries have their own Wikipedia articles, that's an argument in favor of the list. That does not seem to be the case here. If you think articles might be written later, I suppose that might be considered. But since these ISPs have been gobbled up, such articles don't seem very likely. If the list has to be kept, I suggest it be done in two columns using small print. And I support a previous comment that the list needs to be accurately sourced. EdJohnston 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See my most recent comment above to Ronz about the notability of the list and companies on it. FYI my experience with Third Party was unpleasant, I was looking for a neutral opinion (like yours), but got instead a "bold editor" taking sides with someone he has worked with before - this will be my first and last time using Third Party, not because the opinion was not what I wanted, but because there is an appearance of collusion which makes me distrust the process as way to resolve disputes. -- Stbalbach 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

There are a number of people commenting here and I want to recommend a proposal that incorporate various positions:

1. The list of companies is notable and should be kept, so long as there is a verifiable source that shows Verio purchased those companies. Any companies not listed in the Morgan Stanly source should have another source provided, or not listed at all. 2. The list should be double columned to remove blank space. 3. Once this is done the "importance tag" can be removed.

Is this a plan everyone can live with, or should we continue debating above, or bring in additional outside commentary? I for one have better things to spend my time on, the rest of you (hopefully) do as well, and would like to wrap this up, but can keep discussing as long as is needed if this is not satisfactory. -- Stbalbach 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is moving in the right direction. However, your argument that 'rollup' companies are distinctive could be stronger in several areas: (a) the Rollup article is vestigial, and practically unsourced, so we are not sure this article would survive an AfD in its own right. It may be that 'rollup' is a non-notable neologism. (b) Most of the Verio acquisitions don't seem to have their own web sites any more, so they don't retain any distinctiveness. This seems to work against your claim that Verio is a shell, a husk, a wrapper. What's actually on the inside is notable and important. I haven't seen any third-party source for this claim. All we have is the raw history whereby Verio acquired these companies, nothing more. Even the following claim has no inline citation, and I'm not aware of another source: that Verio's regional rollup into a national brand was ..the first of its kind on a national scale in the newly evolving ISP industry. (c) The word 'rollup' doesn't occur in the Morgan Stanley report that seems to be the primary reference, (d) the word 'rollup' doesn't occur in Verio's own web site. EdJohnston 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Google on "roll up merger", "industry roll up", "roll up strategy" and add "verio" as needed, that will address your concerns about the term roll up, it is on the Verio website and it is how Verio has described its beginnings. Most of the quotes in b) are from this talk page I was trying to get a point across, they don't need to be sourced unless you think I'm not being honest, in which case we have a good faith problem. That fact that it was "the first of its kind on a national scale" is a well known common knowledge fact for anyone who lived through the 90s in the ISP industry, this is not controversial, is there some reason you would question this, do you think there was another ISP roll up on a national scale before Verio, if so what evidence is there and I would be happy to address it, there needs to be some rationale for wanting things sourced, it doesn't help to reader to have random links to things unless there is a good reason to go there and draw their attention to it. That is part of the problem with the Morgan Stanley source, it doesnt help the reader and is there for dispute resolution reasons which is dumb - BTW this is a serious problem with Wikipedia which has been fixed at Citizendium, you should read their rules on citations and sources (as well as the ban on "nag tags"), much better system over there. -- Stbalbach 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather then suggesting other editors google and go searching for verifiable sources, it would help your position if you just provided the links since you have suggested that you know they exist. Point us to the verio website that makes mention of this and also point us to secondary sources that discuss it as well. Russeasby 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Un-sourced statements

I've removed the un-sourced statements per the tag at the top of the article. Anyone who wants to add them back will need to provide sources, per WP:V. -- Stbalbach 22:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, sorry, these statements are un-sourced. Fact tags are not an excuse for leaving un-sourced statements in an article. -- Stbalbach 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V

The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source.
If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

You need to provide a source for this material along with a reliable 3rd party source, otherwise it could also be AfD'd. -- Stbalbach 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're free to waste editors' time by requesting an AfD. --Ronz 01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I thought you were the one advocating keeping the article, now your deleting much of it and suggesting AFD? Am I missing something here? Russeasby 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the article is un-sourced. I would like to see the un-sourced material removed. I'm not suggesting an AfD, just would like to see some sources. Do I have the right to remove un-sourced material? -- Stbalbach 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility requirements

A proposed internal notice for editors:

-- Fyslee/talk 06:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, Fyslee, MastCell, Ronz -- Quack watch this: Information about being the "largest", dollar amounts, "first", etc.. was all based on street talk hearsay. There is good reason to be suspect of this - Verio itself would inflate its importance and information to help boost its PR and image during an IPO and its merger with NTT, street talk is highly unreliable, often propaganda to boost stock prices. It is amazing you would fight to keep this material. The problem is your so intractable against me personally your sacrificing values as good Wikipedia citizens to remove questionable un-sourced material. -- Stbalbach 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, stop disrupting Wikipedia with your point-making. --Ronz 15:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested material

Removed the following material with stated reasons per the suggested compromise made at WP:ANI between myself, Alsandair and Phony Saint. -- Stbalbach 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Verio performed the first national consolidation in the ISP industry, and its sale was the largest cash buy-out of a high-tech company by a foreign entity in United States history

This was street talk hearsay at the time, for encyclopedia purposes it needs to be verified - I assumed it was true, but have no idea if it is or not. It very well could have been Verio propaganda.

"mom and pop" ISPs

This is slang and inappropriate for WP, and not accurate, I knew of no actual mom and pop ISPs.

raising $250 million dollars.

This needs to be verified, I don't remember where I got this number or how accurate it is.

required congressional approval

This is inaccurate it did not need congressional approval to consolidate the ISP industry, it needed it for the sale to NTT, which is discussed further below and doesn't need lead paragraph headlining.

with a single internet infrastructure, a single branded product line, a unified support structure, and so forth

This is controversial as they never did achieve this and its unclear if that was the actual plan or not, certainly there is no evidence for it happening.

first of its kind on a national scale

This was the talk at the time, but I don't know if it's true or not, there may have been others that came first, there was one called Capstone in NY and one in Tenn. It needs to be verified and could likely be Verio propaganda.

funded by the principal founders, private investors, NTT, and institutional investors

This was my assumption, but I do not know exactly who funded it. Some of these probably did, some may have not, some may have who are not listed. If this is accurate or not I do not know.

ranging in price from under a million dollars (USD) to over 100 million dollars per ISP

These were private deals, I have no idea what they paid for them, I pulled these numbers out of my head based on old memories - they could be less, could be larger, I was not privy to these deals.

This was and still remains the largest cash transaction for a high-tech company in United States history.

This was said to be the largest at the time, but again, it was Verio propaganda, I have no source for this - in addition its likely there have since been bigger deals.

For what its worth, here is the ANI postings [1] which should have been mentioned here to allow others to take part in the discussion. The consensus you reached with 2 people on the noticeboard is not binding in any way, that was not proper arbitration, you just got two opinions from other editors. It just shows underhanded behavior on your part in order to get your way, WP does not work like that. Russeasby 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach's last change may actually have been an improvement. (The point-by-point breakdown above is worth doing). I'd welcome more talk to reach a consensus here, before the next unnecessarily-bold change. I'm liking Stbalbach's direction, but not liking him jumping in to make the edit before finishing the discussion. I agree with Russ that a conversation at AN/I is not the same as a Talk page consensus. At some point somebody is going to have to look up sources, though Stbalbach it seems is not volunteering. I have not looked up any myself. EdJohnston 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Stbalbach is coming clean on his improper editing. --Ronz 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hoovers free report on Verio --Ronz 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A brief history (a biased, primary source, but still helpful) --Ronz 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
NTT Taking A Bath On Verio Forbes, 4 Apr, 2002. --Ronz 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Order Granting Injunction Register.com, Inc. v. Verio Inc., 8 Dec 2000. (Might be useful ref in future) --Ronz 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
White House Won't Block N.T.T.-Verio Deal NY Times, 24 Aug 2000. --Ronz 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

History

Trying to put together a list of important milestones and verifying them:

Incorporated in 1996. (verified)
IPO in 1998 to fund acquisitions. (verified. IPO in May 1998)
Became a wholly owned subsidiary of NTT Communications Corporation in 2000. (verified)

--Ronz 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to 14 May version?

Thanks to those who have been collecting sources on the Talk page. To proceed with updating the text, I'd like to begin with the toned-down version created by User:Stbalbach on 14 May. Does anyone object? EdJohnston 03:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine, except the More sources tag should be kept. --Ronz 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on whether the list of rolled-up companies should be included

In this edit, User:Anastrophe re-added to the article the full list of the ISPs rolled up by Verio during their acquisition period. Anastrophe optimistically added Wikilinks to all the companies that don't have articles, which is about 95% of them. So the list is almost entirely red links. This issue was heavily debated here on this talk page back in May. Here are my reasons for believing that the digested ISPs are not notable:

Verio's own web site doesn't include the list
The digested companies don't have their own URLs any more, and probably none of their corporate structure
Secondary coverage of the digested companies is no longer produced

In a previous discussion, someone pointed out that the list of companies may lack a source. It was pointed out that there is a Morgan Stanley report, and if we include only the companies included there, we might justify it.

If anyone has a reason why the list of companies should be included, please join this discussion. If not, the list may be removed due to the previous Talk page consensus. We would need to see new information to explain why the companies are significant. I am hoping that Anastrophe will join the debate to explain his thinking. EdJohnston 23:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is, among other things, a repository of historical information - "to collect all the knowledge that now lies scattered over the face of the earth, to make known its general structure to the men among we live, and to transmit it to those who will come after us". One of the reasons the list of ISPs is notable is precisely because there is so little evidence of their past existence, a mere ten years after Verio was formed. I hope that others may come to the page and fill in some of the history of these pioneering businesses by visiting their now empty links. Creating such wikilinks isn't terribly unusual - see, for example, WITN-TV and other stations with similar lists. However, as an aesthetic matter, I have no objection to unwikifying them.

To the specific issues mentioned however:

*Verio's own web site doesn't include the list. True. There's no financial benefit to them in listing them. It detracts from the perception that Verio is a single, monolithic entity, which is the generally desireable perception for a 'rollup' company to present. That Verio desires to hide/obscure their origins isn't necessarily something that the encyclopedic entry should simply accede to based upon their precedent.

*The digested companies don't have their own URLs any more, and probably none of their corporate structure. True. However, that doesn't then mean that the companies did not exist. There are references to virtually every one of these ISPs out on the net. Their websites don't exist precisely because they were absorbed by Verio. On the other hand, other ISPs that weren't absorbed by Verio often still have their own websites out there, and some have their own wikipedia articles. from a historical perspective, it would be a shame if the information were lost simply because they were bought by another entity, while other ISPs that weren't bought will remain in the historical record.

*Secondary coverage of the digested companies is no longer produced. Unfortunately I'm unclear what your meaning here is. Can you clarify?

Bear in mind that notability for one man is another man's irrelevance. We aren't here to decide for others what is or isn't relevant. In the creation of an encyclopedia, absent a compelling argument *against* inclusion of what may or may not seem notable, my understanding is that 'we' are to err on the side of inclusion, rather than reversion and omission. The information regarding these past ISPs does exist, and I'd be happy (albeit time-challenged) to provide citations for the existence of each one.Anastrophe 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Following up on myself here. "We aren't here to decide for others what is or isn't relevant". Um, well, you see, that's not what i meant. Well, i thought i meant it. But it's a stupid statement. So really i didn't mean it. ;^) Of course as editors we are entrusted with deciding what is or isn't relevant. One of the problems - particularly with a subject that is not of *great* interest to many people - it's hard to make that determination from a broader perspective. Personally, i have a bit of fascination with the history of the telephone. I was amazed when i first learned that in the early days of the telephone there were several *hundred* telephone companies all across the U.S. - it never occurred to me, having grown up in the era when there was 'ma bell' and nothing else. The first thirty years of the telephone's history were an amazing period of rapid expansion, then absorption of virtually every private telephone company by AT&T. Many of their names are hard to find a hundred and twenty some years on. See Timeline_of_the_telephone for a bit of that history. The growth of the internet from non-commercial government owned and operated entity, to early commercialization and the explosion of thousands of "mom and pop" ISP's, to today with barely a few dozen independent ISP's remaining, mirrors - at an accelerated rate - the early years of the telephone. but....i'm rambling here. Please excuse the digression....Anastrophe 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has gone through editing disputes in the past. If you know something about Verio in a general sense, that would be useful to add. Those of us who tried to dig up information before found it was hard to get anything significant. There is probably stuff in the business press that could be digested. However the complete list of ISPs is probably about the lowest possible priority to include, in my view.

When evaluating notability we are supposed to reflect the secondary literature. If really *no-one* has written about Verio, or the digested companies, we are supposed to take our cue from that. We are not the Museum for Study of Former Companies. You wrote that it's a shame if the info is lost. That particular interest is one that is best pursued outside of Wikipedia, in my view.

When you wrote that we are supposed to err on the side of inclusion, I would need to see a WP policy reference before I would accept that. If you haven't begun digging into the old companies yet, you may not have experienced how difficult it is. We can't even find out much of interest about *Verio itself*. EdJohnston 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Erring on the side of inclusion seems to be a 'meta' policy, in that i've found a number of broad references to it - for example, in the Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset - "Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do.". As well, Wikipedia:Five_pillars points out in the very first sentence that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" - and the list is certainly of the sort one would find in an almanac. I admit to never having read the policy documents in great detail until last night. I'm coming up dry on reasons to exclude the list. As you pointed out in your summary of your last comments - "It is *very hard* to learn anything significant about Verio; the former companies are even worse" - indeed! And I would present a devil's advocate argument based on that: "It is very difficult to find information on this subject. Therefore, we should eliminate what little information we can find". That doesn't make sense, does it? [|Here] is a verifiable source for thirty of the companies in the list. I should be able to verify the remainder within a day or so. I'll happily trim the list to the 30 currently verifiable until then. And I tend to agree that the wikilinks are aesthetically distracting. For the most part, there's no need for any part of the list to be wikilinked, with the exception of the one or two that are currently live. Anastrophe 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the page with citation of a more recent sec filing, which lists most of the ISPs. Of those remaining, two had no references in the sec filing, but archive.org proved that they were indeed absorbed by verio -

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.jvnc.net

Which turns out to have been part of already listed GES, and

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.spacelab.net

Although i'm not sure that adding archive.org as citations is the way to go or not, since it essentially requires original research on the part of each reader should they follow the links, rather than a separately verifiable source. For now i've left them included. Anastrophe 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stock ownership rules

I am not going to get into editing this article, as I work for NTT (and I tell other people off for conflicts of interests), but I am pretty sure that the claim that foreigners are not allowed to own NTT shares is mistaken. According to the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone article their shares are listed in both New York and London. That would be pretty pointless if non-Japanese people were not allowed to buy them. I am guessing that there is a more subtle story here. Maybe it is like Ericsson (who I also used to work for) where foreigners are only allowed to own "B" shares which have a limited voting capacity, or something along those lines? Any ideas? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on NTT:

"At that time Japanese law did not allow foreigners to own NTT stock because the Japanese government owned 53 percent of NTT, so the buy-out was structured as a cash sale."

This press release from 2000 says:

"The Japanese government - which only recently deregulated telecommunications - still imposes restrictions on the sale of NTT stock."

It's probably as you say a share class issue, or something, but the general idea is correct. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)