Earl, The short answer is, yes, that is the practice that they want to eliminate or more specifically control and have sole authority over. This is the practice that SPS Commerce, DiCentral, CovalentWorks, NetEDI, and nearly every single other service provider (a VAN without interconnects) has been doing since EDI began, whether it is through ECGrid, Liaison, Easylink, etc.
You can call it EarlVAN or EarlTheServiceProvider (a la SPS, CovalentWorks, DiCentral). This has been how EDI has been operating since before the internet...we used to call them a VAN if they directly interconnected, and a VAS if they connected through a VAN. GXS’s excuses about latency, lost data, etc. is pure fabrication. These virtual VANs or Service Providers provide multi-tenant systems as opposed to single-tenant end-user configurations. The data travels the exact same path over the same number of hops (or lack of them). In fact, using a service provider such as EarlVAN is frequently more reliable and responsive than one-system-per-vendor model because you know what you are doing and are getting paid to do it well, for many companies, in the same way. GXS is taking the position that there can be service providers or virtual VANs in the market, but they must all connect directly and pay GXS to play. GXS then can exercise the right to not do business with any service provider they feel is a threat. By prohibiting that traffic over other other VANs, and refusing to connect directly (or making egregious demands to do so, such as in our case), GXS exercises the power prohibit any company it choses from competing in this market. Additionally, GXS is now moving to enforce its “no third party/daisy-chaining” provision of their interconnect agreements, prohibiting all the other VANs from selling connectivity to GXS customers to EDI Service Providers. GXS now demands that all the traffic that goes to GXS customers is theirs alone to charge for, both ways, all sides. The other VANs should be quite concerned right now as that EDI Service Provider traffic is a sizeable chunk of billing they are about to lose. Will the VANs lose their Interconnects to GXS for all traffic next? -=tg=- Todd Gould President Loren Data Corp. From: Earl Wertheimer Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EDI-L] GXS announcement and 'Daisy Chaining' Todd, I read both documents and wanted a better understanding of the following: "Daisy chaining is a practice of having one EDI service provider enabling downstream EDI providers which all become dependent on one connection." If I understand this correctly, you (EDI service provider) can enable me (downstream EDI provider) to setup my own EDI VAN. Essentially, if I want to create an EarlVAN, you (Loren) can set me up. All traffic flows from my clients, through EarlVAN, across to Loren then out to other VANs. I would assume that EarlVAN is a virtual entity, connected to Loren. Is this the practice they want to eliminate? thanks Earl Wertheimer mailto:earlw%40spe-edi.com http://www.spe-edi.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ ... Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
