Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us
Mon Nov 3 11:20:22 CST 2008


Barrett Lyon wrote:
> Incase this has not hit the list yet:
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153194/sprint_reconnects_cogent_but_differences_are_unresolved.html 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sprint Reconnects Cogent, but Differences Are Unresolved
> Mikael Ricknäs, IDG News Service
> 
> Monday, November 03, 2008 7:50 AM PST
> On Sunday Sprint Nextel reconnected its network with Cogent 
> Communications after severing it earlier last week. The reconnection is 
> only temporary, as the core issues in this dispute have not changed, 
> Sprint said in a statement to its customers.
> 
> As a result, it is again possible for Sprint customers and Cogent 
> customers to directly communicate across the Internet. Data supplied by 
> Keynote Systems confirms that the two networks are again communicating 
> with each other.
> 
> Sprint's view of what led up to its disconnecting from Cogent 
> Communications on Oct. 30 differs substantially from what Cogent has 
> stated.
> 
> In shutting down the peering between the two, Sprint violated a 
> contractual obligation to exchange Internet traffic with Cogent on a 
> settlement-free peering basis, according to Cogent. But that's just 
> fiction, according to Sprint, because at no time did the two enter into 
> an actual contract.
> 
> In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a trial agreement that ended in 
> September last year. A three-month commercial trial indicated that 
> Cogent didn't meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by 
> both parties, according to Sprint. As a result, settlement-free peering 
> was not established, Sprint said.
> 
> Instead, Sprint wants Cogent to pay for its ongoing connection to the 
> Sprint network. But despite repeated collection attempts by Sprint, 
> Cogent has not done that. Nonpayment on Cogent's part is the reason 
> Sprint decided to disconnect from Cogent last week, a process that had 
> started on Oct. 7, and shouldn't have come as a surprise for Cogent, 
> Sprint said in its customer statement.
> 
> What happens next remains to be seen. The two operators are involved in 
> litigation over the matter. Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent on 
> Sept. 2 in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia for breach of contract.
> 
> On its part, Cogent said it wants settlement-free peering with Sprint.
> 


So basically, it won't be resolved until Cogent gets to keep free access 
to Sprint. Where's my free access to Sprint? Can I cry and scream that I 
have to pay for my access too because I don't qualify for free peering?

~Seth




More information about the NANOG mailing list