Cogent admits to QoSing down streaming

Wayne E Bouchard web at
Thu Nov 6 18:57:54 UTC 2014

I agree. There's nothing wrong with it at all.... unless you claim
you're not doing that and then do it secretly in order to forward an

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:12:43PM -0600, Blake Hudson wrote:
> If I were a Cogent customer I would like to have seen more transparency 
> (an announcement at least). However, I don't see anything wrong with 
> their practice of giving some customers "Silver" service and others 
> "Bronze" service while reserving "Gold" for themselves. Even if 
> applications like VoIP do not function well with a Bronze service level.
> Now, a customer that was under the impression they were receiving equal 
> treatment with other customers may not be happy to know they were 
> receiving a lower class of service than expected. This is not a net 
> neutrality matter, it's a matter of expectations and possibly false or 
> deceptive advertising.
> I would much rather see an environment where the customer gets to choose 
> Gold, Silver, and Bronze levels of service for his or her traffic as 
> opposed to an environment where the provider chooses fast/slow lane 
> applications at their own discretion.
> --Blake
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote on 11/6/2014 10:12 AM:
> ><>
> >
> >This is interesting. And it will be detrimental to network neutrality 
> >supporters. Cogent admits that while they were publicly complaining about 
> >other networks congesting links, they were using QoS to make the problem 
> >look worse.
> >
> >One of the problems in "tech" is most people do not realize tone is 
> >important, not just substance. There was - still is! - congestion in many 
> >places where consumers have one or at most two choice of providers. Even 
> >in places where there are two providers, both are frequently congested. 
> >Instead of discussing the fact there is no functioning market, no choice 
> >for the average end user, and how to fix it, we will now spend a ton of 
> >time arguing whether anything is wrong at all because Cogent did this.
> >
> >Wouldn't you rather be discussing whether 4 Mbps is really broadband? 
> >(Anyone else have flashbacks to "640K is enough for anyone!"?) Or how many 
> >people have more than one choice at 25 Mbps? Or whether a company with a 
> >terminating access monopoly can intentionally congest its edge to charge 
> >monopoly rents on the content providers their paying customers are trying 
> >to access? I know I would.
> >
> >Instead, we'll be talking about how things are not really bad, Cogent just 
> >made it look bad on purpose. The subtlety of "it _IS_ bad, Cogent just 
> >shifted some of the burden from VoIP to streaming" is not something that 
> >plays well in a 30 second sound bite, or at congressional hearings.
> >
> >It's enough to make one consider giving up the idea of having a 
> >functioning, useful Internet.
> >

Wayne Bouchard
web at
Network Dude

More information about the NANOG mailing list