Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Mon Sep 16 23:21:37 UTC 2019

The argument has been listed numerous times so i didn’t want to bore people:

1. Sprint peering battle. Google it
2. He.net peering battle. Google it.
3. Google IPv6 peering battle. Google it.

All of which point to them being pompous assholes.

They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing through it.

Cheers,
Mike

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 15:59, Stephen M. <stephen.myspam at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Please don’t praise or complain like we’re supposed to take it at a total face value. If you don’t like them so much - we are you’re audience. Explain. 
> 
> If you like Cogent - explain.
> If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen
> 
> //please pardon any brevities - sent from mobile//
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 10:01 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Whenever asked about Cogent, i just say, “Friends don’t let friends use Cogent.”
>> 
>> I’ve told two of their reps over the past two years that even if the service was free, i wouldn’t use it. And yet, they still call.
>> 
>> -Mike
>> 
>>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 13:53, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In message <E814E5F6-F386-4AAE-BADA-E423D299A4FB at delong.com>, 
>>>> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Given their practice of harvesting whois updates in order to spam newly
>>>> acquired AS contacts, any time it is my decision, Cogent is ineligible
>>>> as a vendor.
>>> 
>>> So I guess then that their aiding and abetting of fraud and IP block
>>> theft, as I documented here recently, is an entirely secondary concern...
>>> as long as they don't spam you, yes?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> rfg