Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Tue Sep 17 02:54:37 UTC 2019

Within the past year or two i’ve seen it occur.

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 18:44, Ben Cannon <ben at 6by7.net> wrote:
> 
> “They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing through it.”
> 
> Mike, I’d have agreed with you - 15 years ago. Is this current at all?  My views on Cogent have evolved dramatically over the years.  How recent is your data?
> 
> -Ben
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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