Talk:Cogent Communications

message: 82.32.136.37 added a section that appeared at first read though to be accusing Cogent of spam generation.  A closer read through and inspection of the "proof" showed that some spam originated from their network space.   Since this isn't unusual, (every ISP has spam originate from their network) I thought it was improper to have a section called "spamming" on their wikipedia page.  I can understand that someone may be frustrated by spam, but that isn't cause for  making wild accusations.  Marc.runkel (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spamming Section

message: The article reads like a corporate ad. Needs cleanup more encyclopedic tone. —ERcheck @ 02:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for cleanup

message: ogent keeps defacing this article and inserting false statements about themselves.--Tomthebomb193 13:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defacing!

message: Cogent should have sued for the trash that had been posted on here about them. Ever hear of slander?  No frills teir two provider, my ass. —70.187.244.217 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello... "no frills tier two provider" is exactly what Cogent is. —198.252.182.170 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: about time you got some up to date imformation on here

message: There seems to be a bit of controversy over whether Cogent is a Tier 1 network. Therefore, before adding this section, and removing "Tier 1" from the description of Cogent, I am posting my proposed changes to be discussed:
While Cogent Communications is one of the largest providers of connectivity, it technically is not a Tier 1 provider. To be a Tier 1 network, every network it connects to must be either a customer's network, or a settlement-free peer's network. Cogent Communications does not pass this test, because it pays for transit from Verio in order to connect to some Tier 1 providers. However, it does not neatly fit into the category of a Tier 2 provider, because unlike a traditional Tier 2 provider, it has settlement-free peering with at least some Tier 1 providers. The Level 3 is definitely a peer, and Verio is most likely another peer.
It should be noted that while a Tier 1 provider is usually associated with being able to provide a higher quality Internet connection than non-Tier 1 providers, this is not necessarily true. A provider that paid to peer with every Tier 1 network would have access to the Internet at roughly the same level as a Tier 1 provider, but by paying would be disqualified from Tier 1 status.
Any comments? Techieman 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that much of the description of Cogent as a tier 1 provider and other details in the article are simply a verbatim copy from Cogent's about page. I don't think this text, straight from Cogent's PR, should appear in the Wikipdedia article. Jnk 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, unless someone can verify that Cogent is no longer paying for transit, then regardless of what they claim on their website they are not a Tier 1 carrier by the commonly accepted definition. I believe they are still paying Verio for transit  . Jnk 03:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Section on Tier 1 Status

message: Note to changer, fine by me, but that change was made
by the Cogent people I.e. they claim they are an ethernet
provider. :-) —65.96.165.213 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change re: Ethernet vs Internet

message: According to this  (dated, according to their site, 29 April 2005) Gartner have stated that Cogent has  [a] "no-frills approach" [that] "has its risks." -- Karada 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are connecting from PSINet, are you a Cogent employee? From all I can tell Cogent did not buy Verio's backbone, but only bought 2400 of Verio's T1 Customers. "Cogent will acquire the majority of Verio’s T-1 Internet access customers and associated equipment. The transaction includes more than 2,400 business customers."  Can you provide us with an external link verifying that Cogent now has a settlement-free peering agreement with Verio - or that Cogent bought Verio's backbone? —Jnk 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "No-frills"

message: Can anyone provide some documentation to back this up before adding it back?
:", including the Adult Industry, and the Unsolicited Commercial E-mail industry, otherwise known as spammers."
Arwen4014 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Customers

message: From Germany, Project Gutenberg is behind Cogent, and each day recently, from about 10h GMT (5h East Coast, huh?), connectivity starts to drop. I take it as deliberately because as soon as a second process with traceroute to gutenberg enters cogentco.com the other line is UP as if nothing had happened. Ten seconds later, it's waiting for connection again, no avail. --Rwst (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From Virginia, LacusCurtius is behind Cogentco, and inaccessible. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: gutenberg.org

message: "The Internet became partitioned", suggesting that the Internet became partitioned into two disjoint parts, is putting it a bit too strongly. For example, during this process, did AS 701 customers lose connectivity to either network for any significant time? "The two networks lost mutual connectivity" might be a better way of putting it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a better way of putting it. Andareed (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Internet "became partitioned"?

message: Can we please stop the edit war and discuss here? Nobody has provided any reliable sources that the agreement is free or non-free. I'm removing this bit unless someone can find reliable sources that support either position Andareed (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That qualifies as original research though. If you can find some reliable document that explain the router naming convention, we would be in better shape to add it. Andareed (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have protected this article for 5 days, to put a stop to the edit warring over this section. Please work it out here, instead of mindlessly reverting each other. SQLQuery me! 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, uh, listing Tad Weed as CFO is not funny.  I fixed the blaringly obvious errors in the box as well as some grammatical issues (don't worry, there are still plenty left) before I remembered to log in.  -- Thefirstdude (t/c) 21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peering edit war

message: I would like to make people aware that link #4, which points to a page on colorado.edu, seems to be infected with malware, according to Avast Antivirus.  Shane (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Malware incident

message: Could anyone add anything to the article that would help understand Cogent's "place" in the scheme of things (without coming to blows over who pays who or might etc)?  They "own" vast swathes of cabling across the globe I understand.  There's no mention of this in the article.  This from http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-10/departments/cogent-communications-banks-on-ethernet-over-ip-53441387.html
"Cogent Communications’ (www.cogentco.com) all-optical IP-over-DWDM network currently comprises 25,000 miles of intercity fiber stretching from Seattle, WA, to Budapest, Hungary, and from Oslo, Norway, to Miami, FL. Cogent also owns another 10,000 miles of metro fiber in 100 markets, comprising 225 rings that are directly connected to 1,180 end buildings. Cogent says its North American network currently supports anywhere from eight to sixteen 10-Gbit/sec wavelengths; in Europe, the network supports six to twelve 10-Gbit/sec wavelengths-and the carrier says it isn’t finished yet."</br />
Can someone put that into perspective in terms of the proportion of the global provision/information flow/users/nations/etc as a whole, and ownership as a whole?  (and hopefully without kicking off another edit war about technical workarounds yadayada)  Possible?  Do-able?  It would be of great interest and relevance. Ta!  LookingGlass (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem!  On another issue .... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cogent Communications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607080053/http://www.thelocal.se/10786/20080330/ to http://thelocal.se/10786/20080330/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified