Why do people hate them so much? Are they really that bad?

They seem to hate it although in fact they use it.

Im guessing they hate it because its cheap. Meaning they have to use it to compete.

That's not true anymore. Cogent might be slightly cheaper than others, but not by much anymore. They charge 30K for a Gig-E, you can get a Gig-E with most providers for 40K now.

Cogent is nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. They do have network problems, every once in a while. But, I haven't heard of anyone actually having their connection go down.

Originally posted by jkehe
That's not true anymore. Cogent might be slightly cheaper than others, but not by much anymore. They charge 30K for a Gig-E, you can get a Gig-E with most providers for 40K now.

Cogent's web site lists $1000 per month for 100Mbps and $10,000 per month for 1000Mbps.

(In Australia I've been quoted A$3600 per month (around US$2000) for 1Mbps. Not surpisingly, my server is now located in the US.)

They charge $10,000 for 1 gbps for intercity transit and $30,000 for 1gbps carrier transit.

I think that they are good as well. All the sites I've been to that are using Cogent are good and fast.

Originally posted by PixyMisa


Cogent's web site lists $1000 per month for 100Mbps and $10,000 per month for 1000Mbps.


not valid for ISP

Originally posted by devon
They charge $10,000 for 1 gbps for intercity transit and $30,000 for 1gbps carrier transit.

Darn. (Scratches out business plan #72.)

I think that they are good as well. All the sites I've been to that are using Cogent are good and fast.

Glad to hear it, since I just signed up for Hostmania's Cogent promotion :D

Im guessing they hate it because its cheap. Meaning they have to use it to compete.Not really. Cogent DOES have network and peering problems which happen quite frequently. They seem to be getting better, but there are constant problems. Cogent is great if you are a business and need Internet access for all your employees.

i think cogent is a great addition to an isp's network, however, i don't think they're quite at the level yet to be a companies' main connection.

i'm seriously hoping cogent can acquire some new bankruptcy victim's assets soon. it's well past time for major upgrades to cogent's network.

cogent isn't even turning a profit themselves, let alone aquire more networks...

also... why do we all hate cogent all so much? i am on the west coast... yet i get 150ms ping times to a box at fdc ... and thats not fdc's fault... because i get 150ms to the cogent core routers in chicago... and this is considering my isp has peering with above.net (at less than 10ms, i am on above.net's backbone), who is cogent's primary transit provider... by the time i hit cogent, above.net has only added maybe 10ms tops... the rest all gets added by cogent... from me to chicago should be no more than 70ms tops... 50-60 ideally... but those are just the harsh standards i set aside... heh...

they are cheap, thats why i use them... but in the end, they are also absolute junk... if they weren't cheap, they'd have nothing going for them... best to just stick with verio...

this is also why i am starting my new hosting services... fed up with stupid cogent slowness... http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64248

personally, i wouldn't like a network with cogent in them at all... because theres always that chance that the provider may weigh their cogent feed just a tiny bit more (because of the flat rate, might as well use as much as they can), or even without weighing... any data going over the cogent network is going to be slow (and we all hate slow web sites, especially if we're say doing a search on google and my site happens to be a result... after click on the link, being on dsl and all quite aquainted to high speed, if it doesn't come up relatively instantly on the intial connect i totally skip the site altogether)... i mean... they have a huge network and all, but they gotta work on that routing... i bet if they redid some of their routing, data would be whizzing past as good as some of the old boys...

rackmy... thats exactly it... perfect with business needing it for access for employees... because performance isn't critical at that level... but for hosting... i mean... we've all got to have atleast 1 client thats listed on a search engine, don't we?

devon... post a few websites u know are running on cogent with excellent speeds and i'll give u some ping results from other cities to it... and i'll try and find a site hosted in the same city as the site you mentioned powered by verio or some other network... and we'll compare ping results... eh?

we are in france, not a webhosting company. we have multiple servers in the united states in separate data centers on separate bandwith providers. this morning, traceroute from paris:

- a server hosted on AT&T (on a OC-48 ring) : 235 ms
- a server hosted on Cogent (on OC-192) : 190 ms

its perhaps different in intercity in the USA but from France there's no difference. i'll not change and move all servers to cogent but as long as they are alive i find their service great.

Many people bash Cogent because they are upset up with their pricing and most of those people who bash Cogent never even had a access to their bandwidth.

I remember those rumors couple months ago , flamers kept saying that Cogent will go out of business etc which never happened

It`s true they have some network problems occassionaly but who doesn`t. When we got our 1st 100mbit circuit from them over a year ago pings were really bad and also had many peering issues, but it`s understandable because it`s still a start up company. Since than their peering improved big time especially after they aquired PSI net. Now we can even host game servers and our clients seems to be satisifed with both price and pings

Their tech support is great and always there to help, you don`t get to spend too much timeon hold when you need something. Their IP allocation group seem to need couple more people cause it takes them sometimes several days to get you new block

Our overall experience with Cogent is 4.8 out of 5 , would recommend them to anybody

Many people bash Cogent because they are upset up with their pricing and most of those people who bash Cogent never even had a access to their bandwidth. Actually, we have been using their bandwidth for a while too and have found it to be getting better but still pretty poor. I do agree, some bash Cogent because of their pricing but they do have one of the worst rated networks out there.

People like them because they're relatively inexpensive but "you get what you paid for" is a perfect explanation of their quality of service. While netdude's offerings with Internap and Exodus are much more expensive than comparable Cogent specs, you are VERY unlikely to find network slowdowns, latency problems, and lost packets. And if you do, they'll most likely fix the problem in a very short amount of time (under 30 for Internap since they just re-route their network). Exodus features Cable and Wireless' backbone, one of the top three ranked in the nation (the other two being XO and ATT) Companies such as Google that depend on reliability use Exodus, not Cogent. Those interested in one of these premium networks should check out Hostmania's Internap offerings as they are very inexpensive for what you get. As low as 89/mo for a server with 420GB of QUALITY Internap bandwidth.

Well i will post a new question in this thread, Under Cogent's new pricing structure (coming soon) Williams will probably be cheaper, so will everyone start bashing Williams then and leave Cogent alone?
Also
What do people think of Williams?

i know i'll probably get hit in the head with a bat for saying this... but... i put williams in the same boat as cogent... just another one of those wanna-be carriers... network is big and all, but not as developed as say att/etc... but thats just me... i kinda bundle all the newbies into this category... heh...

mushrew... i am still stumped as to how hostmania can offer such excellent pricing... but if they are willin' to back it up... then they got the best deal i've ever seen... heh... :)

bummer6666, aren't you just a little biased... owning a datacenter that has only cogent feeds... heh... and to top it all off, even your clients complain of slowness frequently on these forums...

but then... i am biased too... trying to setup a hosting offer with alternative providers citing the only reason is that cogent is just plain slow...

Originally posted by netdude
mushrew... i am still stumped as to how hostmania can offer such excellent pricing... but if they are willin' to back it up... then they got the best deal i've ever seen... heh... :)


That question's a common one and from what I've read and heard from others, it appears that Transoptics (their parent company) is a major supplier of services to Fortune 100 companies, which includes data backup services. Since most of this traffic is at night or odd times during the day, a lot of the Internap bandwidth is left unused and thus Chavvron is offering it as part of dedicated server packages. Of course I could be completely wrong about this since I don't believe anybody has received a straight response from him (not that it's a bad thing since you wouldn't give away your trade secrets would you?) but it sounds reasonable. But they seem to have been around for a while (their Cogent line claiming to be up for 10 months) and I haven't heard of any complaints except for when Hostmania was initially launched since Chavvron was so busy setting up servers that it was a while before anybody actually received them. But your offerings are nice too, relatively inexpensive for that kind of quality bandwidth.

i totally don't doubt hostmania's offer... i have no reason to and i haven't heard anything bad about them here over the years... i was just going through transoptic's site and looking at their press-releases and they never mention how large they are... kind of interesting that a fortune 100 company would contract out to a company that has not mentioned their size (fortune 100s like to brag about how secure their partners are)... and to add to that, the transoptics.com website is hosted on catalog.com, why dont they host it in-house? they are a hosting company afterall, well, atleast they have a hosting division... ?

Aren't we forgetting that WorldCom was suppose to be the best? :confused:

What happened to WorldCom wasn't the result of a bad service or product, it was due to bad accounting.

and the bad accounting was the result of a silly business model: their products were loosing loney again and again

Originally posted by alain
and the bad accounting was the result of a silly business model: their products were loosing loney again and again

Are you refering to UUNet and MCI?

Worldcom is still is the best nothing will happen to the network except mayhap switch ownership.

WorldCom may be the best technically. But they failed as a company. :bawling:

I called Cogent the other day, and I was told that there 100mbps line was NOT to be used as any sort of reselling, such as a ISP, hosting company, dedicated servers, colocating servers, etc..

So basically, the only thing you can use it for is personal use. Which, who the hell would buy a 100mbps line for personal use? Its just not needed, unless your a warez addict, and then, after a couple days, they would find out and shut you down, and probably send you to jail.

Corporations would fall under "personal use".

Originally posted by netdude

devon... post a few websites u know are running on cogent with excellent speeds and i'll give u some ping results from other cities to it... and i'll try and find a site hosted in the same city as the site you mentioned powered by verio or some other network... and we'll compare ping results... eh?

I don't remember the exact sites, but every download test that someone has posted and is hosted on the Cogent network will max out my connection(1.5Mbit).

I also remember a site that someone posted that was hosted on Cogent and it loaded very fast. I don't remember the URL though.

Edit:
I just remembered that Seti@Home's data server is on a 100Mbit Cogent connection, and has never been faster. The data server is always reachable and very fast.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Actually, we have been using their bandwidth for a while too and have found it to be getting better but still pretty poor. I do agree, some bash Cogent because of their pricing but they do have one of the worst rated networks out there.

Is that because of their peering or latency or a little of both? Traceroutes to Cogent-connected sites show me that packets tend to take the "scenic route" from point A to point B. For example, tracing to a DC on the East Coast from the East Coast, packets travel to California and Washington State, then finally back east again.

I'm very interested in knowing what the real knock is against Cogent, as I'm considering adding their transit to my hosting offerings.

It's not the speed that's an issue, it's the poor latency as a result of the peering.

Originally posted by mushrew
It's not the speed that's an issue, it's the poor latency as a result of the peering.

So I take it they don't do private peering but go through congested public access points? The routes seem like they're fixed as well no matter what the destination is.

Originally posted by alchiba


So I take it they don't do private peering but go through congested public access points? The routes seem like they're fixed as well no matter what the destination is.

I'm not sure on exactly what they do but it sucks =)

But realistically speaking, unless you need something that requires low latency I don't believe there's any problems with Cogent. Companies claim excessive uptimes, 10 months for Hostmania, 9 months for NocSol (He labels it "CogentXP" because of that) so most claims saying that they are unreliable seem to be baseless.

dude... they are unreliable... well... if you consider packet loss unreliability... i experience that somewhat frequently... and its not my isp or the service provider i use... its cogent for sure... (can see it in the traceroutes)... ... ... actual feeds going down, have only noticed that a few times, but those were scheduled maintenances... but just because someone tells you beforehand "i'm going to shoot you in the head", does that make it right or acceptable?

Originally posted by netdude
but just because someone tells you beforehand "i'm going to shoot you in the head", does that make it right or acceptable?

lol

Originally posted by JaysonH
I called Cogent the other day, and I was told that there 100mbps line was NOT to be used as any sort of reselling, such as a ISP, hosting company, dedicated servers, colocating servers, etc..

So basically, the only thing you can use it for is personal use. Which, who the hell would buy a 100mbps line for personal use? Its just not needed, unless your a warez addict, and then, after a couple days, they would find out and shut you down, and probably send you to jail.


They're figuring out the hard way that people who use it for those purposes actually really DO use the 100mbit... which means they probably lose money bigtime on the people who really use it (why else would they stop offering it?)

To see people saying worldcom had a bad business model and cogent is the best thing since sliced bread in the same thread is amazing to me. The only differences I see are worldcom charged alot more, and lied about their losses, while cogent charges even less and admits they lose money hand over fist (They lost $6 per share on a $1 stock last quarter).

-Brendan

Originally posted by HRBrendan
(They lost $6 per share on a $1 stock last quarter).


Start->Run->calc.exe

Ugh. . . :(

Companies claim excessive uptimes, 10 months for Hostmania, 9 months for NocSol (He labels it "CogentXP" because of that) so most claims saying that they are unreliable seem to be baseless.We use Cogent on a couple of other projects have has experienced such horrible latency, it's pretty much unuseable. To me, I call that downtime :(The only differences I see are worldcom charged alot more, and lied about their losses, while cogent charges even less and admits they lose money hand over fist (They lost $6 per share on a $1 stock last quarter). Well, you really cannot compare the two products. Yes, the both offer IP service but they are not the same.

On a side note, I don't think WCOM lied about their losses but instead misreported earnings.

I have tested Cogent extensively at different data centers and have found a great inconsistency from center to center. For instance, I have had excellent perfomance on servers located at DV2, SD Colo, and Exchange Colo in San Francisco. On the other hand, I have found quite the opposite at many of their newer installations.

It appears that those centers they connected in major cities during their earlier days and those which have close connectivity to Netrail and other acquisitions are on the whole good. However, where they have more recently been running connections to outlying facilities, there have been more significant problems. Can't confirm this to be the case. However, at least from my experience, you can't always say Cogent is good or bad...just have to say Data Center X's Cogent connectivity is good or bad.

I've used other companies and I now use Cogent. Needless to say we are looking for a change. Latency with Cogent is terrible. I cannot get a ping below 140ms when I normally get 40 to 60 ms. Granted they are always up but they are also always slow.

Hmm this must

1 64.246.42.1 (64.246.42.1) 0.466 ms 0.318 ms 0.275 ms
2 207.218.223.2 (207.218.223.2) 0.478 ms 0.440 ms 0.354 ms
3 g1.ba21.b000605-0.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.28.209) 1.402 ms 1.301 ms 1.227 ms
4 g10-2.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.237) 1.674 ms 1.721 ms 1.380 ms
5 p14-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.6) 32.429 ms 32.458 ms 32.224 ms
6 p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77) 34.819 ms 34.994 ms 34.814 ms
7 p14-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 46.417 ms 46.082 ms 46.429 ms
8 g50.ba01.b006096-1.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.190) 46.305 ms 46.379 ms 46.711 ms
9 Verifast_Network.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.31.122) 46.309 ms 46.976 ms 46.352 ms
10 66.28.252.8 (66.28.252.8) 47.016 ms 46.502 ms 46.570 ms


My latency seems to improved a ton. Is it only me?

I find Cogent hosts to be hit and miss too. Sometimes I've been very surprised at how good it is, other times not.

From Vancouver BC to Verifast's machine at 66.28.252.8:

traceroute 66.28.252.8
traceroute to 66.28.252.8 (66.28.252.8), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 * * *
2 ISPaddress.VANCBC08AR02.bb.telus.com (209.53.1.225) 11.473 ms 11.389 ms 10.199 ms
3 209.53.1.222 (209.53.1.222) 11.647 ms 11.405 ms 209.53.1.190 (209.53.1.190) 11.782 ms
4 nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com (204.174.217.39) 11.866 ms 11.837 ms 11.475 ms
5 sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com (209.53.75.178) 15.327 ms 16.381 ms 15.979 ms
6 pos3-0.mpr1.sea1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.69) 15.675 ms 16.120 ms 14.897 ms
7 so-5-2-0.cr2.sea1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.182) 15.264 ms 15.612 ms 15.154 ms
8 pos2-0.mpr1.sea4.us.mfnx.net (64.125.31.94) 16.131 ms 15.574 ms 16.013 ms
9 216.200.249.86.cogent-above.above.net (216.200.249.86) 100.353 ms 100.527 ms 100.425 ms
10 p14-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.54) 100.266 ms 100.521 ms 100.996 ms
11 p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.69) 100.630 ms 100.828 ms 100.412 ms
12 p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.94) 100.345 ms 99.658 ms 100.144 ms
13 g49.ba01.b006096-1.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.186) 100.626 ms 100.258 ms 101.052 ms
14 66.28.31.122 (66.28.31.122) 100.584 ms 101.111 ms 100.436 ms
15 66.28.252.8 (66.28.252.8) 100.614 ms 115.437 ms 109.472 ms


That seems pretty slow for that distance - normally I see 35 - 45ms for most hosts in California.

For example, Van to Santa Clara:
traceroute to scripting.com (64.14.1.86), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 * * *
2 ISPaddress.VANCBC08AR02.bb.telus.com (209.53.1.225) 10.476 ms 10.588 ms 10.911 ms
3 209.53.1.190 (209.53.1.190) 11.906 ms 209.53.1.222 (209.53.1.222) 11.417 ms 209.53.1.190 (209.53.1.190) 11.481 ms
4 nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com (204.174.217.39) 11.681 ms 12.096 ms 11.276 ms
5 sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com (209.53.75.178) 15.279 ms 15.526 ms 15.500 ms
6 acr2-so-2-1-0-0.Seattle.cw.net (208.172.81.129) 16.458 ms 16.264 ms 15.764 ms
7 bpr2.SeattleSwitchDesign.cw.net (208.172.82.8) 16.938 ms 16.010 ms 16.516 ms
8 ibr01-p3-1.tkwl01.exodus.net (216.32.132.217) 16.136 ms 16.122 ms 17.173 ms
9 bbr01-g5-0.tkwl01.exodus.net (216.34.64.179) 16.722 ms 16.653 ms 16.071 ms
10 bbr02-p0-0.sntc05.exodus.net (216.32.132.125) 34.246 ms 34.629 ms 34.124 ms
11 bbr02-p8-0.sntc04.exodus.net (209.1.169.141) 34.831 ms 34.141 ms 34.638 ms
12 dcr01-g6-1.sntc04.exodus.net (216.34.2.49) 36.038 ms 35.322 ms 35.464 ms
13 csr12-ve242.sntc04.exodus.net (216.34.3.82) 34.762 ms 35.206 ms 34.710 ms
14 64.14.1.86 (64.14.1.86) 36.518 ms 35.844 ms 36.032 ms

Just an observation, no opinion on this.

No real difference here in terms of latency...

6 g1-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.67.45) 1.282 ms 1.404 ms 1.295 ms
7 p15-0.core01.jax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.137) 8.494 ms 7.790 ms 8.487 ms
8 p14-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.141) 12.144 ms 12.728 ms 12.568 ms
9 p5-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.45) 32.615 ms 32.156 ms 31.942 ms
10 p14-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.6) 62.419 ms 63.117 ms 62.392 ms
11 p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77) 66.456 ms 66.093 ms 66.166 ms
12 p14-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 76.316 ms 76.422 ms 76.169 ms
13 g49.ba01.b006096-1.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.186) 77.008 ms 76.432 ms 77.215 ms
14 Verifast_Network.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.31.122) 76.585 ms 77.611 ms 76.942 ms
15 66.28.252.8 (66.28.252.8) 77.466 ms 77.562 ms 76.657 ms

I am from Vancouver as well. How much of a difference with the surfer notice between a difference of 40ms? Allot of pages hosted on Cogent still load pretty fast for me. Not as slow people imagine, where you might think you get AOL dialup speeds even though your on DSL and the page takes forever to load.


| 1 | | 209.53.22.254 | - | ?Vancouver, BC, Canada | 17 | x | ADSL |
| 2 | | 209.53.75.198 | - | ?(Canada) | 20 | x------- | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 3 | | 204.174.217.39 | nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com | ?(Canada) | 16 | x | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 4 | | 209.53.75.178 | sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com | ?(Canada) | 20 | x | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 5 | | 208.172.81.129 | acr2-so-2-1-0-0.Seattle.cw.net | Seattle, WA, USA | 34 | --x--- | Cable & Wireless USA |
| 6 | | 208.172.82.8 | bpr2.SeattleSwitchDesign.cw.net | - | 19 | x | Cable & Wireless USA |
| 7 | | 216.32.132.217 | ibr01-p3-1.tkwl01.exodus.net | - | 21 | x- | Exodus Commnications Inc. |
| 8 | | 216.34.64.163 | bbr01-g4-0.tkwl01.exodus.net | - | 21 | x | Exodus Commnications Inc. |
| 9 | | 216.32.132.125 | bbr02-p0-0.sntc05.exodus.net | Santa Clara, CA, USA | 39 | x | Exodus Commnications Inc. |
| 10 | | 209.1.169.141 | bbr02-p8-0.sntc04.exodus.net | Santa Clara, CA, USA | 40 | x | Exodus Communications |
| 11 | | 216.34.2.49 | dcr01-g6-1.sntc04.exodus.net | Santa Clara, CA, USA | 40 | x | Exodus Commnications Inc. |
| 12 | | 216.34.3.82 | csr12-ve242.sntc04.exodus.net | Santa Clara, CA, USA | 39 | x | Exodus Commnications Inc. |
| 13 | | 64.14.1.86 | LINUX3 | ?Santa Clara, CA 95054 | 40 | x | Exodus Communications Inc. |


16 | x | ADSL |
| 2 | | 209.53.75.198 | - | ?(Canada) | 16 | x- | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 3 | | 204.174.217.39 | nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com | ?(Canada) | 17 | x- | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 4 | | 209.53.75.178 | sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com | ?(Canada) | 21 | x | Telus Advanced Communications |
| 5 | | 208.185.175.69 | pos3-0.mpr1.sea1.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | 21 | x- | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 6 | | 208.185.175.178 | so-2-0-0.cr1.sea1.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | 21 | x | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 7 | | 64.125.31.86 | pos0-0.mpr1.sea4.us.mfnx.net | ?San Jose, CA 95113 | 20 | x | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 8 | | 216.200.249.86 | 216.200.249.86.cogent-above.above.net | - | 84 | x | Abovenet Communications, Inc. |
| 9 | | 66.28.4.54 | p14-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 79 | x- | Cogent Communications |
| 10 | | 66.28.4.69 | p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 83 | x- | Cogent Communications |
| 11 | | 66.28.4.94 | p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 83 | x | Cogent Communications |
| 12 | | 66.28.5.190 | g50.ba01.b006096-1.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 83 | x | Cogent Communications |
| 13 | | 66.28.31.122 | Verifast_Network.demarc.cogentco.com | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 84 | x | Cogent Communications |
| 14 | | 66.28.252.8 | www.verifast.net | ?Washington, DC 20007 | 83 | x | Cogent Communications |

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but Cogent is $3000 per 100mbps.:)

I hear a rumor cogent is about to double their prices - any one else hear this?

If they double their prices right now, it will make their product unattractive to many potential buyers right now. You can get Verio bandwidth for not that much more (than double the current cost of Cogent), and Verio's network is much more stable, IMO.

but if cogent increase price say by 20-25%, do there D.C. customers will consider move from cogent to another company ! and what about contracts they have with current customers !

the honorable DCs would most likely just increase their price on new clients and honor their contract with current ones... additionaly... most likely cogent would not actually increase pricing on current clients, because that'd make current clients drop them like a bad habit... (quoting the analogy another dude used on here)... i guess the easiest translation to that being: hard to drop (because of cogent's price and IPs,etc; for the datacenters that use cogent IPs on all servers/etc), but eventually, gonna forget 'em altogether...

i mean... cogent's network is good (cogent-to-cogent connectivity is fast although sometimes inefficient)... but their connectivity to the outside world (other networks) is absolutely pathetic, for example: with my telus DSL (i am on the west coast) connection which peers with above.net (cogent's primary transit provider) in seattle and cogent (well, their psinet subsidiary) in chicago, when i do a traceroute to a server in san jose on the cogent network, it goes through chicago... but when i do a traceroute to a server in chicago, it goes through seattle... !!!!!!

none of the major players want to really peer with them because cogent is stealing clients (but then again, no serious business is gonna use cogent... only major site i've found that uses cogent is archive.org, but that site is based mostly on just archiving the 'net... ... ... no need for performance, just raw usage... and it doesn't generate revenue.........)... and by peering with cogent, they are making cogent's offer seem even better... heh

Originally posted by ClusterMania
I am from Vancouver as well. How much of a difference with the surfer notice between a difference of 40ms? Allot of pages hosted on Cogent still load pretty fast for me. Not as slow people imagine, where you might think you get AOL dialup speeds even though your on DSL and the page takes forever to load.


I don't think anybody here has complained of 40ms affecting web site load times, the complaint about latency is geared towards those who need it low, as Cogent can have some REALLY sh*** ping. I hit 170+ms to NocSol's Cogent servers.....completely useless if you're hosting shell accounts or game servers. For example: I'm in southern california while Atrivo is in northern california, yet my packets head on over to Virginia, then Georgia, then Florida, then back over to California for a response time of 135ms. Pretty lame, especially compared to the 26ms I get to Fastservers which is also in northern california.

Contracts are two way streets; Cogent cannot raise the rate for more than listed in the contract of existing customers. Now, renewals are another can of worms.

Doesn't RackSpace.net use Cogent? How is it with them? They are a hosting provider.

RackSpace.net/RackSpace.com using cogent... never ... they wouldn't touch the sh*t... ever... its definately not up to par with their network

rackspace.com uses qwest, uunet, sprint (primarily from what i've seen), timewarner telecom and at&t...

No, RackSPACE does not use Cogent.

i have yet to see a serious website/online business use cogent for hosting their site(s)... i can understand their own office use, but not their business websites...