is it just me or did everybody drop their peers with cogent???

i mean... i've seen a few peers with cogent (like with telus and level3)... but not many at all... for example: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=66071 ... that thread all about cogent (generally me just complaining about how i don't like them, but thats irrelavent right now)... all the traceroute provided (by even the cogent lovers, lol) show the data going through metromedia...

i am not talking about the peering data anybody can get through fixedorbit.com/etc... i am talking about peering thats actually in use... !

if everybody (well, almost) drops their peers with cogent, how long can cogent survive like this? i mean... they have to pay for the maintenance of their backbone, now they gotta tack on transit expense? because i don't really see why metromedia would give away perfectly valuable premium network capacity for free... hmm... i can see how cogent can turn a profit with their $1000/month 100Mbps, but not their $3000/month wholesale feed (doesn't make sense, but look at it this way, the $1000/month customers don't use their feeds for more than a megabit, making it really worthwhile for cogent... but the $3000/month, they use it to the last kilobit... !)

why would a company peer with cogent anyways? all the other tier-1s would be giving cogent more of an advantage than vice versa... (giving cogent a better backbone wouldn't help their own profitability, now would it?)... and i am guessing cogent's traffic would be kinda unidirectional with them getting used for hosting/etc mostly... and that would be against the purpose with pretty much all standard peering agreements...

and from what i understand, cogent bought up PSINet and NetRail not for the backbones... but rather for the peering agreements they couldn't get on their own... hmm... and with that being a fact, if cogent doesn't maintain the equal traffic levels (egress and ingress), they'd lose them... but if they do maintain those levels, then buying up these networks didn't work out fully... hmm...

so...?

i remember in the beginning when cogent peered with everybody... i could do a traceroute, and see the backbones peered directly in virtually every NAP... that definately ain't the case no more... ... ... ?

and this whole news of getting into PAIX... ? i mean... from what i know (from when i was applying to PAIX)... getting in is absolutely no work at all, just gotta pay the fees and have a backbone which meets their minimum requirements (which virtually every 'backbone' does... because they want customers too)... getting in is nothing, its just colo space... but getting peering agreements, gotta negotiate with the other backbones directly to get permission to make a virtual circuit between the backbones... hmm... eh?

also... a long time ago, i heard about some upstream-downstream ratio restriction thing that cogent wanted to implement on these forums... i haven't searched for the thread here, but i guess i will a bit later and post the number if i can find it... how would that work? i don't see how they could possibly ask that of a client... hmmmm... definately couldn't do it to old clients, maybe new ones, but not old ones... hmm...

example... i know cogent has a peer with c&w... i know that for sure... yet:

1 ges1-ethernet.Atlanta.cw.net 208.172.64.1 2.427 ms
2 acr1-ge-6-3-0.Atlanta.cw.net 208.172.67.1 0.862 ms
3 agr3-loopback.Atlanta.cw.net 208.172.66.103 1.567 ms
4 dcr2-so-0-2-0.Atlanta.cw.net 208.172.75.137 1.438 ms
5 agr2-so-6-0-0.Atlanta.cw.net 208.172.75.198 1.122 ms
6 bpr1-loopback.AtlantaPaix.cw.net 208.172.66.28 2.077 ms
7 bpr1-so-6-1-0-0.AtlantaPaix.cw.net 208.173.59.6 17.939 ms
8 so-3-1-0.cr2.atl2.us.mfnx.net 208.184.232.25 17.804 ms
9 so-5-3-0.cr1.dca2.us.mfnx.net 208.184.232.49 17.537 ms
10 so-6-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net 208.184.233.126 17.608 ms
11 pos2-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net 216.200.127.10 17.532 ms
12 64.124.112.29.cogentco.com 64.124.112.29 44.038 ms
13 salt.cogentco.com 66.28.0.10 43.845 ms

1 ges1-ethernet.Washington.cw.net 206.24.224.1 1.874 ms
2 acr1-ge-6-3-0.Washington.cw.net 206.24.227.1 0.958 ms
3 pos4-0.per1.iad1.us.mfnx.net 216.200.254.145 1.434 ms
4 so-3-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net 208.185.0.142 1.367 ms
5 pos2-0.mpr1.iad5.us.mfnx.net 216.200.127.10 1.472 ms
6 64.124.112.29.cogentco.com 64.124.112.29 27.949 ms
7 salt.cogentco.com 66.28.0.10 27.900 ms

why? also... why is there an insane jump in latency whenever cogent crosses off the metromedia network onto their own... i've noticed it on all their routes... wierd... because i mean... data that stays within the cogent network (if routed right) is relatively fast (in cases, excellent)... but its the jump over backbones where a huge chunk of latency is added... overusing the feeds to/from metromedia?

The first traceroute I've done at www.tracert.com looks like this:

traceroute to 321host-it.com (66.28.45.9), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 206.224.79.77 (206.224.79.77) 1.047 ms 0.669 ms 1.332 ms
2 aus-bb-S2-1-DS3.iocomcorp.net (206.224.79.37) 1.663 ms 1.832 ms 1.681 ms
3 209-99-107-65.texas.net (209.99.107.65) 2.416 ms 1.955 ms 2.113 ms
4 lc1.gw1.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.1) 2.087 ms 1.781 ms 1.927 ms
5 bb1.gw2.aus1.texas.net (216.166.60.18) 1.893 ms 4.468 ms 4.641 ms
6 67.97.233.149 (67.97.233.149) 8.279 ms 7.332 ms 7.364 ms
7 P3-3.a0.dlls.broadwing.net (216.140.4.13) 7.506 ms 7.289 ms 7.299 ms
8 P0-0-0.p0.dlls.broadwing.net (216.140.4.134) 7.647 ms 8.306 ms 7.429 ms
9 hspr.dallas.tx.ce.us.psi.net (38.7.131.1) 8.665 ms 8.756 ms 8.364 ms
10 sw.peering2.tier1.us.psi.net (154.13.2.108) 49.771 ms 50.301 ms 49.874 ms
11 p5-0.br01.lax10.atlas.psi.net (154.54.1.33) 50.024 ms 49.860 ms 50.322 ms
12 p15-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.1.29) 42.769 ms 44.494 ms 43.278 ms
13 p14-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.74) 55.395 ms 55.212 ms 54.945 ms
14 p4-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.93) 57.039 ms 56.067 ms 54.628 ms
15 g49.ba01.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.5.178) 55.464 ms 57.431 ms 55.344 ms
16 service-66-28-45-9.321host-it.com (66.28.45.9) 55.162 ms 54.884 ms 54.957 ms


They still have plenty of peering agreements through netrail and psi. Btw, they also have peering agreements with above.net (mfnx) so it's not always transit.

Are you paid by someone to bash Cogent?
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66071

For your information DUDE we don't aprechiate bashing here at WHT! :angry:

well i'm seeing the same atm.
my routes to cogent change from time to time, but in the last months my provider (dtag) used direct peering in telehouse NY to cogent, first direct, then a psinet peering, they'r also having a direct peering with netrail which is still in use, and which i can still see on some routes, for example to dv2 :)
but since somedays the route changed again. it's now going through mfn to cogent.
hmm. strange, eh? but maybe it's just temp.

He isn't paid by anyone to bash Cogent, he just wants to convince potential customers of the superiority of his Internap/Exodus bandwidth he's soon going to offer :)

Routing is always dynamic so routes will always change. Generally speaking, the fastest route at any given time is used, so maybe mfn is the fastest available route to you at the moment. This can change anytime and is not negative at all, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Gernot
He isn't paid by anyone to bash Cogent, he just wants to convince potential customers of the superiority of his Internap/Exodus bandwidth he's soon going to offer :)

EXACTLY! And that's called "self-advertisement" and is also strictly forbidden in the non-ad forums...

Time to use that "Report this post to a moderator" feature again...

Originally posted by Gernot
He isn't paid by anyone to bash Cogent, he just wants to convince potential customers of the superiority of his Internap/Exodus bandwidth he's soon going to offer :)

I dont know which is worse.

Originally posted by NocSol
EXACTLY! And that's called "self-advertisement" and is also strictly forbidden in the non-ad forums...

Time to use that "Report this post to a moderator" feature again...
He isn't self-advertising in his post. He's free to express his opinions, ideas, likes, dislikes, or questions as much as he wants to.

I for one had no idea he was going to be selling any type of bandwidth by his post.

i am only bashing them because of my general contempt for cogent... and my contempt comes from me being one of their users... and from all those cogent lovers out there ranting on "you get what you pay for"... ! and from very obvious facts as noted out in my posts... its not like i'm making baseless allegations...

gernot, BGP4 does not use the fastest route... it uses the route with the fewest ASNs... which can be the longest route in the end (exodus uses BGP4 too, but atleast they know how to route, same with all the other tier-1 providers)... but there are clear cases were cogent just doesn't have the peers it used to... wonder why... hmm... internap is the one that developed the 'fastest route' technology... heh...

and why would metromedia be giving away transit for free (via peering)...? i mean, by doing that, they're putting more of a load on their own peering circuits... cogent's load... which puts their own peering at jeopardy... because peering isn't just "hey dude, you're cool, i'll give you free access to my network that i charge $300/Mbps to everybody else"... its more like "dude, i ain't gonna give u free nothin' unless i get atleast as much benefit... u can get a little bit more throughput outa it, but don't overdo it all the time"... ... ...

Originally posted by netdude
i am only bashing them because

EXACTLY! And we don't tolerate bashing here on WHT! If you don't like Cogent then you can say that.. ONCE.

Ohterwise, the same peopl eyou bash will bash you when you try to sell here on WHT and trust me you don't want that ;)

Originally posted by NocSol


EXACTLY! And that's called "self-advertisement" and is also strictly forbidden in the non-ad forums...

Time to use that "Report this post to a moderator" feature again...

And you are defending Cogent because you use it. Is that "self-advertisement" too?

nocsol you sounds kinda silly,

i think its rediculous. Theres one of 2 kinds of people on this board, the people who need affordable low end hosting therefore use cogent or a host of cogent, and defend cogent to their dying day.

And those who dont use cogent, and hate all that it stands for.

Ill be the first to admit i dont care much for cogent. But im not in either of the groups, i offer cogent but dont promote it and ive used cogent. Ill be the first to say from facts that cogent is out there to make money and too make money they employee absurd routing, overselling, and a variety of other technics that lot of companys use. SO does that make cogent bad? No it simply is their product offering, ifyour buying cogent you have no reason to complain, i mean what do you expect for 10-30.00/mbps if they employeed state of the art, fast, redundant routing you think they would still be in business. That being said, i doubt they are in business for the long run, their original business model was to deploy assets in buildings to be used for corporate internet access, their network has been turned into a comodity which is being resold and utilized to 100%. Simply look at the last time they recvd funding.

Large companys have the benifit of staying a float by moving capital around, rearranging expense prioritys, etc etc...

Cogent can stay afloat but it will catch up.

Theres nothing wrong with using cogent, just as theres nothing wrong shopping at kmart. I JUST DONT LIKE MARTHA STUART.

Originally posted by Jedito


And you are defending Cogent because you use it. Is that "self-advertisement" too?

I do not defend Cogent as a priority but I am against BASHING. If he stated his opinion against Cogen ONCE there is a good chance I wouldn't even have replied.

But when a Newbie comes here and openes 2 threads against a provider that keeps 50% of the hosting scene alive then indeed I DO have a problem with that.

Its kinda fun to read that your against Bashing, we you do it in every RS thread.

Originally posted by NocSol


I do not defend Cogent as a priority but I am against BASHING. If he stated his opinion against Cogen ONCE there is a good chance I wouldn't even have replied.

But when a Newbie comes here and openes 2 threads against a provider that keeps 50% of the hosting scene alive then indeed I DO have a problem with that.

Newbie eh? So just cuz he doesn't have many posts he's considered a stupid, insolent person who doesn't know what he's talking about? What gives you the right to call yourself the "GodFather™ of WHT"? Your 1010 angry posts bashing others and making false accusations?

Originally posted by Jedito
Its kinda fun to read that your against Bashing, we you do it in every RS thread.

DID not do ;)

Originally posted by mushrew


Newbie eh? So just cuz he doesn't have many posts he's considered a stupid, insolent person who doesn't know what he's talking about? What gives you the right to call yourself the "GodFather™ of WHT"? Your 1010 angry posts bashing others and making false accusations?

Hey mate, if you have personal feelings for me then PM me or meet me in person ;)

Originally posted by NocSol


EXACTLY! And that's called "self-advertisement" and is also strictly forbidden in the non-ad forums...

Time to use that "Report this post to a moderator" feature again...


And how is this self advertisement when he has nothing to offer?

Are you paid by someone to bash Cogent?

Are you paid to defend them? Seems 80% of your posts on your recent post history is defending cogent. It's his opinion, he's not only allowed to state it once. There is no self advertisement here. Just him stating what he thinks. Just because you don't think the same doesn't mean it's wrong. If you have something to say about what he said, then that's fine. But don't respond with garbage about him being paid to bash Cogent or advertise for his own product.

Ok as I see that there is no professionalism here but envy about my right to have my own title and a 4-digit post count I shall withdraw myself from this thread now.

You people are way too low for me to waste my time on. Bash on fools :)
Don't bother to reply cause I wont.

Originally posted by NocSol
I shall withdraw myself from this thread now.


Thanks. There's other cogent bashing threads out there for you!

Originally posted by NocSol
Ok as I see that there is no professionalism here but envy about my right to have my own title and a 4-digit post count I shall withdraw myself from this thread now.

You people are way too low for me to waste my time on. Bash on fools :)
Don't bother to reply cause I wont.


Haha isn't that what you said last time you left WHT? Came back in less than a week making more angry posts aginst others who are "threatening" your business, except now it's netdude instead of ZDwebhosting.


EDIT: I better go post in every thread now (relevant to my thoughts or not) so i can get my very own 4 digit post count and call myself the Holy Father of WHT.

Envy of What? LOL, you're a funny guy :)

Originally posted by NocSol
Ok as I see that there is no professionalism here but envy about my right to have my own title and a 4-digit post count I shall withdraw myself from this thread now.

You people are way too low for me to waste my time on. Bash on fools :)
Don't bother to reply cause I wont.

WAY TO GO NocSol!! *complete sarcasm*

Although you can't see it, I think you've turned this whole thread into a flame war.

All your posts have bashing in them, YET you tell others that it's against the rules? HELLO? time for a taste of your own medicine...:angry:

and $20 bucks says that NocSol will return...

:stickout

Originally posted by NocSol
You people are way too low for me to waste my time on. Bash on fools :)
Don't bother to reply cause I wont.

Ah yes, we're sorry NocSol please forgive us, almighty GODFATHER OF WHT... WE ARE FOOLS...

Come on guys....can we please not turn this thread into yet another exciting round of 'Let's Bash Nocsol'?

TOO LATE

why does everyone always have to add their stupid comments?
it's about getting ridiculous again.

Originally posted by citrus
TOO LATE

I noticed...:bawling:

Originally posted by BiGWill
why does everyone always have to add their stupid comments?
it's about getting ridiculous again.

why does everyone always have to add their stupid comments?

okay... now about this whole bashing concept... the only things i've posted so far are cold, hard and measurable facts... with maybe some minor commentary... started 2 threads... one was about how cogent's network has very stupid routing resulting in pathetic latency... and the other thread about how cogent seems to be losing all their peering partners... !

cbaker17, there are 3 types... the guys that love 'em cuz they use 'em, the guys that don't use 'em and hate 'em... and don't forget my type: the guys that hate (due to valid reasons) 'em but use 'em cuz they're too cheap or broke to do otherwise... lol (i wonder if there are guys that don't use 'em and love 'em... cuz i know there are for all the other major backbones out there... lol...)

Originally posted by NocSol


I do not defend Cogent as a priority but I am against BASHING. If he stated his opinion against Cogen ONCE there is a good chance I wouldn't even have replied.

But when a Newbie comes here and openes 2 threads against a provider that keeps 50% of the hosting scene alive then indeed I DO have a problem with that.

*all bow down to the mighty nocsol, god of WHT and my personal idol*

*big poster on my wall that reads 'nocsol'... i make human sacrifices to it daily... now where'd my last brother go*

(can ya guys tell i am being sarcastic, i mean, nocsol brands us as all morons, so we must be... so i just had to make sure u guys all knew i was being sarcastic, k? so... just making sure one more time... i am being sarcastic)...


Originally posted by NocSol
Ok as I see that there is no professionalism here but envy about my right to have my own title and a 4-digit post count I shall withdraw myself from this thread now.

You people are way too low for me to waste my time on. Bash on fools :)
Don't bother to reply cause I wont.

Ahh i feel the love now.....

Kum bah yah my lord, kum bah yah...
(Not responsible for spelling)

netdude, are you through making an ass out of yourself? Cogent is consistently growing in peering arrangements, they've just recently moved into canada, and if you track their history, you'd see the growth as nothing short of phenominal. I'm glad you like paying more to get the same thing, i really am, but i've used dozens of other links, namely uunet which has had 5x the downtime of the Cogent link we're on.

It really does look like you're about to throw open some service openings and cant compete with cogent bandwidth pricing, so you're attempting to drag all the hosts who use them through the mud, well it's been done dozens of times, is pretty lame, and just doesent' work.

Anyhow, i've sung my little bit, i'm sorry you dont like cogent, im sorry you despise anyone who can slaughter your pricing, please, have a cookie. :rolleyes:.

hmm... but porcupine the real question is if cogent is so much better then every single other offering out there why is it large corporation dont use them, or for that matter how come any other carrier is still in business.

WHat im getting at is that perhaps you should reevaluate your stance that no one is better then cogent. That seems like a bit of a ignorant comment. Now befor eyou offer me a cookie, please understand cogent is def a viable offering, but id say its a little silly to say they are THE BEST, and that a competitor of yours is wasting their money by spending it on a inferior product.

You should note that cogents routing and internaps routing are 100% on opposite ends of the spectrum. Cogent doesnt have even close to the same routing technology as internap.

Please people can we just hold hands and sing songs...

Originally posted by cbaker17
hmm... but porcupine the real question is if cogent is so much better then every single other offering out there why is it large corporation dont use them, or for that matter how come any other carrier is still in business.

WHat im getting at is that perhaps you should reevaluate your stance that no one is better then cogent. That seems like a bit of a ignorant comment. Now befor eyou offer me a cookie, please understand cogent is def a viable offering, but id say its a little silly to say they are THE BEST, and that a competitor of yours is wasting their money by spending it on a inferior product.

You should note that cogents routing and internaps routing are 100% on opposite ends of the spectrum. Cogent doesnt have even close to the same routing technology as internap.

Please people can we just hold hands and sing songs...

Depends how you define better. People define "best" "better" etc. by a weight of quality, quantitity, value, etc. and Cogent has a great mesh of all of those. Are they the most reliable in the world? doubtfull, are they the fastest? not too likely, do they provide a good quality service at a great price? Try to beat it.

I am by no way trying to say they're the best carrier in the world, or life is a "one size fits all" scenario, because its just not true, im trying to say any dork who comes on WHT and tries to imply why he has the right to hate and bash cogent and anyone who uses them is ... well a dork :D.

lol... cogent is growing in peering agreements? i dunno if you even know what you're talking about... lately, more and more routes have been going through metromedia... even all the routes posted in the other thread are through metromedia... although gernot did hunt down a few through actual peers for this thread, there still aren't all that many...

and their backbone, well, lets not even get into their routing in this thread... just look at the other one... moving into canada by buying one ISP doesn't nessecarily mean they are better dude... why doesn't ebay use cogent? yahoo? american airlines? google? overture? i mean... they use hundreds if not thousands of megabits per month, and they are spending a fortune on exodus and internap/etc... if cogent is so great, why wouldn't they cut their bandwidth expenses to a fraction...? they are in a profit crunch afterall (which may explain why yahoo has actually added a feed from level3, but still uses exodus as primary)... if they can add a company like level3, i am sure they can add cogent, right?

i find it quite amazing that uunet has had more downtime... which feed are you talking about... because on fixed orbit, you are shown to only have a cogent route... no uunet listed on there... (http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgiip.exe?Machine=www.prioritycolocation.com&submit=Search) your website nor your pricing reflects any uunet routes neither... and my ISP has a direct uunet feed, when i do a traceroute, it still goes through cogent... under BGP routing guidelines, it should be going over UUNet... because that'd result in the fewest ASNs being crossed...

o... fyi, i have tracked their history... i was one of their first clients in Washington, DC... their network was excellent back then... peering with everybody... then i got a uunet feed via <err... trying to think of name, on west coast, went under, errr, gave unlimited transfer, died because of too rapid expansion, not profitability>... and dropped cogent because uunet was still better in my opinion, back then... then i went to applied theory and paid $550/month per 10Mbps... on their backbone... and then went to ardent communications and got a hella good deal on 100Mbps links... then ardent screwed me over and kicked pricing up more than 10x... and i lost almost all my clients... then i went to a place in chicago because i had virtually no clients left (i gave 'em refunds and helped them find other hosts)... ... ... i even still keep in touch with my cogent sales rep... and even he says their network sucks... lol... but its cheap... lol... he left cogent recently and started working for a cali datacenter selling off bandwidth... they do cogent and verio outa there...


Originally posted by porcupine
netdude, are you through making an ass out of yourself? Cogent is consistently growing in peering arrangements, they've just recently moved into canada, and if you track their history, you'd see the growth as nothing short of phenominal. I'm glad you like paying more to get the same thing, i really am, but i've used dozens of other links, namely uunet which has had 5x the downtime of the Cogent link we're on.

It really does look like you're about to throw open some service openings and cant compete with cogent bandwidth pricing, so you're attempting to drag all the hosts who use them through the mud, well it's been done dozens of times, is pretty lame, and just doesent' work.

Anyhow, i've sung my little bit, i'm sorry you dont like cogent, im sorry you despise anyone who can slaughter your pricing, please, have a cookie. :rolleyes:.

HEY WHATS WRONG WITH BEING A DORK,

im a dork too... I love being dorky, exp in this industry if your not a bit of a nut, i would have been dead oh about 3 years ago :)

Heh stress, the tech killer...

Netdude, when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Where did i state our network is bgp4 laced with uunet bandwidth? Please point this out to me because i know my fingers sometimes move before my brain does, but i'd need to give them a slap if this were the case.

A year ago Cogent had 2-4 peering points, now they have 10x that, i'd call that growth. Most of those major players could throw cogent into their feeds and bgp4 it if they were cost concerned, at no risk to themselves, and suffer nothing but SAVINGS, but clearly most of them aren't.

I've dealt with a few private lines, fractional t1's and up which have had relatively signifigant downtime (almost 2% some months).

If cogent sucks so bad, why do you feel so threatened by them? why do you keep starting threads about your clear hate for cogent? Give it a rest and find something more productive to do with your time, then starting echo threadson here that we've all heard a thousand times.

Originally posted by netdude
... i even still keep in touch with my cogent sales rep... and even he says their network sucks... lol... but its cheap... lol... he left cogent recently and started working for a cali datacenter selling off bandwidth... they do cogent and verio outa there...



You don't happen to mean Rick R.? Oh and the history you've provided really sounds like the history of thecoolhost.com. You don't happen to be affiliated with them (or are you the owner?)?

Just as a side note, InterNap and Cogent aren't direct competitors because Internap's business is built around extremely high quality which comes at a cost though whereas Cogent's is built around affordability.

Yes, InterNap and also Exodus do have better networks, better routing policies more peering partners et al. Otherwise it wouldn't justify the high price at all. In fact I think that InterNap has got a smart business plan, but the only doubt I have is who, apart from the big corporations you named, is willing to pay that much for a few (maybe in some cases hundred) milliseconds less latency? All those big companies just choose the big players because they look better on their press releases and they need their websites to appear fast at all times. Some of them have followed this course till they've gone broken lol

Granted, Cogent's network is poor compared to other Tier 1's or Internap. That doesn't matter though because it still works. And it works extraordinarily well considering the price.

porcupine & NocSol, who do you use for BW? Cogent maybe?

Originally posted by citrus
and $20 bucks says that NocSol will return...

:stickout

$30

looks fun :eek:

eBay's viability... how will they ever survive?!

:-)

As for Cogent, their bandwidth is not high quality bandwidth, but it's bandwidth. The price fits there bandwidth and that is all that can be said. Because there are many cheapskates out there, Cogent will survive.

eBay's viability... how will they ever survive?! Probably due to their profitability :)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Probably due to their profitability :)

No kidding. :)

Depends how you define better. People define "best" "better" etc. by a weight of quality, quantitity, value, etc. and Cogent has a great mesh of all of those. Are they the most reliable in the world? doubtfull, are they the fastest? not too likely, do they provide a good quality service at a great price? Try to beat it.

For some reason people only associate quality with price. Sometimes that is true, but a lot of times high price does not always mean quality.

It sounds like everyones opinion is not based on a lot of hard facts, it is whatever they can scrape together while looking in from the outside. Unless you can actually provide hard data to prove that cogent is using less peering and that their downtime is a lot and so forth then it is all hear-say. NO your traceroutes wont do.

Okay, can I ask a question?

Why is Cogent so bad? I see alot of posts on this board saying they're the devil and alot of posts saying that the posts saying they're the devil are just jealous but none of them present hard evidence. i.e. downtime, long periods of higher than normal latency within the network, etc etc etc...

We all know (or we should at least) that a traceroute is pretty much worthless unless you compare over a long period of time. Due to the flux in the internet as a whole, routes are subject to change all the time.

I've asked this question before and what I got was a "Thier business plan sucks."

I responded to the person who sent me that true work of literary art that it was the kind of information I'd been looking for. I asked for him to send me a copy of thier business plan.

"I don't have it."

"But you said it sucked. Surely you have a copy of it," I replied.

"No. I've never seen the actual business plan. I just know what they do and it sucks."

Obviously someone who has tremendous business insight and could be making literaly billions of dollars a year consulting...

So.... does anyone have anything real? Something I can look at and say, "Oh yea, that sucks."

I am neither pro or con cogent. I'm seriously considering purchasing bandwidth from them and would like to get some real, factual data. I've toured thier facility here in Kansas City and it didn't look so bad. I've talked to a couple of thier customers here and they have good things to say (because they're hoping I'll just buy thier resold cogent bw) and of course there's Cogent themselves... I'd be supprised if they'd say anything bad. :)

Aaron

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58706

I know that offered a pretty good discussion on the same thing....you might check that one out. :)

Some routes don't change.

The difference between cogentco and a good backbone is this:

cogent: * * *
good host: 53ms 73ms 74ms

For some reason people only associate quality with price. Sometimes that is true, but a lot of times high price does not always mean quality. This is true, but in Cogent's case you do get what you pay for. Again, Cogent is still a new network and they have a long way to go to be a true ISP bandwidth provider. Cogent is better suited for use as Internet access for larger business where latency is really not an issue.It sounds like everyones opinion is not based on a lot of hard facts, it is whatever they can scrape together while looking in from the outside. Unless you can actually provide hard data to prove that cogent is using less peering and that their downtime is a lot and so forth then it is all hear-say. NO your traceroutes wont do.Well, there are lots of "known" hard facts. We know who they peer with, how their network is constructed, etc. and trace routes are valid.Why is Cogent so bad? I see alot of posts on this board saying they're the devil and alot of posts saying that the posts saying they're the devil are just jealous but none of them present hard evidence. i.e. downtime, long periods of higher than normal latency within the network, etc etc etc... Have you used Cogent? There are lots of "real" users here who show and experience the latency on Cogent's network.We all know (or we should at least) that a traceroute is pretty much worthless unless you compare over a long period of time. Due to the flux in the internet as a whole, routes are subject to change all the time. How is that?Why is Cogent so bad? I see alot of posts on this board saying they're the devil and alot of posts saying that the posts saying they're the devil are just jealous but none of them present hard evidence. i.e. downtime, long periods of higher than normal latency within the network, etc etc etc... Again, Cogent DOES have routing & peering problems. They will be corrected with time, but as for now these problems due exist.I've asked this question before and what I got was a "Thier business plan sucks." You can pretty much see what their business plan is by reading any interviews that the company has done in the past.

Really, what you see here are a couple of things.
1. There are people here who use only Cogent or their business depends on Cogent to survive. They will tell you "Cogent is great and there are no problems with Cogent" They will never acknowledge the problems with Cogent that do exist.
2. You have the people who have never used Cogent, and say Cogent is horrible.
3. People who have both, quality bandwidth and Cogent, who will tell you that Cogent is not horrible but that there are indeed serious problems with Cogent's network.

My suggestion is to do what ever you want to do and not worry about anyone else's opinion are. If Cogent works for you, then great! In our experience, we have used both and for "real world" hosting applications Cogent is just not a good choice. As of right now, there are just too many routing and peering issues.

Hope that helps!

just another interesting traceroute ... this time, showing how cogent isn't coordinating their peering at all... why the hell aren't traceroutes valid again?

traceroute to fdcservers.net (66.28.242.138), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 209.53.12.254 (209.53.12.254) 12.626 ms 12.520 ms 12.577 ms
2 209.53.75.198 (209.53.75.198) 13.261 ms 12.470 ms 12.747 ms
3 nwmrbc01br01.bb.telus.com (204.174.217.39) 13.057 ms 12.994 ms 13.064 ms
4 sttlwa01br02.bb.telus.com (209.53.75.178) 17.125 ms 16.825 ms 17.554 ms
5 pos3-0.mpr1.sea1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.69) 16.718 ms 16.673 ms 16.771 ms
6 so-5-2-0.cr2.sea1.us.mfnx.net (208.185.175.182) 17.279 ms 16.893 ms 17.106 ms
7 so-5-1-0.cr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net (216.200.127.65) 84.954 ms 84.412 ms 84.934 ms
8 208.185.0.246 (208.185.0.246) 84.634 ms 84.724 ms 84.919 ms
9 so-2-0-0.pr1.lga4.us.mfnx.net (64.124.232.6) 84.690 ms 85.545 ms 84.692 ms
10 64.124.51.186.cogentco.com (64.124.51.186) 140.997 ms 140.684 ms 141.039 ms
11 p15-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.14) 141.010 ms 140.994 ms 140.767 ms
12 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 167.076 ms 166.511 ms 166.751 ms
13 g50.ba02.b000268-0.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.66.78) 169.021 ms 166.641 ms 167.284 ms
14 Datacenter.demarc.cogentco.com (66.28.21.82) 166.822 ms 166.629 ms 168.131 ms
15 66.28.242.138 (66.28.242.138) 166.966 ms 166.689 ms 168.178 ms

now remember, this is from west coast to central, should not be more than 70ms...
------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedito


According to http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=21161&&pageID=2

Schaeffer said that they'll profitable some time in 2004.

What will be first? profit or bankrupt? :)

For what it worth my opinion, I hope that they go down as soon as possible, I think that they prices are hurting the industry

Schaeffer is their CEO... ... ... my response to 'hurting the industry' remark... yes, they are bloody hurting the industry... why? because the web hosts out there using connections from quality providers are finding it a bit harder to compete with companies that are using this cut-rate cheapo bull****... its like me building you a house with hollow walls... i mean, if i put a thin layer of concrete (which was just barely strong enough to support the structure) around a shell, you as a consumer won't know the difference between that and a house made of quality materials... sure if someone took the time to look into the construction (say a traceroute in our case), they could see the obvious bull**** of the construction... but for the average home buyer, they can't tell the difference between a nice quality house and a cheapo 'made-to-look-nice' house... and with the buyer not knowing any better than the price tag, they go for the cheap one... probably regret it later, but they've already got the cheap one... and the builder that made the quality house? hes just screwed... because he won't bend his ethics to make something cheap (provide poorer quality service without clearly noting it to the end user)...

i mean... for all you webhosts that brag about having a full 100Mbps connection or whatever on your websites... i dare you to also post the backbone grading results from Boardwatch on your site... the results which clearly show cogent as being one of the worst if not the worst backbone provider around... eh? be honest to the consumer...

netdude: The example with the house doesn't hold up. Eventually the owner of the house would have increased expenses because the material wasn't good enough. If you use Cogent you just stop using them if you don't like them and use another provider. Of course more expensive but you have saved quite a lot of money until that happens.

thats not the point... look at it from the prespective of a service provider that uses quality bandwidth... they just lost a sale because they aren't going to bend their 'quality rules'... they have respect for themselves and their clients and have limits to what they'd do to make an extra buck...

consumer side: consider the increased expenses as decreased visitors due to a sluggish website... (example: shortnews.com, i love that site but its hosted overseas and is painfully slow... if i found another website that had the same content but was fast, i switch yesterday)... and for a consumer, they can't just change... because they have so much work required in changing hosts or dedicated server providers/etc/etc/etc... a real pain especially for heavily dynamic websites with owners that aren't 200% technically knowledgeable... i mean... PHP/CGI/etc they can do blindfolded... but server management is a somewhat different ball game...

So, you're trying to say that hosting companies who use Cogent betray their customers because they don't say 'Our network is crap, please go with netdude's InterNap/Exodus hosting'?
And once the poor customers notice the incredible difference (up to 100ms!) they can't switch to a quality provider anymore because they're forced to stay because they can't change a once built house either.

I must say that this is an excellent theory.

unless it comes to gaming or some other stuff where latency is very important, cogent's network fits well for hosting! (true, if you want to be really reliable, you should get a backup in place) you won't really feel the difference between a website which has 150ms against one which just has 80ms

Originally posted by BiGWill
unless it comes to gaming or some other stuff where latency is very important, cogent's network fits well for hosting! (true, if you want to be really reliable, you should get a backup in place) you won't really feel the difference between a website which has 150ms against one which just has 80ms

Entering in commands via Telnet/SSH with 300ms of latency isn't very fun.

that's something different. i talked of websites, not of telnet/ssh sessions. but that's right, yeah, though again, i didn't spoke of 300ms, and i'm sure that's not normal with cogent (atleast normally everythings ok, i get about 120-160ms to the US on Cogent)

i find these cogents posts amusing so I did some reading on their 2001 fileings:

http://sec.freeedgar.com/displayHTML.asp?ID=1815608

Lets get into the profits and losses:

In 2001 cogent:

made: $3,018,000
spent: $64,112,000

net loss: $66,913,000
net loss per share: $64.78

Contractual Cash Obligations: $584,805,000

Other interesting stuff:

Metromedia Fiber Networks (MFN) and Other Telecommunications Companies. One of our suppliers of metropolitan fiber optic facilities, MFN, has announced that it may file for bankruptcy in April 2002. This would impact our operations mostly by decreasing our ability to add new metropolitan fiber rings from MFN and our ability to add new buildings to existing MFN rings. However, as we have other providers of metropolitan fiber optic facilities we do not anticipate a significant impact on our operations from MFN's bankruptcy.


Interest expense increased to $7.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2001 from $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2000. The increase in interest expense results from an increase in borrowings in 2001 partially offset by a reduction in interest rates and an increase in capitalized interest. Interest expense relates to interest charged on Cogent's borrowing on its vendor financing facility and its capital lease agreements. Cogent began borrowing under its credit facility with Cisco

Since inception, we have primarily funded our operations and capital expenditures through private equity financing, long-term debt, and equipment financing arrangements. As of December 31, 2001, we have raised $177.0 million of private equity funding, obtained a credit facility for borrowings of up to $409.0 million and have capital lease obligations outstanding at December 31, 2001 of approximately $21.1 million. Our current cash and cash equivalents position and short-term investments totaling $50.8 million are an additional source of our liquidity.

"We are an early-stage company in an unproven industry, and if we do not grow rapidly and obtain additional capital we will not succeed. "

"We have historically incurred operating losses and we expect our losses to continue for the foreseeable future. "

As of December 31, 2001, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the issuance of $62.0 million of our Series C Preferred Stock, the impact of the amendment to our credit facility, the settlement and termination of certain of the capital leases and maintenance obligations of our subsidiary Allied Riser, and Cogent's acquisition of certain assets of NetRail, we had $237.0 million of outstanding long-term indebtedness, and additional borrowing capacity, subject to covenant compliance, of $228.0 million under the October 2001 Cogent credit facility. This amount becomes available on a schedule defined in the agreement. Our high level of indebtedness will have consequences on our operations.

"We may be unable to successfully complete or expand our network"

"Our rights to the use of the dark fiber that make up our network may be affected by the financial health of our fiber providers. "

"Our business plan cannot succeed unless we continue to obtain and maintain license agreements with building owners and managers. "

ohh btw did you know cogent dosen't own a single building.....it rents space out of every building...hmm.

- Now I do not hate cogent as I think it is a cheap way to provide bandwidth and it makes my ummm...memberships cheaper :) . But I'd like to see some of these cogent praisers like prioritycolocation put their money where their mouth is. If you believe cogent is good enough for your customers then it should be good enough for you. So I challenge one of you to buy $5,000-$10,000 of cogent stock and hold on to it as long as you sell servers with cogent bandwidth.

once the average consumer notices, some may just not know any better and think thats just how it is when getting a service and not being a "corporate customer"... and stick around for that... i never said to tell them to go with me and internap+exodus... i dared u guys to post some standardized benchmark results on your website... give a consumer a nice clear view of what they're getting themselves into

heh

additionally... u know what its like to move servers/etc... if i offered you exodus+internap bandwidth at $50/Mbps (which i guess u could consider comparable to cogent, n u could buy it incrementally)... wouldn't u even think of moving for the better backbone? but could u? not nessecarily... all that money invested in an infrastructure... etc/etc/etc... just a pain in the @$$ to move... eh?

Originally posted by Gernot
So, you're trying to say that hosting companies who use Cogent betray their customers because they don't say 'Our network is crap, please go with netdude's InterNap/Exodus hosting'?
And once the poor customers notice the incredible difference (up to 100ms!) they can't switch to a quality provider anymore because they're forced to stay because they can't change a once built house either.

I must say that this is an excellent theory.

oh... another thing i noticed in one of those news articles... i posted earlier...

they mentioned how cogent's target market, business that want to use a megabit or two for the $1000/Month service... well, they mentioned how that market can so much more easily be covered by the DSL services already in place... and DSL costs way less than $1000/month + for their use, it wouldn't make a difference on having the high bandwidth... the only guys that'd really want the $1000/month stuff are those that want to use that high amount of bandwidth... and those guys, well, they don't make it all so profitable for cogent... heh

Originally posted by WII-Aaron
Okay, can I ask a question?

Why is Cogent so bad? I see alot of posts on this board saying they're the devil and alot of posts saying that the posts saying they're the devil are just jealous but none of them present hard evidence. i.e. downtime, long periods of higher than normal latency within the network, etc etc etc...

We all know (or we should at least) that a traceroute is pretty much worthless unless you compare over a long period of time. Due to the flux in the internet as a whole, routes are subject to change all the time.

I've asked this question before and what I got was a "Thier business plan sucks."

I responded to the person who sent me that true work of literary art that it was the kind of information I'd been looking for. I asked for him to send me a copy of thier business plan.

"I don't have it."

"But you said it sucked. Surely you have a copy of it," I replied.

"No. I've never seen the actual business plan. I just know what they do and it sucks."

Obviously someone who has tremendous business insight and could be making literaly billions of dollars a year consulting...

So.... does anyone have anything real? Something I can look at and say, "Oh yea, that sucks."

I am neither pro or con cogent. I'm seriously considering purchasing bandwidth from them and would like to get some real, factual data. I've toured thier facility here in Kansas City and it didn't look so bad. I've talked to a couple of thier customers here and they have good things to say (because they're hoping I'll just buy thier resold cogent bw) and of course there's Cogent themselves... I'd be supprised if they'd say anything bad. :)

Aaron

well I happen to be a few of those people that think cogent bandwidth sucks as a main line carrier for a host, but they would be a great backup carrier.

also I think there business plan is great. it make money ( not a ton ) but it still makes them money.

I also understand how to read a balance sheet and read between the lines. one o fhte most important things is that there credit rating is still very good

Mike

dude... where did you find cogent's credit rating? i been searching for it everywhere...

i was not fully aware of their financial status (only their network status from a technical standpoint)... but after reviewing those financial figures, it puts a larger cloud over cogent's head in my mind...

just noticed at the top of that SEC document "Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share"... hahahaha... i find that funny... probably means nothing... but just looks damn funny... lol... to add to that, March 25, 2002 (not all that long ago if you think about it), cogent = $3.41/share... now=$1.18/share... oh yeah baby, i put a strong buy on that...

As said, these statements are from 2001 hence outdated. More recent statements look much better.

Regarding the stock price: Just look at other telecommunication companies' stocks. Most of them have lost a lot. For example let's take Exodus' parent company Cable and Wireless: Slitghtly over $8.5 / share on April 30 and now it's gone down to $6.95 oh yeah baby, i put a strong buy on that

look at it from a percentage of company value prespective... 66% vs what, 15% drop?

now... http://sec.freeedgar.com/displayHTML.asp?ID=1872089 = last quarter submitted to the SEC... quarter ending march 31, 2002...

lets see... heh...
service revenue = 3.542 million
operating expenses = 20.226 million
operating loss = 16.684 million
net loss applicable to common stock = 17.959 million (they lucky that allied riser merger brought in 5 million, otherwise it would have been 22.487 million; same figure exactly a year ago in 2001: 12.794 million)

now... how is losing 17.959 million better than losing 12.794 million!?!?!?! just give it... ... ...how long ya figure 'till they turn a profit?

as for exodus/c&w... i can't find financial statements on the SEC ... showing income/etc... but i am guessing they are doing better overall than cogent... lol

Oh it gets even funnier if we continue the game. -31% from Feb 13 to today. -60% from Aug 13 2001 to today. I don't even want to post the figures if we compare C&W's stock price today to that of 2 years ago. Every telecommunications company's stock has gone down a lot the last few years. That's not unique to Cogent.

Yes, I do think that these figures are quite good for a start-up in such a difficult economic situation. They haven't been selling their services for much more than a year. And a net loss of $17m / quarter is something Level3 for example can only dream of.

blah blah blah blah this crap about cogent is really annoying its just like saying freebsd is more secure than linux (we all know it is so shut up about it) and vise versa .. XXX backbone is better than cogent yea we know so what stop making all these pointless posts about it .... they probably never made a profit probably never will who cares if you buy stock in them then your a dumb ass otherwise dont worry about it... into bankruptcy they go and there back to normal operation again..

the debate here isn't about cogent's backbone... that was the other thread... this thread is about their business viability...

as for level3 vs cogent, financial standpoint... level3 atleast owns their fiber, cogent on the other hand leases pretty much ALL of it... level3 = owns, cogent = borrows... that would explain why cogent's loss is so little... but still a growing loss...

but you still haven't explained how the 2002 results are better than the 2001... with the higher loss... as you so promptly pointed out earlier (that they were better)...

btw... stock prices... we aren't talking 2 years ago... we're talking 4 months or so ago... :P then again, we are not talking about the actual dollar figures but rather the ratio of present to former stock values... compared between companies... to get a comparison of how the companies are handling the economic downturn... catch my drift?

found some c&w data... http://www1.cw.com/resources/15/15312.pdf

k... now... *grabs a calculator*

c&w made 8.453 billion, overall loss of 7.191 billion (after taxation)... if cogent were to be comparable, they'd have to make 3.542 million and lose ONLY 3.013 million... but they lost over 17.959 million... about 5.960 times the amount that would have made them comparable to c&w... so... financially, i guess that just might equate to cogent being roughtly 5.960 times worse than c&w... eh? lol

so don't bother bringing up C&W... got another one? i have all night, just got laid, all hyped up... ready to do some calculatin'!

take note: they were very profitable the previous 4 years... just not 2002 because of the telecom financial crunch... can cogent claim ever being profitable?

Oh so the economic downturn started 6 months ago when Cogent entered the stock market? Right.

Oh and you're funny posting Cogent's financial results of quarter 1 2001. They built up their network at that time, didn't sell anything and invested their money in infrastructure. Yes, the operating expenses are lower then lol And if you don't sell anything the operating expenses are pretty much equal to your net loss.

the last stats i posted were from q1 2002... long after they had built their network... they started in 99... had over a thousand customers in q2, 2001... the other guy posted 2001 figures, i posted 2002... :P

*grabs a calculator* losing over $7billion in one year after earning $4billion in the last year is quite good, right. They must be doing something right, I guess.
Btw, the telecom crunch didn't start in 2002.

Originally posted by netdude

net loss applicable to common stock = 17.959 million (they lucky that allied riser merger brought in 5 million, otherwise it would have been 22.487 million; same figure exactly a year ago in 2001: 12.794 million)

now... how is losing 17.959 million better than losing 12.794 million!?!?!?! just give it... ... ...how long ya figure 'till they turn a profit?



I was referring to that.

those figures are 2002...

http://sec.freeedgar.com/displayHTML.asp?ID=1872089

Originally posted by netdude
the last stats i posted were from q1 2002... long after they had built their network... they started in 99... had over a thousand customers in q2, 2001... the other guy posted 2001 figures, i posted 2002... :P

No they had over 3000 customers then. The problem was that these were just signed contracts and their buildings weren't lit, so these customers didn't pay anything at that time.

oops... my bad... my 19" monitor runs at 1600x1280... i didn't realize it was a 3 instead of a 1... it is 3:30AM afterall... a wee bit drowsy.... but totally awake if u know what i mean... lol... kinda tired out... ex girlfriend ... she made me work out on her *wink wink*... lol

Originally posted by netdude
dude... where did you find cogent's credit rating? i been searching for it everywhere...

i was not fully aware of their financial status (only their network status from a technical standpoint)... but after reviewing those financial figures, it puts a larger cloud over cogent's head in my mind...

just noticed at the top of that SEC document "Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share"... hahahaha... i find that funny... probably means nothing... but just looks damn funny... lol... to add to that, March 25, 2002 (not all that long ago if you think about it), cogent = $3.41/share... now=$1.18/share... oh yeah baby, i put a strong buy on that...

1) to find the credit quality of a firm you have to buy that information or be a credit / money broker.

2) WHat is posted on the SEC edgar databases is not the same that is sent to the IRS ( bet you did not know that )

3) profits or losses to the balance sheet have very little meaning in the entire picture, what you have to do is nit pick the thing apart, utill it begs for mercy. then you will find the truer profit or loss. ( I took MS balance sheet apart once and discovered that they moving foward some earning ( like what GE does ) to smooth thier earning pitures.

well I'll talk to you all later

Mike

1) where can i buy the credit rating information?
2) i assume its a crime to submit data to the SEC thats too far off the real figures, especially with the way dot-comz are being probed now-adays...
3) i know, the figures don't always mean everything... but they do give a representation on whether the company is making/growing enough to come out of debt n have a grin...

cogent's business model is essentially flawed... their target client (office business users that don't use much bandwidth) has a much more viable and worthwhile (cheaper and easier/faster to provision) solution: DSL...

if dsl was the solution then psinet wouldnt of went bankrupt which cogent owns now.. and should use some of the backbone they built..

Originally posted by netdude
1) where can i buy the credit rating information?
2) i assume its a crime to submit data to the SEC thats too far off the real figures, especially with the way dot-comz are being probed now-adays...
3) i know, the figures don't always mean everything... but they do give a representation on whether the company is making/growing enough to come out of debt n have a grin...

cogent's business model is essentially flawed... their target client (office business users that don't use much bandwidth) has a much more viable and worthwhile (cheaper and easier/faster to provision) solution: DSL...

1) Knowing the credit risk of a firm is one of the ways I make good money on shorting stocks. I not saying where I buy the info. but it's out there. it cost 12K a month for the top 4000 actively traded stocks with 50 million in sale or more.

2) I wonder if it is a crime? look at the gatt accounting and it's way off from what you report to the IRS. Spend $250 and take a community college course about accounting and taxes. then get ready to spend about $500 in books for self teaching. after that you will be able to "understand" the general concept of the balance sheet and the tricks. then one day you'll wake up with the realization that EBITA MEANS NOTHING ( did not realize that until 1991 and had spent already many years reading balance sheet ). and thaat buying a stock with a PE of 200 is no different than buying a stock with a PE of 3. the rules change once you get real good at understanding the accounting tricks and what is offbalancesheet. Best balance sheet to read is GE's, well documented and a very effective paper trail to learn from. but the problem with ge's balance sheet is understanding what is off sheet and they have billions in sales, so they don't have to report small 5 million dollar transactions or even 50 million.

3) oh the numbers mean something, but it's better to run your own numbers against them.

All this that I'm talking about I learned from hedge funds I delt with in the 80's. they have thier own number crunchers. one of the better hedge funds that I delt with even hired highschool girls to write thier purchasing habits for a month. so they could get a feel of what stores were better than others.

as for the cogent flaw. I don't think you spent enough time researching them. there target is a building that will generate about 38 - 44 new clients over 2 years, that's why they are real careful about which buildings they tell you about. more buildings they have the more you know what there expected future margins are. Also read some of the interviews of the company staff, gather the data then sit and corrilate it.

as I stated before, cogent is good as a backup carrier to you main network, but not as the primary one. so make sure your bgp is set up properly

Mike


Mike

i don't doubt your knowledge... but i ask again, where could i buy credit rating information? i mean... cogent would not reach the top 4000 tech business mark, so theres no point in even mentioning this $12k/month access... so... where would this credit rating info be available? because you so keenly seem to have it... maybe a screenshot (can blank out personal parts) of the source of your info?

i just find it hard to believe any tech company has a positive credit rating unless they're profitable or have been profitable in the near past... or even have a hope of being profitable...

as far as their target market... the only buildings with ~45 clients is them are those that are using it for 'wholesale' use... and these clients aren't using the cogent feed in the best interests of cogent... (using the actual capacity as opposed to using a few megabits)... in that news article posted earlier about the employees that left cogent, even they confirmed rumors that cogent was only getting 2-5 people per building... and that DSL was beating them because it was more economical for the client... and provisioning was much faster and cheaper...

more to my point.

1) no I'm not telling you where I get my information, I buy it. I depend on having keen insights before the rest of the market does norder to scalp a steady profit. have a custom report generated ( only cost about $ 150 - $200 ) from one of the many internet firms that also do credit watching.

2) in newark, where I am, you got gateway center ( over 100 firms there ) and 744 broad ( 200 companies + there ) plus they are in the equinix carrier hotel building about 2 block away.

3) to have a positive credit rating you have to pay your bills on time, have some cash handy, and keep the lending markets well informed.

funny, enron had a good credit risk until about 60 day before the news broke. they went from about 80 - 125 basis point risk to 600 - 800 basis point risk ( over LIBOR )


Mike

so name just 1 source of credit rating information that ain't as good as the others... that provides data not in realtime but rather outdated data maybe a few months old... just something that would give us just 1 good reason to believe cogent has a good credit rating... i don't mind spending a few hundred bucks to get a good chuckle...

it's not my job to teach you but here is a start

http://www.businesscreditusa.com/tab_report1.asp?abinumber=571539097&si=38728408111120&VendorID=200000

the quick and dirty for general information, the cheapest way to start estimating certain non public details or to confirm balance sheet info in relation to legal suits pending.

after that your on your own. and again I don't disclose where I get my info. I buy it like everyone else ( and no I don't buy it from Moody's, S&P, or Fitch agency's, but those are also good source of information )

Mike

you're right, its not your job to teach me...

ok, so i've got that credit report now... and it shows a rating of "70 (C)"... the lowest possible until they just declare it "unknown"... how is that good? (as you so clearly stated in your previous post)... i mean... i could understand B and A as being good... but C?

so we've noted that cogent's target market seeks a much more economical and viable alternative, their network is crap, they have a generally poor credit rating and they are losing more and more money lately... what more is there that we can clear up?

damn am i gonna get myself pissed drunk in joy the day cogent goes under... haha... i can just see soo many hosts scrambling for an alternative (heh, i know the feelin'... screwed my business over...)...

Just some info some people might want to know

Share of Capacity on the 20 Largest U.S. Internet Routes, 2002
WorldCom 29%
Qwest
8%
Cogent
7%
Level 3
7%
Genuity
6%
Sprint
6%
France Telecom
5%
XO
5%
AT&T
4%
Cable & Wireless
4%


http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/281FEAT1.html

Originally posted by ClusterMania
Share of Capacity on the 20 Largest U.S. Internet Routes, 2002
What exactly do those numbers mean?

Yeah, what exactly do those numbers mean?

yucky world com!!!!!

yeah dude... i have a hard time believing cogent is larger than XO or C&W or AT&T or Sprint or Genuity in ANY way...

i mean, i saw the URL and all... but... i have a hard time believing those stats at all...

Originally posted by allera

What exactly do those numbers mean?

from reading the link. I would guess that the numbers dictate lit fiber on operation and use. but not all the fiber laid out .

but I find it hard to think that verio has less than cogent. but doing so weird math here:

cogent : all the transit pipes are oc 48, or oc 192's nothing smaller. they bought up a lot of fiber and lit it in thier MAN rings ( sonet I think they call it also ) the transport pipes that they have I don't know much about. but to beat out some of the other players all they had to do what to purchase a few pipes and turn them on.


Mike

i still think that C&W, AT&T, XO and Sprint would have a lot more fiber lit than cogent... hmm... they don't really speak of how they came up with these figures... hmm

Originally posted by ClusterMania
Just some info some people might want to know

Share of Capacity on the 20 Largest U.S. Internet Routes, 2002
WorldCom 29%
Qwest
8%
Cogent
7%
Level 3
7%
Genuity
6%
Sprint
6%
France Telecom
5%
XO
5%
AT&T
4%
Cable & Wireless
4%


http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/281FEAT1.html

I dunno what they are trying to say here. I know that cogent dosen't handle more internet traffic then CW or AT&T or XO. They don't have a bigger backbone and they don't have a larger user base. So who made up this study because they sure didn't get the facts straight. Call up one of the companies listed and ask them who handleds the most internet traffic. They'll say worldcom, then CW, and then qwest.


P.S. the last 3 backbones listed xo, cw, and at&t have the fastest backbones in the U.S. This is from boardwatch and keynote, 2 companies that know what they are talking about.

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2101_1121761

Originally posted by dk2

Call up one of the companies listed and ask them who handleds the most internet traffic. They'll say worldcom, then CW, and then qwest.


No, they would say that their company handles most internet traffic.

I do believe these numbers because Cogent has grown a lot at the cost of the other carriers.

Oh and regarding the credit rating. I've taken a look at the credit rating you posted and I saw that C(70) is still Good. Quite impressive considering all the people who've been saying they'd go under in no time. And I don't think many of these carriers have a credit rating better than C. Worldcom for sure not :D

That table was also published on ISP-Planet.com - just think to yourself how Worldcom got to be the size they are... by the huge buyouts of other companies. Cogent have spent a lot in buying other companies out. I can believe that table myself.

C&W - last summer they were sat on £6 billion cash surplus - they saw ahead and sold a lot of consumer businesses at the height of the dot.com bubble. They have also reduced staff in line with the industry they are in. Of all the companies C&W are looking pretty good to me - although Exodus was a gamble we'll see soon if it's going to start making a profit at some point.

but cogent didn't buy those companies for their networks... they couldn't care less about the networks... all they wanted were the peering arrangements... heh

gernot... the way cogent is running right now (greater and greater deficit per quarter)... they're going down... and that 'C' marked as good... well... lemme put it to you this way... these ratings are made in the best interests of the banking community in general... now... if a company has say a 200 million dollar loan from the bank... now the bank wants this company to do as well as possible because they want to get their money back... so they make the lowest possible rating before "unknown" (i am guessing when the bank has kinda given up on the company totally), 'good'... hoping that other investors would also dump in some cash... hopefully making the company grow just enough to recover a bit of that 200 million...

additionally, if they've put in that 200 million, they'd want the company to be around as long as possible to get every last interest payment possible outa 'em... giving them the highest rating possible to increase market confidence...

for example... C&W... they've actually turned a profit... and for example: the profits of their past is more than enough to cover the deficit of the latest fiscal year... as for exodus, they still have the best network which is paying off because the remaining companies are trying to atleast get performance out of the telecom market as there aren't many ISPs that are truly stable... atleast exodus has a stable owner... heh

Originally posted by netdude
gernot... the way cogent is running right now (greater and greater deficit per quarter)... they're going down... and that 'C' marked as good... well... lemme put it to you this way... these ratings are made in the best interests of the banking community in general... now... if a company has say a 200 million dollar loan from the bank... now the bank wants this company to do as well as possible because they want to get their money back... so they make the lowest possible rating before "unknown" (i am guessing when the bank has kinda given up on the company totally), 'good'... hoping that other investors would also dump in some cash... hopefully making the company grow just enough to recover a bit of that 200 million...

additionally, if they've put in that 200 million, they'd want the company to be around as long as possible to get every last interest payment possible outa 'em... giving them the highest rating possible to increase market confidence...

for example... C&W... they've actually turned a profit... and for example: the profits of their past is more than enough to cover the deficit of the latest fiscal year... as for exodus, they still have the best network which is paying off because the remaining companies are trying to atleast get performance out of the telecom market as there aren't many ISPs that are truly stable... atleast exodus has a stable owner... heh

You're basically saying that the credit rating says nothing then. The banks always give their clients a good credit rating because it's in their interest. Now, that's another great theory :)

Oh and would you mind sharing the reports from which you have the information that Cogent's deficit is growing each quarter?

Cogent Stuff for 2002

Total Assets: $394,182,000
Total Liabilities: $290,264,000

Net Loss: $17,959,000

Total contractual obligations: $793,133,000

They are still loosing $17 mil a year, hmm.

No, that's a loss of $17m for the first quarter, not for the entire year.

But it's good to see that the total asstes outway the total liabilities. Before they go broken this would have to change significantly :)

liabilities didn't include on contracts the owe on which is contractual obligations which includes the loans they have taken. 793 + 290 = $1,083,000,000 in liabilities.

Not to be offensive to anybody here, has anybody sat down and read their web site. taken a few notes. then corrilated the data to the president's interviews and a few analysit reports. Then did there own number crunching.

I trade the stcok ( long and short ) because of it's high beta, but also because I have a belief that if they make it past the next 6 quarter they become a very viable company.

run a what if on your spread sheets on what might happen by october 2003 to march 2004 just adding 4 building per month ( you'll find thier goal of revenue per building figures in one of the presidents interviews and he's done about 6 to major industry magazines ).

the trick to cogent is thier cash flow, the higher it get's the long term paydown of debit is easy ( debit payment is a liability on the sheet and a direct hit on the earnings ). so you can have negative earning but still be profitable as long as you cashflow hold. by the way those months above are my magic number dates for them to be at low to break even on there earnings.


Mike

The only thing Cogent really has to worry about IMHO (above any other carrier nowdays, i mean lets face it, all carriers are risky ventures nowdays) is bad publicity. So many people are saying bad stuff about cogent, and so many other carriers are trying to intimidate them and hurt them, thats what i'd perceive to be their biggest threat right now, and the impacts of that on their employee morale :(.

What employees, oh you mean the 150 or so they have?

lol

Let me guess, you are a CEO of a similarly sized company and it's your expert oppinion that Cogent is understaffed...? :cartman: :D

lol :D

and dk2, considering the number of pop's, customers, etc. whats wrong with 150 employee's if that is indeed the number they have? Compare it with somewhere like say rackshack, which im sure doesen't even have 2x that (if im wrong, so be it, correct me), yet has around what? 200,000 customers (estimating) between them and their parent company ev1 (again, probably wrong, just something i pulled from nowhere).

Less employees doesn't always mean worse. I am sure everyone has heard of WD40 and I heard they only have 25 employees.

If you can be more productive with less people then you can be more competitive any pay less in salaries. I am sure network technicians make a ton of money each year. These guys are making more than doctors.

Originally posted by porcupine
lol :D

and dk2, considering the number of pop's, customers, etc. whats wrong with 150 employee's if that is indeed the number they have? Compare it with somewhere like say rackshack, which im sure doesen't even have 2x that (if im wrong, so be it, correct me), yet has around what? 200,000 customers (estimating) between them and their parent company ev1 (again, probably wrong, just something i pulled from nowhere).

300 employees yet there's only one, by the name of Patrick, that actually does anything....

Cogent has released their new quarterly results. According to them their revenues have grown from $3.5million in the first quarter 2002 to almost $18.6million in the second quarter. Net loss has slightly increased to $24.5 million. They still have over $71million of cash right now. In October they will get fresh cash thanks to a credit facility of Cisco.

These numbers look promising. They could increase their revenues by over 530% in one quarter.

Yes, Cogent is doing extraordinarily well in this difficult economic situation. They will be around for quite a while :)

dude... got a URL for this place where u got the figures? i always post URLs for where i get info... :P

No problem, here you go (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1158324/000091205702032124/a2087073z10-q.htm)

ahh... quite impressed i must admit... :) curious a ~3x jump in one quarter... heh... will definately have to see how this all pans out... heh... must admit... this makes me quite anxious for next quarter's report... lol

curious how their assets can outweigh their reported liabilities if they've never ever even come close to turning a profit...? (i am assuming one would have to make some money to pay off their debt/liabilities, which would in turn bring those down... but cogent has never made a nickel...)

? i ask not to point this out but rather cuz i simply don't get it... does it make sense?

also wondering if their threat of raising rates may have been a marketing ploy to get people (those 'undecided' people) to sign up...?

Actually it's a x5 jump not x3 :)

Oh and another interesting fact is that while they had revenues of $18.6 million, their network expenses (transit, maintenance etc) were only $16million.

don't forget the interest payments on their huge debt

lol

and can't forget administration/etc... i just thought of that 16 mill figure myself too... but if cogent cut all their staff, would the network run itself even tho technically it'd be at a profit? nope... lol

and the network itself ain't paid off so can't forget the interest...

I just wanted to point out that their network is cash-flow positive. Interest payments are a different pair of shoes and most of these interests are paid by Cisco's credit facility for the time being.
Their debts aren't that huge, considering that they have time until 2008 (they start in 2005) to pay back what Cisco gave them :) Plenty enough time to become profitable and they're on the way to achieve that goal.

yes, I just wanted to make it clear that their network does not create such a big deficit as everyone used to say. I know that there're of course other expenses without which the network wouldn't run. But I think that this is an interesting fact which shows that they can indeed make money with their offers.

its easy for cogents assets to outweigh their liabilities. If you go to the bank, borrow $10,000, then drive around on the street until you find someone who got themself into debt and neesd a quick $10,000 or they loose their knee caps, and suddenly you just grabbed a new mercedes benz (assuming its not stolen of course), then voila, you turned no profit, but your assets outweigh your liabilities.

Thats basically what Cogent's been doing, with plenty of networking stuff :).

(and yes, this can happen, happened to me years back with a few legit pc's, granted i was not "driving around on the street with 10k in my pocket").

:D.

did anybody notice that the float has increased ?

mike

:eek:

Originally posted by ADEhost
did anybody notice that the float has increased ?

mike

It has because the mergers with Allied Riser and PSI gave them quite a lot of extra cash, so they have more cash now than in June 2001 and also more than at the beginning of this year. These mergers were a really smart moves of them, as it seems :)

Maybe I'm not reading this right but here it goes.

Total contractual obligations: $833,067,000

Services revenue: $22,120,000
Operayting Expenses: $54,326,000
Operating Loss: $32,206,000
Total Net loss: $42,530,000

Originally posted by dk2
Maybe I'm not reading this right but here it goes.

Total contractual obligations: $833,067,000

Services revenue: $22,120,000
Operayting Expenses: $54,326,000
Operating Loss: $32,206,000
Total Net loss: $42,530,000

Yes, you aren't reading this right. These are the figures for the six months ended June 30, we're just talking about the second quarter here (=3 months ended June 30).