Your opinions on Cogent bandwidth - GoFuckYourself.com

Daft · 07-12-2002, 04:35 PM

I am currently being hosted at reliablehosting.com (xxxwebhosting.com) and they are using Cogent bandwidth. I heard some rumours that this is cheap bandwidth and is slower than others and that they might go out of business. Is this true? I'm currently being offered from another host BGP4 routing through Qwest, AT&T, and Verio at the same price. Does it really make a difference in the bandwidth i use? Should i stay or should i move?

Your opinions wanted, thanks!

the Shemp · 07-12-2002, 04:39 PM

Its fine for galleries.

shemp

Lightning · 07-12-2002, 04:51 PM

Do yourself a favor and search for cogent here with the search option. But to summize it all for you, Yes cogent is cheap bandwidth, which is marginally acceptable (for now) for galleries. Not many real players will even consider it for any important sites. Also yes their days are numbered, and their service, speed and prices are getting worse everyday.

yys · 07-12-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daft
I'm currently being offered from another host BGP4 routing through Qwest, AT&T, and Verio at the same price.

Your opinions wanted, thanks!

If your being offered this kind of bandwidth for the same price your paying now go for it; that is if the company offering you the deal is reputable and offers you tech support and such that is comparable too what your receiving from your current host.

ServerGenius · 07-12-2002, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yys

If your being offered this kind of bandwidth for the same price your paying now go for it; that is if the company offering you the deal is reputable and offers you tech support and such that is comparable too what your receiving from your current host.

I just love how people use Border Gateway Protocol routing
as a marketing term....it's so damn funny....

You should ask them how if they use weighted AS paths and if
so let them tell you to which ones.....I bet they route you through
the cheapest and have the expensive ones for backup only...

DynaMite

Fletch XXX · 07-12-2002, 05:42 PM

I host tons of pages and domains on http://cologroup.com

which is Cogent, and anyone is more than welcome to surf my portfolio, which is entirely on Cogent, tell me its slow? Bullshit.

example.

http://hotcherryboy.com/sex-galleries/free-twinks/

The only people who bash Cogent are people who dont use it.

Its fine for me and what I do.

ServerGenius · 07-12-2002, 05:45 PM

I agree cogent's strategy is volume.....better sell capacity with
very low margin than selling at high margin and only sell a bit.
just look how many carrier companies die....can't keep their
network up......I think Cogent is going to make and I'm quite sure
more companies will follow their business model.

DynaMite

pr0 · 07-12-2002, 05:48 PM

I run my linklist on cogent bandwidth & its fucking exploding. Never have an issue with speed.

www.candidlinks.com

www.pr0.net

Tell me that shit loads slow.....bullshit

I could pay 10$ & host it on a so called "HIGH END" provider...but i can tell no difference, so fuck it. Saving a dollar is saving a dollar.

Fletch XXX · 07-12-2002, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pr0

Tell me that shit loads slow.....bullshit

Am i hearing an echo?

yys · 07-12-2002, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

I just love how people use Border Gateway Protocol routing
as a marketing term....it's so damn funny....

You should ask them how if they use weighted AS paths and if
so let them tell you to which ones.....I bet they route you through
the cheapest and have the expensive ones for backup only...

DynaMite

I just tested a few of my domains and what do you know; 3 different tier 1's showed up. I'm sure some companies use it as ploy too lure customers though.

ServerGenius · 07-12-2002, 05:59 PM

hehehe trust me they do....it's so funny....they think hey cool
term...BGP4 sounds expensive....let's use it in a banner

Aks people who use the term BGP4 how it works.....9 out of 10
come with a complete bullshit story

DynaMite

Daft · 07-12-2002, 06:05 PM

Yup i do mainly TGP galleries, hehe Shemp you know...

Anyway the other offer was from Likewhoa hosting. I don't know anything about their service & support but i hear much praise about this company. Don't get me wrong, i'm very satisified with my service as xxxwebhosting, i just think i'm paying too much for Cogent bandwidth. Well thanks for the input people, i'll probably just stay with my current host at least for a few more months and try to talk them down in price..

Chimper · 07-12-2002, 06:23 PM

Hey Fletch XXX,
What kind of sites do you have with http://cologroup.com. I am looking to launch a paysite on a different host than I use now. Can Colo handle that kind of traffic and is there people that I can call if there is a problem. I had a host once and I could never get ahold of anyone on the phone and it would take weeks for a return e-mail.

Fletch XXX · 07-12-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimper
Hey Fletch XXX,
What kind of sites do you have with http://cologroup.com. I am looking to launch a paysite on a different host than I use now. Can Colo handle that kind of traffic and is there people that I can call if there is a problem. I had a host once and I could never get ahold of anyone on the phone and it would take weeks for a return e-mail.

Jason from http://cologroup.com answers my icqs within minutes and also takes care of me.

I can only imagine he would work with you and your needs the same.

Give him a shout and he can take care of you much better than I.... I just do my thing, and he hosts me.

I also use Webair too, so know one here can just say I know Cogent, I know the difference between Webair and Colo...

Contact Jason: 152811524/cologroup

Chimper · 07-12-2002, 06:31 PM

I am going to hook up with them tonight.

Thankx for your two cents Fletch.

whoreans · 07-12-2002, 06:55 PM

cogent gonna go out of business soon... they already bankrupt :P

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 08:52 PM

Lets assume that over backbones, nothing staying in NYC will take more than 2ms (can be verified from any good backbone).
For example... If something takes 20ms, that means it takes 10 times longer...
From NYC -> NYC (over ALGX)
We go through chicago.
Cost of performance, approx 30ms. (15 times more lag)
3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 0.980 ms 1.380 ms 0.783 ms
4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.825 ms 0.826 ms 0.653 ms
5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 26.679 ms 26.841 ms 27.251 ms
6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.668 ms 26.613 ms 26.663 ms
7 206.220.243.179 (206.220.243.179) 30.461 ms 30.532 ms 30.374 ms
8 ord2-core3-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.97) 30.799 ms 30.670 ms 30.743 ms
9 ord2-core2-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.93) 31.042 ms 30.749 ms 31.641 ms
10 jfk3-core2-pos5-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.37) 30.782 ms 31.699 ms 30.250 ms
11 jfk3-core4-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.166) 30.670 ms 30.711 ms 30.282 ms

From NYC -> NYC (over ATT)
We go through California!
cost of performance, approx 74 ms. (37 times more lag)
3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.879 ms 0.902 ms 0.790 ms
4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 2.469 ms 0.757 ms 0.746 ms
5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 6.863 ms 7.177 ms 7.829 ms
6 p14-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.125) 18.803 ms 18.852 ms 18.374 ms
7 p15-0.core01.jax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.137) 25.960 ms 24.961 ms 24.687 ms
8 p14-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.141) 30.290 ms 29.679 ms 29.699 ms
9 p5-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.45) 49.415 ms 49.313 ms 49.364 ms
10 p14-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.6) 80.513 ms 80.003 ms 80.182 ms
11 p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77) 83.459 ms 82.451 ms 82.814 ms
12 p6-0.br01.lax10.atlas.psi.net (154.54.1.30) 82.618 ms 82.598 ms 82.722 ms
13 p4-0.sw.peering2.tier1.psi.net (154.54.1.34) 82.405 ms 82.607 ms 82.724 ms
14 nw.peering.tier1.us.psi.net (154.13.2.106) 92.831 ms 92.762 ms 92.725 ms
15 154.13.74.2 (154.13.74.2) 85.746 ms 85.726 ms 85.753 ms
16 gbr3-p50.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.66) 86.496 ms 85.722 ms 85.765 ms
17 gbr3-p20.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.2.154) 100.680 ms 101.007 ms 100.956 ms
18 gbr3-p30.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.2.174) 140.906 ms 139.790 ms 140.116 ms
19 gbr1-p100.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.1.150) 140.302 ms 140.184 ms 139.986 ms
20 ar10-a300s1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.0.217) 140.503 ms 141.644 ms 140.618 ms

From NYC -> NYC (over Cable And Wireless - CW)
We go through California!
cost of performance, 163ms! (81.5 times more lag)
3 g3-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.29) 0.957 ms 0.890 ms 0.835 ms
4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.812 ms 0.700 ms 0.720 ms
5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 26.700 ms 26.755 ms 26.613 ms
6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.882 ms 26.717 ms 27.076 ms
7 p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.42) 72.462 ms 72.842 ms 72.502 ms
8 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 72.581 ms 72.487 ms 72.527 ms
9 p6-0.tr1.sfr1.netrail.net (66.28.28.58) 72.782 ms 73.411 ms 72.730 ms
10 ge-2-2-0--0.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.2) 72.860 ms 73.353 ms 73.134 ms
11 205.215.2.86 (205.215.2.86) 73.119 ms 73.502 ms 73.089 ms
12 agr1-loopback.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.146.101) 76.436 ms 76.603 ms 76.657 ms
13 dcr1-so-6-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.37) 76.204 ms 76.114 ms 75.911 ms
14 dcr2-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.100) 163.998 ms 165.480 ms 164.017 ms
15 agr1-so-6-0-0.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.194) 165.858 ms 165.150 ms 165.611 ms
16 bar15-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.32) 165.417 ms * 164.357 ms

From NYC -> NYC (over qwest)
We go through Atlanta.
cost of performance, 40ms. (20 times more lag)
3 g3-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.29) 1.073 ms 0.935 ms 1.039 ms
4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 0.840 ms 0.778 ms 0.757 ms
5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 6.906 ms 7.038 ms 7.109 ms
6 p14-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.125) 18.703 ms 18.736 ms 18.428 ms
7 g3-0.pr1.atl01.netrail.net (66.28.28.202) 18.496 ms 18.909 ms 18.261 ms
8 205.215.2.54 (205.215.2.54) 18.564 ms 18.250 ms 18.259 ms
9 atl-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.21.105) 18.610 ms 18.491 ms 18.964 ms
10 wdc-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.241) 33.598 ms 33.690 ms 33.601 ms
11 wdc-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.24.5) 33.884 ms 33.833 ms 33.811 ms
12 jfk-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.233) 42.495 ms 42.716 ms 42.517 ms
13 jfk-edge-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.30.90) 42.581 ms 42.630 ms 43.144 ms

From NYC -> NYC (over Level3)
We go through California!
Cost of performance, 150ms. (75 times more lag)
3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.186 ms 10.128 ms 1.202 ms
4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.751 ms 1.244 ms 1.278 ms
5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 27.873 ms 26.879 ms 26.831 ms
6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.737 ms 26.752 ms 26.903 ms
7 p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.42) 75.616 ms 72.649 ms 72.365 ms
8 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 72.528 ms 72.515 ms 72.607 ms
9 p6-0.tr1.sfr1.netrail.net (66.28.28.58) 72.970 ms 72.964 ms 72.795 ms
10 ge-2-2-0--0.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.2) 73.003 ms 72.932 ms 73.362 ms
11 pos4-0.edge1.paix-sjo1.Level3.net (209.245.146.177) 72.972 ms 73.430 ms 73.134 ms
12 unknown.Level3.net (209.245.146.181) 74.013 ms 74.680 ms 73.406 ms
13 ae0-52.mp2.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.33) 74.341 ms 74.269 ms 75.063 ms
14 so-2-0-0.mp2.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.1.85) 150.261 ms 150.842 ms 150.377 ms

From NYC -> NYC (over UUnet)
We go through Chicago.
Cost of performance 39ms (20 times more lag)
3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.084 ms 1.647 ms 0.756 ms
4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 0.907 ms 0.766 ms 0.727 ms
5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 7.219 ms 6.843 ms 25.148 ms
6 p6-0.br01.dca01.atlas.psi.net (154.54.1.62) 6.603 ms 6.525 ms 6.876 ms
7 p6-0.se.peering.tier1.psi.net (154.54.1.78) 7.929 ms 7.719 ms 7.976 ms
8 nc.peering.tier1.us.psi.net (154.13.2.67) 43.608 ms 44.330 ms 43.543 ms
9 204.255.168.217 (204.255.168.217) 36.496 ms 36.371 ms 36.737 ms
10 0.so-5-2-0.XL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.68.6) 36.525 ms 36.551 ms 36.538 ms
11 0.so-1-0-0.TL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.67.121) 37.394 ms 36.808 ms 37.090 ms
12 129.at-6-0-0.TR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.110) 38.596 ms 38.892 ms 38.859 ms
13 0.so-1-0-0.XL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.23.130) 38.631 ms 38.513 ms 38.550 ms
14 0.so-0-0-0.XR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.89) 39.453 ms 39.463 ms 41.040 ms
15 180.ATM7-0.XR2.EWR1.ALTER.NET (152.63.17.241) 38.745 ms 45.038 ms 38.897 ms
16 192.ATM7-0.GW6.EWR1.ALTER.NET (152.63.24.185) 41.844 ms 39.384 ms 39.301 ms

Now, some people who run their businesses on cogent will say "Well, it depends on where on cogent's network you are, my city is better!" Believe it all you want, but cogent's routing is so backwards, that I've seen situations where you could be in california, tracing to california over one of the networks above that go through california, and now it will go through a peering point in virginia.

Others will say... "Well, My sites are fast", to you, perhaps... But certainly not to everyone. If you believe cogent cares about *ANYTHING* more than "cheapest route", you are highly mistaken. If it will cost them $0.0001 more to send your packet through a good route, they wont.

I think I covered every major network on here, and every single one has a much worse route than what you would call quality. For surfing, yeah, this is probably good enough, but I wouldn't be caught dead trusting my business to this.

FrankyW · 07-12-2002, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by whoreans
cogent gonna go out of business soon... they already bankrupt :P

That's actually hitting it right on the money. Many so-called hosting companies that resell Cogent, have done a very decent job in convincing customers that Cogent is not that bad. Well, let's take a look at the facts on the table.

Financially, Cogent is in shit. Aside from the fact that the business model is completely not targetted towards hosting companies, but more of wiring up offices across the nation (fast, cheap internet connectivity) which essentially would create pull traffic, that allows hosting companies to peer, hence drive the price down, hence somewhat meet the price per megabit Cogent is desperately trying to set as a standard.

Here is your problem. To accomplish cornering of ANY market, forget Telco, you need a company with clear direction (good management) and most importantly LOTS of money. Both of which Cogent lacks.

Now only does the company have a market cap of only $4 million with stock price down 40-50% in the last 60 days alone, they also don't have any revenues to report. At 20k per Gig-E line, how many of those do you think people need across the country? Say 50 (which is a very large number), that's $1 million per month. That's 12 million per year. Add that number to another 100 regular 100mbit links, and you have another 12 million per year or so. That's 24 million dollars per year, and we are talking about VERY GOOD averages. With the current economy state, I can assure you not many people are buying gigabits. And not many dot-busts need bandwidth anymore.

Now lets examine their financials using Netscape.net (Ticker Symbol: COI)
http://thomsoninvest.netscape.com/cg...r=COI&type=fin

Their return on capital is -21.4%, revenues total ONLY 3 million per year, cost of goods sold $17million, which leads to a very interesting gross profit of only NEGATIVE 14 million dollars. Their volume today was a whopping 600. With an earnings per share of -$64.77, especially on a stock that costs $1.25, they are for sure extremely profitable.. to a negative point! Great! But nearly everybody out there thinks they just got a magically cheap way of delivering bandwidth on the net. The stock is now at 1.25, leading a company to a market cap of roughly 4 million dollars. With Cisco's $200 million dollar investment, you are talking about selling the company about 50 times over, just to get the investment back. Not in today's economy.

Get on the technical issue, and you have an even more interesting picture. Because Cogent's business plan is striving for more pull traffic, hence ability to more extensively peer, they push every possible bit allowed through PUBLIC exchange points, which are so full of traffic, your quality sinks.

I can go on and on, but it's really pointless. For more reading on Cogent, check out:
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=9136
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=15263

That is all

Frank ;-)

Pornwolf · 07-12-2002, 09:02 PM

These are some of the most different explanations on the difference in cogent b/w. You guys should get together with the Sin Talk dude & write a book!

mariuz · 07-12-2002, 09:22 PM

From Light Reading Yesterday:

Margalit [back to the notebook]: Finally, with service providers, we do believe something good will come out of all this shakeup. When something is dying, it's hard to call it healthy. But in a long-term perspective it will be healthy. These companies have real assets, but the capital structure ? the debt, versus equity versus this versus that ? and the business structure ? that of trying to be all things to all people ? that's just not going to hold.

So with companies like Cogent Communications Inc., you want to think, in an industry that will finally get back to sanity, it has a chance at coming back and providing an alternative to incumbents in that area where they have been the weakest ? data services.

Light Reading: Speaking of insanity and Cogent, most everyone we talk to doesn't get it at all ? they have this huge amount of debt.

Margalit: I don't think so. Cogent has, like $100 million in the bank; they have a major arrangement with Cisco.

Light Reading: They have a bunch of vendor financing.

Margalit: But in a way that makes a lot of sense in terms of implementing the network. Cogent is addressing that last part of the last mile ? connecting the buildings to the network. Once you're in the building, you get customers. The issue is getting into the building. We're seeing how difficult that is. But we're getting it done.

And they have the lowest operating cost of a network. Any network that we load onto our network ? the amount of savings that we have because of the ingenuity of our network is unbelievable. A lot of the cost for carriers is just maintenance of, and overhead of, running the network. It's amazing how much cheaper running a pure data network over Ethernet really is. We need to build up the revenue and utilize ? besides the end users in the buildings ? we need to really utilize our network.

After buying PSINet Inc., we have probably the second-best peering agreement in the U.S. It's very healthy from a financial point of view. Cogent is going to be EBITDA positive in 2003. The devil's in the details. But it's a very healthy model.

A lot of people say, you did a reverse merger and you bought Allied Riser, and is it really worth it? We have a public stock, but we all hold preferred stock. That was just the vehicle to get ahold of some major assets. We're not building up so that the stock price can, all of a sudden, shoot up. We have a different strategy. When you have like 3 percent of the company on float, it's still like a private company. We're managing this company for 2003 and 2004. That's when we think it will have scale and profitability. We think that right now is the time to build out and gather assets and get revenues.

mariuz · 07-12-2002, 09:31 PM

Just to be fair here

Lets look at how much the others are losing this year:
Remember these are all negative:
Level3 -$4.6 Billion
Sprint -$1.2 Billion
Qwest -$4.7 Billion
Williams -$3.8 Billion

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mariuz
From Light Reading Yesterday:

After buying PSINet Inc., we have probably the second-best peering agreement in the U.S. It's very healthy from a financial point of view. Cogent is going to be EBITDA positive in 2003. The devil's in the details. But it's a very healthy model.

Are you mad?
second-best peering agreements in the US?

Yeah, and Hyundai's are better than Mercedes too.

I think the expression used to be "Fast, Reliable, Cheap -- Pick any two". With Cogent, it's "Pick any one, and the last one."

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mariuz
Just to be fair here

Lets look at how much the others are losing this year:
Remember these are all negative:
Level3 -$4.6 Billion
Sprint -$1.2 Billion
Qwest -$4.7 Billion
Williams -$3.8 Billion

Yes, but in terms of network quality, the only network with a comparable network to cogent is Williams. All the others are far better quality.

mariuz · 07-12-2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by posh rat in hell

Are you mad?
second-best peering agreements in the US?

Yeah, and Hyundai's are better than Mercedes too.

I think the expression used to be "Fast, Reliable, Cheap -- Pick any two". With Cogent, it's "Pick any one, and the last one."

Heh
Im not mad

Im just cutting and pasting

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mariuz

Heh
Im not mad

Im just cutting and pasting

Ok, but please tell me you don't honestly believe that cogent has anything that even resembles the 2nd best network.

If you want to compare it to other backbones, the only backbone I would say that is WORSE than cogent, is williams.

mariuz · 07-12-2002, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by posh rat in hell

Ok, but please tell me you don't honestly believe that cogent has anything that even resembles the 2nd best network.

If you want to compare it to other backbones, the only backbone I would say that is WORSE than cogent, is williams.

Im not believing anything,just pasting someone elses words.

But if you want my opinion.

Yes i can beleive it when the others cost 3 times as much.
The bang for your buck factor is off the scale.

Your selling PORN here.
Surfers beat off the same on Level3 as they do on Cogent.
Just appears that Cogent is attracting alot more whack sessions lately.

hyper · 07-12-2002, 09:42 PM

yeah but warren buffet didnt buy into cogent
he bought into level 3

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mariuz

Im not believing anything,just pasting someone elses words.

But if you want my opinion.

Yes i can beleive it when the others cost 3 times as much.
The bang for your buck factor is off the scale.

Your selling PORN here.
Surfers beat off the same on Level3 as they do on Cogent.
Just appears that Cogent is attracting alot more whack sessions lately.

First of all, if you are buying in any sort of volume, you can get quality bandwidth either at or near the same pricing. Second of all, "It's only porn"? Come on, if it's what puts money in your wallet, and food on the table, it isnt "only porn", its "Porn!", and you should treat it like any business should.

Brad Mitchell · 07-12-2002, 11:08 PM

Shit... it looks like it was okay that I was out of the office today!

Christ, I don't care anymore. No, I don't sell Cogent bandwidth... but I'll tell you what, if it was available in my location I would sell it just to shut everyone up

Ciao

Brad

toddler · 07-12-2002, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DynaSpain

I just love how people use Border Gateway Protocol routing
as a marketing term....it's so damn funny....

You should ask them how if they use weighted AS paths and if
so let them tell you to which ones.....I bet they route you through
the cheapest and have the expensive ones for backup only...

DynaMite

that is,after all, standard practice, at least for the people who don't know to check.

posh rat in hell · 07-12-2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toddler

that is,after all, standard practice, at least for the people who don't know to check.

Keep in mind, sometimes weighted as-paths are a good thing.
Sometimes just because a path is shorter, doesnt mean it's better. If an ISP optimizes routes based on the actual shortest path (in terms of latency), would that not be better? Of course it would! as-path is a pretty arbitrary piece of information, and you can use many other metrics to weight it into better routing.

I doubt there's more than a couple of hosts out there who do that, but I know of at least one ;)

cough cough (see sig)

pr0 · 07-13-2002, 01:04 AM

Well whatever happens with cogent...i hope that they are actually able to bring down the prices of bandwidth.

A little competition is always good for bringing down prices & providing better shit for customers

Honeyslut · 07-14-2002, 05:42 PM

Are you sure Xxxwebhosting is on cogent ? Their prices are not cheap . I have a virtual account with them that works better than my cogent cheap server with another company.

Honeyslut · 07-14-2002, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimper
Hey Fletch XXX,
What kind of sites do you have with http://cologroup.com. I am looking to launch a paysite on a different host than I use now. Can Colo handle that kind of traffic and is there people that I can call if there is a problem. I had a host once and I could never get ahold of anyone on the phone and it would take weeks for a return e-mail.

Good luck talking XXX down. I have had a virtual with them for 2 1/2 years and I emailed them this last week regarding a better price on a server.

NO REPLY on a price ! LOL

FATPad · 07-14-2002, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FrankyW

Here is your problem. To accomplish cornering of ANY market, forget Telco, you need a company with clear direction (good management) and most importantly LOTS of money. Both of which Cogent lacks.

You're nuts.

Cogent will be around long after most of the people on this board are out of business.

Cogent is backed by Cisco. They have tons of money.

Anyone who loaned Cogent money to get off the ground was well aware of the fact that it would be a few years until they saw anything resembling a profitable company. The people around here who are judging Cogent's future based on sales for this year are not the type of people or companies who put money into Cogent.

Cogent's not going anywhere.

toddler · 07-14-2002, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by posh rat in hell

Keep in mind, sometimes weighted as-paths are a good thing.
Sometimes just because a path is shorter, doesnt mean it's better. If an ISP optimizes routes based on the actual shortest path (in terms of latency), would that not be better? Of course it would! as-path is a pretty arbitrary piece of information, and you can use many other metrics to weight it into better routing.

I doubt there's more than a couple of hosts out there who do that, but I know of at least one ;)

cough cough (see sig)

agreed

btw, nice site, content wise. your site loads WAY slow for me, but that may be me. servics are on the level with what we offered at my last company, thought the website never really go that across...sigh

FlyingIguana · 07-14-2002, 06:52 PM

just because cisco invested in it doesn't mean they will continue to pump money into it. they may eventually cut their losses and move on.

Daft · 07-14-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Honeyslut
Are you sure Xxxwebhosting is on cogent ? Their prices are not cheap . I have a virtual account with them that works better than my cogent cheap server with another company.

Tracing route to xxxwebhosting.com [216.131.81.1]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 9 ms 7 ms 10.66.192.1
2 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms cgowave-0-181.cgocable.net [24.226.0.181]
3 7 ms 32 ms 7 ms cgowave-busy-core.cgocable.net [24.226.1.1]
4 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms h66-244-223-225.bigpipeinc.com [66.244.223.225]
5 12 ms 8 ms 9 ms rc2sh-ge10-0.mt.shawcable.net [66.163.66.17]
6 21 ms 18 ms 20 ms rc1ch-pos1-1.il.shawcable.net [66.163.76.69]
7 21 ms 18 ms 22 ms 206.220.243.177
8 66 ms 71 ms 68 ms p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.42]
9 67 ms 66 ms 65 ms g7.ba21.b003070-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.5.250]
10 69 ms 65 ms 67 ms gige-4-0-0.sfca01.california.net [66.28.20.242]
11 68 ms 66 ms 71 ms exchng-1.ph8.reliablehosting.com [216.131.81.1]

Trace complete.

Yup they are on Cogent.

mariuz · 07-14-2002, 07:06 PM

cheking out ballonbucks
http://www.balloonfetishsex.com/

Loads reeeeely slow

cyberpunk · 07-14-2002, 10:34 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FATPad
[B]

You're nuts.

Cogent will be around long after most of the people on this board are out of business.

Cogent is backed by Cisco. They have tons of money

and....

Microsoft jsut put a few 100 M into Wcom

pimpshost · 07-14-2002, 11:57 PM

Wow, I am not going to get into the Cogent pissing war, but I can say, Reliabile Hosting/xxxwebhosting charges more than any other Cogent provider. If you are hosting with them, you are being ripped off.

Anyone who is with them, give me a call and I will cut your costs in half, guaranteed

AdultWire · 07-15-2002, 12:53 AM

I have said it a thousand times.. Network latency is NOT the sole measure of general network performance. In fact, web browsers are designed to compensate for latency issues by opening multiple persistant connections to download a web page.

Sysyphus · 07-15-2002, 01:26 AM

I'm just curious how many of you who are bashing Cogent have actually hosted on Cogent, or know anything first hand about them (not what you've been fed by hosting companies using more expensive bandwidth.) Like mariuz said, people are going to jerk off to your shit no matter what bandwidth you're using. Do you put banners on your site saying "WE USE 100% TEIR 1 VERIO BANDWIDTH"? Fuck no. Why? Because you're members could give a fuck. The majority of your members probably don't even know what the word bandwidth means in this context. Here is my guess at what 99% of porn surfers know how to do with their computer:

1. Turn computer on
2. Wait for memory parity test to complete
3. Wait for Windows 98 SE to load
4. Click on the AOL icon
5. Giggle when the guy says "You've got mail!"
6. Delete several spam emails
7. Close the bedroom door and make sure mom and dad / girlfriend / boyfriend are asleep / out
8. Masturbate to Tokyo Midget Bukkake video clips
9. Ejaculate
10. Wipe jizz off mouse (woops)
11. Play Everquest

Notice, not one though about latency or hops, or milliseconds. I think people should spend less time paying any attention to the bandwidth provider myths and bullshit and worry about important things like hot wings and boobies.

FATPad · 07-15-2002, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
just because cisco invested in it doesn't mean they will continue to pump money into it. they may eventually cut their losses and move on.

All depends on what sort of timeframe Cisco went into the Cogent venture with.

Cisco was created in 1999. They didn't invoice their first customer for revenue until April, 2001. 6 months later, Cisco upped their credit arrangement with Cogent from $310M to $409M, an increase of $99 million.

Doesn't sound to me like Cisco had any short term plans for Cogent.

Obviously, if 10 years from now, Cogent is still doing shitty, it will be a failure, but no one here knows what sort of timeline Cogent is operating on. But I can guarantee you, they are not being judged by their creditors on their sales for this year or last year. For all anyone here knows, Cogent could be ahead of schedule as far as it's investors are concerned.

No one who invested in Cogent was looking for a return less than a year after Cogent was able to start invoicing customers.

ServerGenius · 07-15-2002, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdultWire
I have said it a thousand times.. Network latency is NOT the sole measure of general network performance. In fact, web browsers are designed to compensate for latency issues by opening multiple persistant connections to download a web page.

Agreed trace and ping result just give an indication there are
several tricks you pull with this....like giving icmp packets a higher
priority...which will make the trace/ping look a bit faster... and
don't forget if you're pinging you sending 32byte packets...which
is next to nothing.

Better way to test is open port 9 (discard) on some box login
on another box and send a bunch of tcp packets the other way
rangin from small to very large....check that...then send as much
tcp packets the other way in order to measure throughput.

Run this test from several different networks if you are testing
for hosting then outgoing from the box you want to test is most
important ofcourse...(asynchronous) but once you're at it I would
test both directions..

a nice tool to run this test with is called testtcp search for it on
google...if you can't find it hit me I have the source of it somewhere.

DynaMite

FrankyW · 07-15-2002, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
just because cisco invested in it doesn't mean they will continue to pump money into it. they may eventually cut their losses and move on.

Correct. And the only reason why Cisco invested into them is because their business model was built on dot-busts, so hence they made so much of that hardware that when the bubble bursted they had nothing to do with it, so why not get a stake in a company and write off as an investment.... smart business!

RW316 · 07-15-2002, 06:58 AM

its good if you want to make some cheese

Wiredoctor · 07-15-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimpshost
Wow, I am not going to get into the Cogent pissing war, but I can say, Reliabile Hosting/xxxwebhosting charges more than any other Cogent provider. If you are hosting with them, you are being ripped off.

Anyone who is with them, give me a call and I will cut your costs in half, guaranteed

Man that is a cheap shot if I've ever seen one

I thought you were atleast a bit more professional then that?....I guess I was wrong.

07-12-2002, 04:35 PM	#1
Daft Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 166	Your opinions on Cogent bandwidth I am currently being hosted at reliablehosting.com (xxxwebhosting.com) and they are using Cogent bandwidth. I heard some rumours that this is cheap bandwidth and is slower than others and that they might go out of business. Is this true? I'm currently being offered from another host BGP4 routing through Qwest, AT&T, and Verio at the same price. Does it really make a difference in the bandwidth i use? Should i stay or should i move? Your opinions wanted, thanks!

07-12-2002, 04:39 PM	#2
the Shemp congrats to the winners Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Echo Beach Posts: 10,891	Its fine for galleries. shemp __________________ i use Vacares...so should you Submit your picture galleries to my site...Outlaw TGP

07-12-2002, 05:42 PM	#6
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	I host tons of pages and domains on http://cologroup.com which is Cogent, and anyone is more than welcome to surf my portfolio, which is entirely on Cogent, tell me its slow? Bullshit. example. http://hotcherryboy.com/sex-galleries/free-twinks/ The only people who bash Cogent are people who dont use it. Its fine for me and what I do. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

07-12-2002, 05:45 PM	#7
ServerGenius Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 9,377	I agree cogent's strategy is volume.....better sell capacity with very low margin than selling at high margin and only sell a bit. just look how many carrier companies die....can't keep their network up......I think Cogent is going to make and I'm quite sure more companies will follow their business model. DynaMite __________________ \| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ \| ICQ: 370820 \| Skype: SinnersCash \| AdultWhosWho \|

07-12-2002, 05:48 PM	#8
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	I run my linklist on cogent bandwidth & its fucking exploding. Never have an issue with speed. www.candidlinks.com www.pr0.net Tell me that shit loads slow.....bullshit I could pay 10$ & host it on a so called "HIGH END" provider...but i can tell no difference, so fuck it. Saving a dollar is saving a dollar. __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

07-12-2002, 04:51 PM	#3
Lightning Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 870	Do yourself a favor and search for cogent here with the search option. But to summize it all for you, Yes cogent is cheap bandwidth, which is marginally acceptable (for now) for galleries. Not many real players will even consider it for any important sites. Also yes their days are numbered, and their service, speed and prices are getting worse everyday.

07-12-2002, 05:59 PM	#11
ServerGenius Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 9,377	hehehe trust me they do....it's so funny....they think hey cool term...BGP4 sounds expensive....let's use it in a banner Aks people who use the term BGP4 how it works.....9 out of 10 come with a complete bullshit story DynaMite __________________ \| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ \| ICQ: 370820 \| Skype: SinnersCash \| AdultWhosWho \|

07-12-2002, 06:05 PM	#12
Daft Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 166	Yup i do mainly TGP galleries, hehe Shemp you know... Anyway the other offer was from Likewhoa hosting. I don't know anything about their service & support but i hear much praise about this company. Don't get me wrong, i'm very satisified with my service as xxxwebhosting, i just think i'm paying too much for Cogent bandwidth. Well thanks for the input people, i'll probably just stay with my current host at least for a few more months and try to talk them down in price..

07-12-2002, 06:23 PM	#13
Chimper Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ontario Posts: 155	Hey Fletch XXX, What kind of sites do you have with http://cologroup.com. I am looking to launch a paysite on a different host than I use now. Can Colo handle that kind of traffic and is there people that I can call if there is a problem. I had a host once and I could never get ahold of anyone on the phone and it would take weeks for a return e-mail.

07-12-2002, 06:31 PM	#15
Chimper Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ontario Posts: 155	I am going to hook up with them tonight. Thankx for your two cents Fletch.

07-12-2002, 06:55 PM	#16
whoreans Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Queens NY Posts: 1,407	cogent gonna go out of business soon... they already bankrupt :P

07-12-2002, 08:52 PM	#17
posh rat in hell Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 403	Lets assume that over backbones, nothing staying in NYC will take more than 2ms (can be verified from any good backbone). For example... If something takes 20ms, that means it takes 10 times longer... From NYC -> NYC (over ALGX) We go through chicago. Cost of performance, approx 30ms. (15 times more lag) 3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 0.980 ms 1.380 ms 0.783 ms 4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.825 ms 0.826 ms 0.653 ms 5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 26.679 ms 26.841 ms 27.251 ms 6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.668 ms 26.613 ms 26.663 ms 7 206.220.243.179 (206.220.243.179) 30.461 ms 30.532 ms 30.374 ms 8 ord2-core3-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.97) 30.799 ms 30.670 ms 30.743 ms 9 ord2-core2-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.93) 31.042 ms 30.749 ms 31.641 ms 10 jfk3-core2-pos5-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.37) 30.782 ms 31.699 ms 30.250 ms 11 jfk3-core4-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.48.166) 30.670 ms 30.711 ms 30.282 ms From NYC -> NYC (over ATT) We go through California! cost of performance, approx 74 ms. (37 times more lag) 3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.879 ms 0.902 ms 0.790 ms 4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 2.469 ms 0.757 ms 0.746 ms 5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 6.863 ms 7.177 ms 7.829 ms 6 p14-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.125) 18.803 ms 18.852 ms 18.374 ms 7 p15-0.core01.jax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.137) 25.960 ms 24.961 ms 24.687 ms 8 p14-0.core01.tpa01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.141) 30.290 ms 29.679 ms 29.699 ms 9 p5-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.45) 49.415 ms 49.313 ms 49.364 ms 10 p14-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.6) 80.513 ms 80.003 ms 80.182 ms 11 p4-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.77) 83.459 ms 82.451 ms 82.814 ms 12 p6-0.br01.lax10.atlas.psi.net (154.54.1.30) 82.618 ms 82.598 ms 82.722 ms 13 p4-0.sw.peering2.tier1.psi.net (154.54.1.34) 82.405 ms 82.607 ms 82.724 ms 14 nw.peering.tier1.us.psi.net (154.13.2.106) 92.831 ms 92.762 ms 92.725 ms 15 154.13.74.2 (154.13.74.2) 85.746 ms 85.726 ms 85.753 ms 16 gbr3-p50.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.66) 86.496 ms 85.722 ms 85.765 ms 17 gbr3-p20.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.2.154) 100.680 ms 101.007 ms 100.956 ms 18 gbr3-p30.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.2.174) 140.906 ms 139.790 ms 140.116 ms 19 gbr1-p100.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.1.150) 140.302 ms 140.184 ms 139.986 ms 20 ar10-a300s1.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.123.0.217) 140.503 ms 141.644 ms 140.618 ms From NYC -> NYC (over Cable And Wireless - CW) We go through California! cost of performance, 163ms! (81.5 times more lag) 3 g3-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.29) 0.957 ms 0.890 ms 0.835 ms 4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.812 ms 0.700 ms 0.720 ms 5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 26.700 ms 26.755 ms 26.613 ms 6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.882 ms 26.717 ms 27.076 ms 7 p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.42) 72.462 ms 72.842 ms 72.502 ms 8 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 72.581 ms 72.487 ms 72.527 ms 9 p6-0.tr1.sfr1.netrail.net (66.28.28.58) 72.782 ms 73.411 ms 72.730 ms 10 ge-2-2-0--0.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.2) 72.860 ms 73.353 ms 73.134 ms 11 205.215.2.86 (205.215.2.86) 73.119 ms 73.502 ms 73.089 ms 12 agr1-loopback.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.146.101) 76.436 ms 76.603 ms 76.657 ms 13 dcr1-so-6-0-0.SantaClara.cw.net (208.172.156.37) 76.204 ms 76.114 ms 75.911 ms 14 dcr2-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.100) 163.998 ms 165.480 ms 164.017 ms 15 agr1-so-6-0-0.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.207.194) 165.858 ms 165.150 ms 165.611 ms 16 bar15-loopback.NewYork.cw.net (206.24.194.32) 165.417 ms * 164.357 ms From NYC -> NYC (over qwest) We go through Atlanta. cost of performance, 40ms. (20 times more lag) 3 g3-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.29) 1.073 ms 0.935 ms 1.039 ms 4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 0.840 ms 0.778 ms 0.757 ms 5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 6.906 ms 7.038 ms 7.109 ms 6 p14-0.core01.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.125) 18.703 ms 18.736 ms 18.428 ms 7 g3-0.pr1.atl01.netrail.net (66.28.28.202) 18.496 ms 18.909 ms 18.261 ms 8 205.215.2.54 (205.215.2.54) 18.564 ms 18.250 ms 18.259 ms 9 atl-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.21.105) 18.610 ms 18.491 ms 18.964 ms 10 wdc-core-03.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.241) 33.598 ms 33.690 ms 33.601 ms 11 wdc-core-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.24.5) 33.884 ms 33.833 ms 33.811 ms 12 jfk-core-01.inet.qwest.net (205.171.5.233) 42.495 ms 42.716 ms 42.517 ms 13 jfk-edge-02.inet.qwest.net (205.171.30.90) 42.581 ms 42.630 ms 43.144 ms From NYC -> NYC (over Level3) We go through California! Cost of performance, 150ms. (75 times more lag) 3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.186 ms 10.128 ms 1.202 ms 4 p13-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.121) 0.751 ms 1.244 ms 1.278 ms 5 p14-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.86) 27.873 ms 26.879 ms 26.831 ms 6 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 26.737 ms 26.752 ms 26.903 ms 7 p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.42) 75.616 ms 72.649 ms 72.365 ms 8 p15-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.70) 72.528 ms 72.515 ms 72.607 ms 9 p6-0.tr1.sfr1.netrail.net (66.28.28.58) 72.970 ms 72.964 ms 72.795 ms 10 ge-2-2-0--0.pr1.SanFrancisco1.CA.us.netrail.net (205.215.12.2) 73.003 ms 72.932 ms 73.362 ms 11 pos4-0.edge1.paix-sjo1.Level3.net (209.245.146.177) 72.972 ms 73.430 ms 73.134 ms 12 unknown.Level3.net (209.245.146.181) 74.013 ms 74.680 ms 73.406 ms 13 ae0-52.mp2.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.33) 74.341 ms 74.269 ms 75.063 ms 14 so-2-0-0.mp2.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.1.85) 150.261 ms 150.842 ms 150.377 ms From NYC -> NYC (over UUnet) We go through Chicago. Cost of performance 39ms (20 times more lag) 3 g12-8.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.65.33) 1.084 ms 1.647 ms 0.756 ms 4 p4-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.10) 0.907 ms 0.766 ms 0.727 ms 5 p4-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.81) 7.219 ms 6.843 ms 25.148 ms 6 p6-0.br01.dca01.atlas.psi.net (154.54.1.62) 6.603 ms 6.525 ms 6.876 ms 7 p6-0.se.peering.tier1.psi.net (154.54.1.78) 7.929 ms 7.719 ms 7.976 ms 8 nc.peering.tier1.us.psi.net (154.13.2.67) 43.608 ms 44.330 ms 43.543 ms 9 204.255.168.217 (204.255.168.217) 36.496 ms 36.371 ms 36.737 ms 10 0.so-5-2-0.XL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.68.6) 36.525 ms 36.551 ms 36.538 ms 11 0.so-1-0-0.TL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.67.121) 37.394 ms 36.808 ms 37.090 ms 12 129.at-6-0-0.TR1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.0.110) 38.596 ms 38.892 ms 38.859 ms 13 0.so-1-0-0.XL2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.23.130) 38.631 ms 38.513 ms 38.550 ms 14 0.so-0-0-0.XR2.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.9.89) 39.453 ms 39.463 ms 41.040 ms 15 180.ATM7-0.XR2.EWR1.ALTER.NET (152.63.17.241) 38.745 ms 45.038 ms 38.897 ms 16 192.ATM7-0.GW6.EWR1.ALTER.NET (152.63.24.185) 41.844 ms 39.384 ms 39.301 ms Now, some people who run their businesses on cogent will say "Well, it depends on where on cogent's network you are, my city is better!" Believe it all you want, but cogent's routing is so backwards, that I've seen situations where you could be in california, tracing to california over one of the networks above that go through california, and now it will go through a peering point in virginia. Others will say... "Well, My sites are fast", to you, perhaps... But certainly not to everyone. If you believe cogent cares about ANYTHING more than "cheapest route", you are highly mistaken. If it will cost them $0.0001 more to send your packet through a good route, they wont. I think I covered every major network on here, and every single one has a much worse route than what you would call quality. For surfing, yeah, this is probably good enough, but I wouldn't be caught dead trusting my business to this.

07-12-2002, 09:02 PM	#19
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	These are some of the most different explanations on the difference in cogent b/w. You guys should get together with the Sin Talk dude & write a book! Last edited by Pornwolf; 07-12-2002 at 09:03 PM..

07-12-2002, 09:22 PM	#20
mariuz Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 134	From Light Reading Yesterday: Margalit [back to the notebook]: Finally, with service providers, we do believe something good will come out of all this shakeup. When something is dying, it's hard to call it healthy. But in a long-term perspective it will be healthy. These companies have real assets, but the capital structure ? the debt, versus equity versus this versus that ? and the business structure ? that of trying to be all things to all people ? that's just not going to hold. So with companies like Cogent Communications Inc., you want to think, in an industry that will finally get back to sanity, it has a chance at coming back and providing an alternative to incumbents in that area where they have been the weakest ? data services. Light Reading: Speaking of insanity and Cogent, most everyone we talk to doesn't get it at all ? they have this huge amount of debt. Margalit: I don't think so. Cogent has, like $100 million in the bank; they have a major arrangement with Cisco. Light Reading: They have a bunch of vendor financing. Margalit: But in a way that makes a lot of sense in terms of implementing the network. Cogent is addressing that last part of the last mile ? connecting the buildings to the network. Once you're in the building, you get customers. The issue is getting into the building. We're seeing how difficult that is. But we're getting it done. And they have the lowest operating cost of a network. Any network that we load onto our network ? the amount of savings that we have because of the ingenuity of our network is unbelievable. A lot of the cost for carriers is just maintenance of, and overhead of, running the network. It's amazing how much cheaper running a pure data network over Ethernet really is. We need to build up the revenue and utilize ? besides the end users in the buildings ? we need to really utilize our network. After buying PSINet Inc., we have probably the second-best peering agreement in the U.S. It's very healthy from a financial point of view. Cogent is going to be EBITDA positive in 2003. The devil's in the details. But it's a very healthy model. A lot of people say, you did a reverse merger and you bought Allied Riser, and is it really worth it? We have a public stock, but we all hold preferred stock. That was just the vehicle to get ahold of some major assets. We're not building up so that the stock price can, all of a sudden, shoot up. We have a different strategy. When you have like 3 percent of the company on float, it's still like a private company. We're managing this company for 2003 and 2004. That's when we think it will have scale and profitability. We think that right now is the time to build out and gather assets and get revenues.

07-12-2002, 09:31 PM	#21
mariuz Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 134	Just to be fair here Lets look at how much the others are losing this year: Remember these are all negative: Level3 -$4.6 Billion Sprint -$1.2 Billion Qwest -$4.7 Billion Williams -$3.8 Billion

07-12-2002, 09:42 PM	#27
hyper Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mass Ass Posts: 5,294	yeah but warren buffet didnt buy into cogent he bought into level 3 __________________

07-12-2002, 11:08 PM	#29
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,813	Shit... it looks like it was okay that I was out of the office today! Christ, I don't care anymore. No, I don't sell Cogent bandwidth... but I'll tell you what, if it was available in my location I would sell it just to shut everyone up Ciao Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

07-13-2002, 01:04 AM	#32
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	Well whatever happens with cogent...i hope that they are actually able to bring down the prices of bandwidth. A little competition is always good for bringing down prices & providing better shit for customers

07-14-2002, 05:42 PM	#33
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	Are you sure Xxxwebhosting is on cogent ? Their prices are not cheap . I have a virtual account with them that works better than my cogent cheap server with another company. __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

07-14-2002, 06:52 PM	#37
FlyingIguana aspiring banker Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 10,870	just because cisco invested in it doesn't mean they will continue to pump money into it. they may eventually cut their losses and move on.

07-14-2002, 07:06 PM	#39
mariuz Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 134	cheking out ballonbucks http://www.balloonfetishsex.com/ Loads reeeeely slow

07-14-2002, 10:34 PM	#40
cyberpunk Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,377	[QUOTE]Originally posted by FATPad [B] You're nuts. Cogent will be around long after most of the people on this board are out of business. Cogent is backed by Cisco. They have tons of money and.... Microsoft jsut put a few 100 M into Wcom __________________ POST NO ADS!

07-14-2002, 11:57 PM	#41
pimpshost Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 1,052	Wow, I am not going to get into the Cogent pissing war, but I can say, Reliabile Hosting/xxxwebhosting charges more than any other Cogent provider. If you are hosting with them, you are being ripped off. Anyone who is with them, give me a call and I will cut your costs in half, guaranteed __________________ Jason (Vegas King Condo) Cell 702-371-8941 Web LuxuryinLasVegas.com - High Rise Condos

07-15-2002, 12:53 AM	#42
AdultWire Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 962	I have said it a thousand times.. Network latency is NOT the sole measure of general network performance. In fact, web browsers are designed to compensate for latency issues by opening multiple persistant connections to download a web page. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

07-15-2002, 01:26 AM	#43
Sysyphus So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 11	I'm just curious how many of you who are bashing Cogent have actually hosted on Cogent, or know anything first hand about them (not what you've been fed by hosting companies using more expensive bandwidth.) Like mariuz said, people are going to jerk off to your shit no matter what bandwidth you're using. Do you put banners on your site saying "WE USE 100% TEIR 1 VERIO BANDWIDTH"? Fuck no. Why? Because you're members could give a fuck. The majority of your members probably don't even know what the word bandwidth means in this context. Here is my guess at what 99% of porn surfers know how to do with their computer: 1. Turn computer on 2. Wait for memory parity test to complete 3. Wait for Windows 98 SE to load 4. Click on the AOL icon 5. Giggle when the guy says "You've got mail!" 6. Delete several spam emails 7. Close the bedroom door and make sure mom and dad / girlfriend / boyfriend are asleep / out 8. Masturbate to Tokyo Midget Bukkake video clips 9. Ejaculate 10. Wipe jizz off mouse (woops) 11. Play Everquest Notice, not one though about latency or hops, or milliseconds. I think people should spend less time paying any attention to the bandwidth provider myths and bullshit and worry about important things like hot wings and boobies.

07-15-2002, 06:58 AM	#47
RW316 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,103	its good if you want to make some cheese