Slashdot Mirror
The Other Side of the Sprint Vs. Cogent Depeering
Swoolley writes "A month back this community discussed the Sprint vs. Cogent depeering. Now a story I wrote for Forbes.com tells the inside story of the fight, based on the lawsuits the two companies filed against each other in Virginia state court. For once, thanks to those suits, the public gets to see the details of a confidential peering agreement between two of the Internet's largest autonomous systems, as well as the circumstances leading up to the depeering. (Which company is in the right? Read the facts and decide for yourself.) While some people have argued that the depeering is reason for more government regulation, the Forbes story makes the case that details of the recent Cogent vs. Sprint fight argue for exactly the opposite: keeping the Internet backbones free of government meddling."
This is not the first time Cogent act like bandits.
http://gigaom.com/2008/03/18/cogent-ceo-peering-breakdown-is-telias-fault/
That's the key - Cogent was CLEARLY in the wrong. They agreed to a paid trial, which they failed. No contract existed for free, or really any kind of peering. Sprint kept the peering up with them anyway - for a YEAR without a contract, billing them for services just like they would any customer, and when Cogent refused to pay, Sprint did the right thing and gave them 30 days notice that they would de-peer them for failure to pay their bill - FOR A YEAR!!!
Sprint only made one HUGE mistake - they didn't understand what the impact to their wireless business would be, and they didn't notify customers as a result, according to my guy on the inside at Sprint.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Shameless self promotion: This article at Ars Technica explains how peering and transit works. For some more info see my blog: Internet Thought.
Use Adsense for Charity