[188198] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Lewis)
Fri Mar 11 07:40:36 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:40:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVTNXXeUNa_AXCK6gk5G3DATEr5XERmnENBKddVmD1z5g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:
> It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
> pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
> to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
> deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
> to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
That's one way of looking at it.
However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other
customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
| therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
