WebProNews

The link has just been re-established as of 3:45 PM MST Sunday 11/2/2008.  Hopefully this will be permanent.  I'm thankful for this since it affected me personally causing me loss of direct access from my local ISP (Bresnan Cable/Sprint) to my web hosting ISP (Jumpline/Cogent).

On Friday I created a lengthy blog entry about how this debacle affected me which you can find at http://sexdrgspoker.blogspot.com/

--SDP

I won't use Sprint for any services in my computer business.

Sprint ripped me off in the late 1980's when I was a young man when I sold the "FonCard" for them......remember those?  LOL

It turned out, in Federal court, that they said my customer base, and other salesmen's customer base, had gone to other companies like AT&T for phone services, when actually they just kept the cutomers we sent them.

So......the reputation stuck with me and now they get NONE of my business for anything.  Some companies never learn how to treat folks right!

We host our private e-mail on Cogent and our staff use Sprint EVDO while in the field. I gave Sprint a lot of grief over their bad business decision Friday - it was a pretty dumb move. The Sprint rep. actually argued with me that they had to do it and never acknowledged responsibility for the disruption it caused us. Turned on a second Internet connection to the e-mail server - but no doubt we're going find another mobile broadband provider...

This is just dumb on the part of Sprint and I'm chalking it up to a grab for media attention. In the end, I think it's going to wind up costing them more because most of Cogent's customers are multi-peered.

Okay, so this is the basis of their argument....

In 2006, Cogent and Sprint entered into a "trial" settlement-free peering basis. Both sides incurred the costs neccesary to setup peering at multiple points (this isn't cheap to do). This arrangement works fine until Sprint notifies Cogent that traffic levels are lopsided and that they should pay for the peering, or risk being yanked. Sprint, after whatever period of time, shuts down the Cogent peers.

Having said all of that, I'm really doubting that Sprint had to pull them offline. If they needed the handful of ports back then that draws a serious question about the capacity of Sprint's network. Otherwise, this was just a geek-embraced grab for media attention and a shot to play "my **** is bigger than yours".

Sprint is the only one here who really has something to lose. They have end-user services to provide and those are the easiest for customers to switch to another carrier. On another note, my new VZ Wireless connection is 2x faster than my old Sprint EVDO anyway =)

Cogent should enter into a temporary transit agreement with another provider that will allow them to reach Sprint's ASN, and vice versa. In that scenario, Sprint still has nothing to win. The traffic simply shifts to other peers, maybe even ones that aren't settlement-free for them.

It's all a big mess that can have some serious regulatory impact if they don't settle the issue fast. Thumbs down to Sprint on this one.

Does anyone know if this effects: 1) webhost service only; 2) ISP access only; 3) some combo of both.

I am using satellite broadband (hughes net).  I am able to get to every page I need on the net except for my own.

My host says this is an ISP problem.  I say it is a host problem.

Help me understand this someone... please...

Also, anyone with an ETA or guess on when this might be resolved?

I smell Class Action Suit

What about me? I live on campus USF they use cogent, I have investments to take care of, but cant access my account because they use sprint.  I have my blackberry but I can only do so much on it.  This should come to an end soon, not like Boeing and their strike.