| Cogent vs. Level3 Last year, there was great debate about whether Cogent or Level 3 was the 'at fault' party... I said Level 3, while the majority of folks wanted to blame Cogent, who primarily hosted cheap websites. I called for government regulation to prevent Level 3 from ever pulling the stunt again. Many screamed they don't want gov't intervention.
Now, in Google vs. Verizon, everyone seems to be on the side of Google... who also primarily hosts cheap websites. There are calls for the gov't to prohibit the Bells from doing anything to discriminate against Google.
So which is it Broadband Losers? Do you finally recognize that the gov't DOES have a role, and that Cogent was the good guy last year? Or are you going to continue your mindless cheering for whatever feels good today? |
|
|
|
| I thought Cogent owed Level 3 a bunch of money and refused to pay so Level 3 cut them off. I am not sure how this has anything to do with Verizons half cocked two tiered internet shambles of an idea and your post certainly didn't make that any clearer.
Oh and neither company "hosts cheap websites".
Level 3 is an internet backbone provider.
Google is a search engine.
Oh, and welcome to the internet. I am assuming this is your first day.. |
|
| No, Cogent had refused to enter an agreement to pay Level 3 money. Level 3 felt Cogent wasn't paying their fair share to "use Level 3's lines."
I didn't say Level 3 hosted cheap web sites; I said Cogent did.
Google is a cheap web site, and they are getting the same squeeze from Verizon as Level 3 tried to give Cogent.
Welcome also, DSLdewd. |
|
