dslreports logo
 story category
Sprint, Cogent in Peering Feud
Sprint disconnects from Cogent network, impacting customers

Cogent is no stranger to peering disputes, fighting with Level3 back in 2005 and AOL back in 2002. While most peering arrangements involve carriers trading equal amounts of bandwidth, Cogent's discount Mc-bandwidth approach (100 Mbps for $1,000 per month or less) often involves a sharing imbalance, which results in one side or the other feeling slighted. The fights are usually resolved in time, but they're never much fun for the users impacted. A high profile dispute with Swedish telecom operator Telia in March cut off access to vast swaths of Europe.

Click for full size
These Cogent disputes are almost as frequent as the seasons, and we were long overdue for a new one. The latest fight came last night, when Cogent announced that Sprint pulled the plug on their connection with the Cogent network, impacting a significant amount of both URLs and broadband customers. According to Cogent, the onus for the fight lays squarely on the shoulders of Sprint. Cogent says they're offering a little something to major Sprint-Nextel customers impacted by the feud:
quote:

In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel.


You can visually see the disruption, as usual, over at Internet Pulse.

Update: Sprint spokesperson Matthew Sullivan contacted us to present Sprint's side of the story. Sullivan had this to say:

quote:
This is a quick snapshot, but in 2006, Sprint and Cogent entered into a commercial trial agreement. Cogent filed to satisfy Sprint’s peering criteria and refused to pay Sprint to stay connected to our network. Sprint notified Cogent well in advance that it would disconnect Cogent unless it paid, and Cogent refused. As a result of Cogent’s refusal, Sprint was forced to terminate the commercial interconnection agreement and disconnect its network from Cogent’s.

Cogent’s posturing in this case is nothing more than an effort to divert attention away from its’ contractual obligations, and this is the latest in a growing list of peering-related disputes between Cogent and Internet backbone providers.
view:
topics flat nest 

peeringisdead
@comcast.net

peeringisdead

Anon

Peering needs to change

Sprint is a little man with a big ego. They are no longer a real Internet player and only carry a relatively small amount of the Internet traffic.

The reality is "peering" as we know it needs to go away and all Internet traffic should have economic and actual costs/business measures associated with it based on how long the ISP carries the traffic from source to destination.

Just because you are now a Tier1, doesn't mean you should be. The Tier system is completely broken and needs to be flushed.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Peering needs to change

said by peeringisdead :

Sprint is a little man with a big ego. They are no longer a real Internet player and only carry a relatively small amount of the Internet traffic.
The facts tend to show Sprint has a massive customer base worldwide and is reasonably well peered.

»www.renesys.com/products ··· ple_data

»www.fixedorbit.com/metrics.htm

»www.fixedorbit.com/stats.htm

peeringisdead
@comcast.net

peeringisdead

Anon

Re: Peering needs to change

said by SpaethCo:

The facts tend to show Sprint has a massive customer base worldwide and is reasonably well peered.
That may be true, but the peering is legacy and customer base has been changing over the past few years. Many of these customers are very small or use Sprint for very little data (ask around).

ASN metrics are tricky and not sure they are a complete measurement of an entity proportion of "Internet" volume. e.g 20 ASNs with 200G of data vs 1000 ASNs with a combined total of 160G of data. Which is bigger?

atlantan
@atlanticnexus.net

atlantan

Anon

Re: Peering needs to change

said by peeringisdead :

said by SpaethCo:

The facts tend to show Sprint has a massive customer base worldwide and is reasonably well peered.
... Many of these customers are very small or use Sprint for very little data (ask around)...
Actually Sprint has large customers that move massive amounts of data, like Coke and Raytheon.
53059959 (banned)
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone

53059959 (banned) to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo

network neutrality

This is sprint trying to create a tiered internet.

They think their traffic is of higher quality then Cogent, so they block Cogent.

All this does is force providers to move away from both companies.
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI

audiog to peeringisdead

Member

to peeringisdead
Tell that to the FCC who wants the cost system to go away because it would cost THE NEW AT&T and VERIZON a lot of money each month. The cost system was based on the terminating carrier (and the peers are carriers ) charging the originating carrier a fee based on a cost model. And the new system favors AT&T and Verizon. The new system that is being hashed out reduces the rates by a factor of 1000 and says that the internet has no cost the terminating carrier when in fact the peering if done by fiber or copper DS interconnects and by FCC rules if they( AT&T and Verizon) say you have to run fiber to me at this point( that is not cost effective to you ) that is your only choice.
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD

hescominsoon to peeringisdead

Member

to peeringisdead
said by peeringisdead :

Sprint is a little man with a big ego. They are no longer a real Internet player and only carry a relatively small amount of the Internet traffic.

The reality is "peering" as we know it needs to go away and all Internet traffic should have economic and actual costs/business measures associated with it based on how long the ISP carries the traffic from source to destination.

Just because you are now a Tier1, doesn't mean you should be. The Tier system is completely broken and needs to be flushed.
the reality is cogent routinely tries to violate it's peering agreements by sending more traffic over peering links than they receive. This results in de-peering as it well should. What then happens is cogent then pays the difference it exceeded the peering agreement(as it should) and things go back to normal.

Cogent SUCKS
@sbcglobal.net

Cogent SUCKS

Anon

BOOO Cogent

This is JUST Cogent BEING them...

They want to strong arm others...

Like many have Said Cogent does this all the time..

BinaryXtreme6
join:2004-04-20
Sparks, NV

2 edits

BinaryXtreme6

Member

Re: BOOO Cogent

I love it when a fanboy GOES ANONYMOUS with a such witty title to make one statement. Good job, NOT!!!

oH, SBCGLOBAL, slap me in the mouth and call me psychic, do I know you?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK to Cogent SUCKS

Premium Member

to Cogent SUCKS
Yeah, it sucks that they ruin the profit margins of the large players by actually selling bandwidth cheaper rather then just locking in their prices with the rest of the them.

Cogent, ruining the price-fixing game.

How dare they!

Killa200
Premium Member
join:2005-12-02
TN

Killa200

Premium Member

100mbit

"In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place."

Keep fighting sprint... I'm on my way to an "on-net" location,
nnaarrnn
join:2004-09-30
Charleston, WV

nnaarrnn

Member

Re: 100mbit

Sprint is THE backbone for 2 of the 3 major ISPs in this state. They're not just cell-service. I dont get why people think that.

JoeGuru
@smu.edu

JoeGuru

Anon

Re: 100mbit

Can anyone find any major sites that don't have alternate peering that would be inaccessible from a sprint wireless phone?

iansltx_
@spcsdns.net

iansltx_

Anon

Re: 100mbit

Blip.tv? Carbonite maybe? Checking on MTV based sites right now...Ciacom uses a lotta Cogent.

What ISPs are affected other than Sprint wireless, Xohm and Embarq? What websites are Sprint only?

cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL

cybermud

Member

Re: 100mbit

I've got a few embarq T1's that can still connect to my cogent sites. It would appear that embarq doesn't have any sort of requirement to solely use sprint for transit.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: 100mbit

What do the traceroutes go through?

cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL

cybermud

Member

Re: 100mbit

level3

kg4muc
Gettin It Done A Little At A Time
join:2003-02-17
Whitetop, VA

kg4muc to cybermud

Member

to cybermud
said by cybermud:

I've got a few embarq T1's that can still connect to my cogent sites. It would appear that embarq doesn't have any sort of requirement to solely use sprint for transit.
I'm on Embarq DSL and it appears that their routing through Sprintlink has taken out a few of the sites I frequent.. A couple of them are weather related and I have pieces of on my web pages..but at work still with Embarq those sites work just fine! Hopefully they'll give it up and all will work agaon..till the next time!

Wt
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to iansltx_

Member

to iansltx_
Looks like, so far, the only sites that are down are Carbonite and Cogent's own website, from my Sprint phone.
compuwizz
join:2001-03-05
Las Vegas, NV

compuwizz

Member

Re: 100mbit

A few voip providers will probably be hard to get to. Gafachi comes to mind. They tend to have only Cogent routes.

peeringsucks
@silvertoncasino.com

peeringsucks to JoeGuru

Anon

to JoeGuru
powweb for one...

www.powweb.com
davidpaj
join:2002-04-22

davidpaj

Member

Re: 100mbit

my site www.ncwisp.net for another
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: 100mbit

Your site doesn't even seem to be up from my Comcast connection which has links to both L3 and Cogent pretty directly. As to PowWeb, they look to be Cogent-only and thus down.
Expand your moderator at work
Windogg
join:2002-07-24
Redwood City, CA

Windogg

Member

Typical Cogent

My office has a 100mbps/$1000 McBandwidth connection and it follows the old addage:

Fast, cheap, reliable: Pick 2 out of 3.

The line is fast and cheap. It's about as reliable as a 1986 Yugo. At least once a week we have a serious issue requiring support to reboot our port on their L3 switch.

Maintenance happens on a whim with no reports on their site. It's only after calling up support do we find out something is going on. I guess if it's maintenance, the line is not "down" and subject to the SLA.

Their salesman are typical of most in sales. They promise you the world and once the ink is dry, disappears off the face of the Earth.

The depeering with Telia last year caused some headaches as we had to bounce a lot of traffic through a slower link. This incident has finally made our beancounters see the light on why cheap does not always save money.

FastFoodHell

Anon

Try Vital/TSYS

For 'big sites' how about VitalPS/TSYS for CREDIT CARD AUTHENTICATION/VALIDATION? That's huuuuuuuuge.....

I have several dozen sites I needed to make Corporate routing changes for in order to properly accommodate them taking credit cards from their customers.

While at first glace it's same old crap, at a deeper level there are hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake here.

My $.02...feel free to give me change!
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Try Vital/TSYS

Hmm...went to a LEGO store (they don't make the 5000-piece buckets anymore!?!) tonight and the clerk apologized for the slowness in ringing up the order. She said the system had been slow all night. Might the internet rift be the cause? Just conjecture...

Anonuser
join:2003-01-03
Milwaukee, WI

1 edit

Anonuser

Member

Carbonite

All my carbonite backups stopped.

Can't even tracert a IP on cogent's network, as sprint won't even resolve it or route through another providers network.

A slew of other sites are down as well, and my dedicated web servers are offline too. I'm going to try and get some service credit out of sprint Probially wont get it, but worth a shot
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Carbonite

I'm supposing you're on a SprintLink T1 or some other such thing? Hopefully you're not in an Embarq market where they only have SprintLink uplinks.

Seems to me that Sprint is in a rather bad situation with regard to the peering dispute. They've sorta set themselves up for this, as has Cogent in a way. Cogent specializes in relatively short-loop, ultra-cheap access and, unlike Hurricane Electric etc., serves enough locations that a LOT of places have their links for web services. ISPs using Cogent are lower in number for exclusive use, but Comcast is a big customer, albeit multi-homed with Level3 and peered at various locations.

Sprint, on the other hand, started out as an ILEC, and thus has a lot of T1 and T3 lines to small businesses, small ISPs (in some cases, less now than earlier) and end-users, through what's left of Embarq backbone uplinks and their wireless division. From what I've heard Sprint doesn't really compete on price, though their global network is very highly ranked (not as high as AT&T though). Probably their biggest server-centric customer is InterNAP.

So, really, how is Cogent, by nature, going to receive much traffic from Sprint, when Sprint is chasing off cost-conscious users? No cable or fiber provider that I know of uses Sprint, so customers download significantly more than they upload, and the dearth of websites running non-L3, non-Cogent routes mean that Comcast users only have to go through Sprint if they want to check out Sprint's website, and then they can do it through Level3.

So basically until SprintLink cuts rates to get near those of L3, let alone Cogent, they're not going to get more webhost customers to even things out (not like Sprint wants to do that...that's Cogent territory). So Cogent has to find ISPs willing to use their network most of the time for consumer, asymmetric, internet access. TekSavvy does it with their unlimited plan options, otherwise there aren't really any. Most ISPs use Level3, AT&T, Qwest or Verizon for backbone connectivity.

Catch-22 am I right? As a customer of Sprint wireless service, I guess it's VPN time (either into my school network or my home network) to get to Cogent websites. As a Comcast cable subscriber, I don't care much, if any; Sprint-bound traffic just uses L3. Back home, n an ISP with Qwest as the backbone, I don't care; I'm not affected. I really can't think of how this adversely affects anyone but Sprint customers...not a good thing when Cogent is offering 100 Mbit connectivity for free for Sprint customers on-net...

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Why doesn't this suprise me about congent

Based on their prior "problems" and history, I can say I was not totally surprised or shocked by this.

I guess Cogent is going to have to start working on peering a bit better than they do now.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Why doesn't this suprise me about congent

Cogent is hated because they sell bandwidth a lot cheaper then the big boys want to sell it for.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Why doesn't this suprise me about congent

said by KrK:

Cogent is hated because they sell bandwidth a lot cheaper then the big boys want to sell it for.
No, they're hated because the over all quality of the service provided is quite inferior.

Anonuser
join:2003-01-03
Milwaukee, WI

Anonuser

Member

Just called sprint

It may have been a bad move on sprints part to just cut them.

I talked to a very nice lady, chatted for a bit. Seems they've been swamped today with calls on this.

I asked for a credit since much of my business related material's are on Cogent networks, and they gave me a $20 service credit off my bill. Not bad, and i'm satisified with it. I will just need to VPN into my home network for a while until this is resolved.

She said they've given out a lot of credits today....

Here is something useful for those having problems.

»www.sprint.net/lg/lg_start.php

Cheers
ArkiMage
join:2001-06-30
Kingsport, TN

ArkiMage

Member

Embarq

We recently completed installation of a fiber connection from Embarq. I check and of the sites listed here Carbonite is the only one I can confirm we are cut off from. Embarq locally appears to be purchasing upstream *only* from Sprintlink which I complained to them about during price negotiations. I'm going to use this as justification to complain some more. I may take the opportunity to point this out to CenturyTel as well.

A trace to carbonite.com (which I had to DNS resolve from elsewhere):
4 in-74-4-19-249.embarqnow.net (74.4.19.249) 2.417 ms 2.419 ms 2.420 ms
5 * * *
6 * * *

And to basically any other non-Cogent site:
4 in-74-4-19-249.embarqnow.net (74.4.19.249) 2.741 ms 2.745 ms 2.745 ms
5 sl-gw11-atl-6-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.131.9) 13.464 ms 13.476 ms 13.476 ms
6 sl-crs2-atl-0-1-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.12.89) 13.636 ms 13.171 ms 13.144 ms

illumynite
Premium Member
join:2002-08-30
San Jose, CA

illumynite

Premium Member

Cogent has been great for us.

I see a lot of negativity here regarding Cogent. I am the network operator of an ISP in San Martin, CA. Our primary link is a 100Mb Cogent link. Our secondary upstream is a 10Mb (Burstable to 100Mb) link from Charter. We made the switch to Cogent from XO; going from an XO OC-3 to the Cogent link.

The link has been great since it was turned up. We had some minor (~1%) packet loss a couple months back, but after speaking with their support staff (who are actually pretty knowledegable), we had the packet loss taken care of. (Turns out the problem was not with Cogent, but with the owner of the fiber.... AT&T ).

We did have quite a few customers call in today; both customers who could not access anything on Sprint's side, and vice-versa. We have routed that Sprint traffic over our secondary connection, and all is well.

I'm not saying that Cogent is "all-that", and I am not saying that those who have been slighted by Cogent in the past are wrong or full of it, but I just wanted to give an example from the other side of the spectrum, that sure, they do offer "Mc-Bandwidth" at very low prices, but our mileage so far has been stellar.

I don't know all of the facts regarding the whole Cogent / Sprint-Nextel soap opera, so I can't really take sides or point the finger.

SupermanSC
@sbcglobal.net

SupermanSC

Anon

Cogent's Quality isn't inferior

I too work for a content provider in SoCal, and we purchased Cogent primarily for non critical replication traffic. However, after evaluating their network for several months, we found their network to in many (most) cases to be faster and lower latency than many Tier 1 providers (AT&T, Level3 etc).

The one thing Cogent could work on is communication. They had to have known this was coming, and rather than notifying existing customers, they ramp up their sales staff to give free circuits to Sprint customers, which I believe will ultimately benefit Cogent.

Cogent's network isn't inferior by any means. It's a simple network that has very good uptime (as good or better than our Tier 1 providers), and they're constantly pushing lower rates. They're a good company for pushing lower rates, which is drastically needed as company's continue increasing capacity to meet the growing demand on the internet.

Sprint is absolutely crazy pulling this without notifying customers. We have portions of our network that are only accesible via Cogent, and our Sprint wireless phones can no longer access them. We're in the process of dumping all of our Sprint wireless accounts and moving to an alternate provider.

•••
d0nni3q
join:2006-11-05
Meadville, PA

d0nni3q

Member

Sprint+Cogent

Looks like Spring+Cogent's peering is online again around 16:00 PM EDT.

»www.internetpulse.net/

PA23
join:2001-12-12
East Hanover, NJ

PA23

Member

Re: Sprint+Cogent

Rumors are its only a temporary agreement...

24 hrs? a week? a month???

Probably a month but I am only guessing.

Not sure who flinched but I'm glad somebody did.

Stressed out
@wavecomputers.net

Stressed out

Anon

Yes, this Sprint vs Cogent affected ME in a big way!

I own a small web design firm (it's just me) and have 20+ clients that I also host with Readyhosting. Readyhosting is a Cogent customer. My ISP uses Sprint for their broadband connection. What that boiled down to (until today) was that I had no access to any of my client sites. If this had kept up, I would have had to move all of my clients to a different webhosting service and that would have been a BIG pain in the butt! I may be a little guy (or gal, in this case) but this little spat seriously hurt me for several days. I feel like the tenant who gets kicked out of her home because the landlord defaulted on the mortgage....
raye
Premium Member
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA

raye

Premium Member

For the uninformed and/or interested

Cogent has never been a Tier 1, they have only been "transit free". Being transit free is not a difficult accomplishment, it just means that you don't announce or receive routes via a relationship which is intended to be heard by the entire Internet. You could easily go out and buy transit from each of the existing transit free networks, tag your routes with communities to only announce to customers, and become a "transit free" network with global reachability overnight. Of course, this carries with it the risk of breaking global Internet connectivity in the event of a depeering. It is well known that Cogent pays for out-of-ratio traffic with Level3 and Telia, and clearly Sprint says that they have no actual peering agreement. This doesn't have the making of a real tier 1 network.

Cogent has been actually stealing service from Sprint (and have been for over a year) in order to maintain their status. They used a "trial"
peering session to weasel their way into a direct connection with Sprint, and once they got it they intentionally changed their announcements so that if Sprint disconnected them it would cause unreachability.

It seems abundantly clear that this situation was created entirely by Cogent, and that they are intentionally harming their customers and the customers of Sprint in an effort to extort a settlement free relationship.
This is despicable behavior, if not outright criminal activity considering the theft of service they are committing, and it is amazing that Sprint cared enough about Internet connectivity to allow it to continue for so long, and to restore connectivity temporarily.

If any of us stopped paying for our Internet service, and set up routing so that as soon as our provider turned us off we would be reachable to them and their customers complained, then demanded that they give us free service in order to restore connectivity, we would be laughed at. That is what Cogent has done here, and just because they've done it on a large scale doesn't make it right. This specific issue will be solved in a real court and not the court of public opinion, but we should all do our parts to recognize the blatant lies Cogent has told, and to make it clear that we will not accept that kind of behavior. The last thing the Internet needs is more misguided regulation because someone actually believed Cogent's lies.

Shady Cogent
@comcast.net

Shady Cogent

Anon

Shady

SPRINT STATEMENT TO CUSTOMERS ON ITS DEPEERING WITH COGENT COMMUNICATIONS

Dear Valued Customers,

On Thursday, October 30th, Sprint Nextel completed a disconnection of its network from Cogent Communications. This action was taken by Sprint after Cogent breached its contract and failed to pay for its ongoing connection to the Sprint network, despite repeated collections attempts by Sprint.

Until this issue is resolved, Sprint will continue to work tirelessly to the extent within our control to mitigate the effects on customers. As part of an interim solution, Sprint initiated a temporary reconnection to the Cogent network on Sunday, November 2nd so that customers would have temporary access while longer-term alternate and permanent access options are explored.

We emphasize that this reconnection is temporary only, as the core issues in this dispute have not changed. Cogent was notified in advance of the November 2nd reconnection; therefore, any access disruptions occurring during this temporary period are the sole result of a negative reaction instigated by Cogent against the customers of both parties.

Sprint deeply regrets any inconvenience caused by this issue and we do not take our actions lightly given frustrations experienced by customers of both parties.

Background

In 2006, Cogent sought a peering trial agreement in the hopes that it would lead to settlement-free peering status with Sprint. Settlement-free peering is a contractual relationship in which two companies exchange Internet traffic without charging each other. This arrangement is only fair if the two parties exchange roughly equal volumes of traffic across the two networks. Prior to this trial period, Cogent utilized third parties for full Internet connectivity.

Following a three-month commercial trial agreement during June - September 2007, the peering trial data indicated that Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established and Cogent was notified in writing of these results. Despite this fact, and after repeated discussions, Cogent failed to disconnect itself from the Sprint network or compensate Sprint for the ongoing connection.

Sprint has repeatedly notified Cogent in writing of payment past due and our intent to take action if the issue was left unresolved. On September 2nd of this year, Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent for breach of contract. Sprint also notified Cogent in writing of our intent to begin disconnect procedures if Cogent did not pay for services or voluntarily disconnect and make arrangements with one of many alternate providers. Throughout this period, which includes the initial disconnect activities, Cogent did nothing to mitigate the potential effects of Sprint's pending disconnect to its customers.

Fact and Fiction

On October 30th, Cogent issued a press release and has made subsequent statements to the media that contain a number of distortions regarding the relationship between Sprint and Cogent. The following is intended to clarify these misstatements:

Cogent press release: "On October 30 at 4:30 pm Sprint-Nextel severed its Internet connection to Cogent thereby partitioning the Internet."

FACT: The events of October 30th related only to disconnection of the final two interconnects (of 10 original interconnections) between Sprint and Cogent. In addition to notifying Cogent 30 days in advance of our intent to disconnect, Sprint's first disconnect action took place on October 7th, 2008. Between October 7th and October 30th, Sprint disconnected one or two ports each week with Cogent's full awareness. During this period, Cogent failed to take any action in support of its own customers' ongoing Internet reachability even though such actions were fully under its control.

Cogent press release: "Sprint [severed its Internet connection to Cogent] in violation of a contractual obligation to exchange traffic with Cogent on a settlement free peering basis."

FACT: At no time did Sprint and Cogent enter into a contract for settlement free peering. In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a commercial trial agreement that ended in September 2007. Cogent was unable to satisfy the agreed-upon traffic exchange criteria within the trial agreement, yet refused to pay Sprint or disconnect from Sprint's network.

Cogent press release: "Sprint and Cogent are engaged in litigation over this matter. Cogent regrets that Sprint chose to take this unilateral action rather than await a determination by the court as to the rights of the parties."

FACT: Sprint filed a lawsuit on September 2nd in Fairfax County, VA Circuit Court against Cogent for breach of contract due to Cogent's refusal to pay Sprint for the ongoing connection to our network. Sprint also provided Cogent with 30 days advance written notice in the hope that Cogent would take action to mitigate the impact of this action on our respective customers.

Cogent press release: "Cogent remains ready to reestablish, on the same settlement free basis as previously existed, the connections that Sprint has severed."

FACT: As noted above, Sprint and Cogent did not enter into a settlement free peering agreement. Instead, the two companies entered into a commercial trial agreement, upon which Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties.