Not to you, but to the thread:

Cogent isn't even the low cost leader anymore.

PCCW is often cheaper as is HE.

HE even has $1250 GEs and $400 FEs.


-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:17 PM
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams

> Brad,
>
> Once again I disagree.
>
> Cogent represents themselves as  low cost, but they have never represented
> themselves as low quality.
>
> Second, Cogent is most ideal as the FIRST PRIMARY provider, because Cogent
> is higher performing, and faster speed connections are more affordable.
> I agree, a backup secondary provider is needed to help when there are 
> short
> outages. The backup providers dont need to be as high a capacity, or as
> quality, as they are seldom used exempt in the rare emergencies.
>
> Third, What determines how inexpensive a Transit provider is has nothing 
> to
> do with Quality, it has to do with who has more settlement free peers.
> Cogent costs less, because Cogent has to pay "fewer" other ISPs for
> capacity.  This DOES NOT mean they use low quality public peering, it 
> means
> that they have more quality private peering negotiated at better terms.
>
>> Bottom line is any carrier can break
>
> That, I agree with.  Which is why its important to have two upstreams. 
> But,
> that is not a reason to not buy Cogent first.
> By buying Cogent first it allows a provider to become more profitable
> sooner, and therefore able to afford sooner multiple upstreams.
>
> Its also depends on what the downstream offers in its value proposition.
> With Cogent, I offer my custoemrs Gig-E when others can offer 100mb.
> With Cogent, I can offer my customers half the price, if not 1/3rd the 
> price
> that my tier2 competitiors can offer.
> With Cogent, I offer excellent performance, better than most, most of the
> time, and if they get an outage so what.
> Is it really better to have less good performance all the time, to gain 
> .009
> better uptime?
> That depends on the target client base of the WISP.
>
> You also got another thing right... I am largely dependant on Cogent, and 
> I
> hate that.  But its relevent to ask why I'm dependant? When I first 
> started
> out, it was because of price, but not anymore. I'm dependant on Cogent
> because its really hard to find a Tier1 Carrier that can offer anywhere 
> near
> as equivellent consistent performance and tech support. My customers 
> really
> noticed, everytime I tried someone else, so someone else never lastest.
>
> Note that I did not say "uptime", I said "performance".
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Brad Belton" <[email protected]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>
>
>> While I agree no solution can be considered equal in any given location,
>> there are trends or a general barometer to help place one carrier over
>> another.  This is the reality that typically puts Cogent towards the back
>> of
>> the bus in most people's minds.
>>
>> The biggest proponents of Cogent are those that are largely dependent on
>> Cogent due to any number of reasons.  Budget constraints, lack of
>> alternate
>> higher quality peer availability etc, etc.  Cogent makes no excuse
>> promoting
>> themselves as the low end, budget driven bottom dollar provider.  They 
>> are
>> good for what they offer, but again not what a network administrator
>> looking
>> for high availability is going to pick as a first choice.
>>
>> "You might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration
>> (less than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers."
>>
>> This is exactly my point (being made by Tom, a Cogent customer!) why
>> Cogent
>> should not be depended on as a sole or primary Internet feed.  If 
>> Cogent's
>> all you got then you're SOL!
>>
>> Bottom line is any carrier can break.  If you can only have one then find
>> one that breaks the least.  If you can have more than one, Cogent is a
>> good
>> low cost second or third to have in a pinch for relatively little cost.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:28 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>>
>> It should be noted that an Upstreams performance can be directly
>> proportional to the location where they have more peering.
>> In the DC  and NY markets, Cogent has excellent performance and peering,
>> and
>>
>> has shown to outperform EVERY provider we have tried, period.
>> (And yes, some of the carriers we tried were Level3, XO, and Abovenet.)
>> I recognize that Cogent's performance "may" not be as good for ALL 
>> markets
>> where they potentially could have a weaker presence.
>> But saying Cogent is only worthy of the 3rd or 4th transit connection  is
>> simply untrue.
>>
>> Cogent's weak point now is internal processes and communication. They've
>> lost touch with the value of having personal Account Reps, and render the
>> reps powerless to manage the accounts, in favor of the customer
>> relationship
>>
>> managed by the clueless billing/collections department. Its a shame. You
>> might even get away with saying Cogent has a few more short duration 
>> (less
>> than 15 minutes?) outages than other carriers.  But their tech support 
>> has
>> been the best by far in the industry, and oversubscription has never been
>> a
>> problem from what I see.
>>
>> In picking a Transit provider its really a decision about where your
>> traffic
>>
>> typically flows, and where you need good performance to. NOT anyone has
>> best
>>
>> performance everywhere.
>> For example, Hurricane has excellent performance AND they are 
>> inexpensive.
>> They have a really good peering presensence in CA. I'm not confident that
>> they have nearly as good a presence on the East coast though, but those
>> that
>>
>> have used them on teh east coast that I know have been happy.  We were
>> considering using them.
>>
>> Abovenet has great Gig-E Transport. But their transit is expensive, and
>> its
>> because its more expensive for them to provide it, because they are not 
>> as
>> well positioned to do it cost effectively, not because its necessarilly
>> better.  Level3 as well, has many strength. They have a lot of web host
>> clients. It can really help performance to reach certain sites. Level3
>> also
>> tends to blocks smaller BGP block announcements, more so than someone 
>> like
>> Cogent.  Level3 is good for a secondaryu because they usually have 
>> diverse
>> routes. Some providers have good performance to France, Amsterdam, India,
>> others dont. Savvis tends to have real peering to NY finacnial markets. 
>> I
>> often see Blended bandwdith combining Global Cross and Level3, not sure
>> why
>> these two are chosen as a pair. Maybe its simply becaue they tend to be
>> colocated at the same carrier hotels?
>>
>> But selecting a transit provider is not as simple as saying one is 
>> better.
>> My personaly opinion is, find the two lowest cost providers, and then you
>> can afford to buy more bandwidth, and have two options to route 
>> customers.
>>
>> You also need to consider the path to where you take it. For example,
>> Cogent
>>
>> remote tenant buildings likely have routers with less ram that cant 
>> handle
>> full BGP tables, so they require creating session to two seperate BGP
>> servers (with the second one having full routes.).  But of you connect to
>> them inb a major colo center that doesn;t exist. Similar things exist 
>> with
>> other providers depending on where you pick up the circuit.
>>
>> What I like about Abovenet, is they'll map out their network for you, so
>> you
>>
>> know exactly what you are buying, so true redunancy can be built into the
>> network design. Cogent is a bit more secrative about the traffic path.
>>
>> XO has had some really good account reps, and I liked that. But for me,
>> they
>>
>> didn't really give me anything exciting as far as price or performance,
>> more
>>
>> than anyone else.
>>
>> It should also be noted that it could make a big difference which local
>> colo
>>
>> you pick the circuit up in also. So when you are evaluating a provider 
>> you
>> are also evaluating the venue where the circuit is in.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Brad Belton" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>; "'WISPA General List'"
>> <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>>
>>
>>> Cogent can be ok, but they are not equal to AboveNET, XO, AT&T, Level3
>>> etc...  We have multiple upstream GigE feeds and Cogent is one of them.
>>>
>>> It took us months to get Cogent to resolve a flapping switch or router
>>> within their network.  After a couple dozen screenshots and trace routes
>>> from various looking glass sites they finally conceded.  Granted the
>>> outages
>>> were only between 5 and 60 seconds long when they occurred and rarely
>>> were
>>> long enough to break BGP sessions, but they were hell on VoIP!
>>>
>>> It took us less than a day to find the specific Cogent IP or device 
>>> where
>>> the problem was occurring, but months before Cogent acted on the
>>> information
>>> we provided them.  Cogent Support honestly wasn't that bad, but said
>>> their
>>> hands were tied until management further up the chain completed their
>>> investigation.  During that time we had to route voice traffic around
>>> Cogent
>>> as best we could.
>>>
>>> Cogent is great as a cheap third or fourth GigE upstream, but never a
>>> sole
>>> or primary Internet feed, IMO.  While Cogent goes about their BGP 
>>> peering
>>> a
>>> little different than most, I do agree their BGP Support is equal to
>>> anyone
>>> else's we've worked with.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>> Behalf Of Bret Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:15 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] choice of upstreams
>>>
>>> I always hear about Cogent having a bad rap, but where does that come
>>> from? I can't say that one bit! They've worked great for us and during
>>> the initial install clearly went above and beyond the call of duty when
>>> we encountered a problem even waking a VP up at 1AM on a Sunday morning
>>> because we need to have the circuit up and running by first thing
>>> Monday!
>>>
>>> When I have add to call their tech support up about questions that
>>> actually understand what BGP is and how it works!
>>> Bret
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 11:58 -0500, Jon Auer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cogent has a bad rap but they have been solid for us for the past
>>>> year. Prior to that they had a few hickups. Their peering is pretty
>>>> good. Low latency to all major content sites.
>>>>
>>>> Level3 seems to have more outages than a provider of their reputation
>>> should.
>>>>
>>>> Savvis is has poor peering from what I hear.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to add Abovenet or Global crossing to my mix.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/09, Marco Coelho <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> > I'm a GigE circuit to the mix, and I've got a choice of:
>>>> >
>>>> > Abovenet
>>>> > Cogent
>>>> > Global Crossing
>>>> > Level3
>>>> > Savvis
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm looking for recommendations of who the better upstream is.
>>>> >
>>>> > Marco
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Marco C. Coelho
>>>> > Argon Technologies Inc.
>>>> > POB 875
>>>> > Greenville, TX 75403-0875
>>>> > 903-455-5036
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>> > http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>> >
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>> >
>>>> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>> >
>>>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>> >
>>>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to