Sunday, October 30, 2005
What was the Cogent-Level3 dispute about?
My previous posting on the Cogent-Level3 peering dispute attracted some very interesting comments by somebody known to me only as Shaitaangul. He or she seemed to know a lot, but was very, very pro-Level3 (and anti-Cogent). After filtering out the invective (e.g., Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer, "is a charlatan and master of hyperbole who makes absurd statements . . . ") it seems to me that if Cogent was guilty of something, it was simply "disruptive pricing."
Further, they do seem to have settled amicably by adjusting the terms of their peering agreement.
Does anybody have any better take on the substance of the Level3-Cogent dispute? What was it all about?
Further, they do seem to have settled amicably by adjusting the terms of their peering agreement.
Does anybody have any better take on the substance of the Level3-Cogent dispute? What was it all about?
Technorati Tags: Cogent, Level3, peering
Comments:
Post a Comment
