CogentCommunications

Latest

  • Megaupload co-founder's bail appeal rejected

    by 
    Mat Smith
    Mat Smith
    02.03.2012

    While users housing content on the troubled Megaupload site were given a two-week reprieve, one of its co-founders is having less luck. Kim Dotcom has lost his appeal for bail, with prosecutors fearing that he would flee from New Zealand and return to his native Germany, possibly making him safe from extradition. According to the BBC, the prosecution alleged that Dotcom -- formerly Kim Schmitz -- had multiple passports and bank accounts, and "a history of fleeing criminal charges." His next court appearance his scheduled for February 22nd.

  • Megaupload users' data to be kept another two weeks, EFF to help folks retrieve it

    by 
    Michael Gorman
    Michael Gorman
    01.31.2012

    Megaupload's digital doors may have been closed due to the presence of pirated materials, but there's still the matter of all that legal content residing on its servers. Naturally, folks want their files back, but now that the government's gotten what it needs, the hosting companies no longer need to keep the data around because Megaupload's no longer paying them to do so. Carpathia Hosting and Cogent Communications, however, have decided to preserve the data for another two weeks while a deal is brokered with the DOJ for its release. In the meantime, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has teamed up with Carpathia to create a website that puts folks in touch with EFF attorneys so users can try to retrieve their data. No word as to what legal wrangling the EFF can do to make it happen, but those affected can get the wheels of justice started at the source below.

  • FCC looking into Comcast / Netflix blocking threat, Level 3 responds as analysts chime in

    by 
    Richard Lawler
    Richard Lawler
    11.30.2010

    News that Comcast had threatened to block internet backbone Level 3, which is one of the companies delivering Watch Instantly streams, sent shockwaves through the industry yesterday. Net neutrality advocates geared up for battle, Comcast insisted it was only enforcing the same arrangements other networks abide by while Roger Ebert and the rest of us fretted over Netflix access. Today, Level 3 issued a response to Comcast, claiming it is "distracting from the fundamental issue" which is free use of all content on the internet for its customers. Meanwhile, Multichannel News points out industry analysts say Level 3's claims of traffic discrimination "appear unfounded" while VideoNuze editor Will Richmond supposes Level 3 may have "bid too aggressively for the Netflix business and is now trying to recover." Most damaging to Level 3's argument are its own words from a dispute where it sought financial compensation from Cogent for using too much of its network's bandwidth: "For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business." Beyond analyst opinions and posturing the question of whether or not Comcast has the power to set pricing for access to its network, creating the toll road Level 3 is accusing it of being, is still at issue. That will certainly come into play at the FCC, where chairman Julius Genachowski mentioned at today's meeting that the agency is looking into Level 3's claims at the same time it continues to review the joining of Comcast and NBC. As far as your Netflix streams? Safe for now, though the company isn't commenting, Level 3 isn't the only provider it relies on for access and how any deal it might reach with Comcast could affect the service is still unclear. Update: Comcast has issued its own salvo of PR, including a video meant to breakdown exactly what internet peering is and what it wants to charge Level 3 for, 10 of its own facts about what it is, and is not doing, and a copy of the letter it's sent to the FCC about the issue. You can them all out in full after the break.