Cogent Communications, Inc.

December 2014Dear ** ***:Please be advised that Cogent Communications, Inchas contacted the prospective customer with respect to the Revdex.com complaint number noted aboveCogent believes that the matter has been resolved with the prospective customerRied
ZCorporate Secretary

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The service was never installed in the MPOE room but in the garage, because it is in the garage we can not even get a contractor to pull the service through the MPOE room up the riser to our suite and the building said the vendor needs to correctly install itAfter installation no one even told us where the service was installed at, we were checking the MPOE to no avail it was not until feb/march the installer finally got back to us telling us it is in a certain location which we resolved to be in the garage areaWe have yet to pass any data through the internet line, horrible communicationI no longer want them to finish the installation but instead to cancel the contract as per non delivery
Regards,
*** ***

May 23, 2014Dear *** ***:This letter is in response to your letter of May concerning a complaint from *** ***, assigned Revdex.com ID: ***.Cogent has honored is contractual obligation to provide service to *** *** at the demarcation point set forth in the
customer’s contract*** *** contracted for off-net internet services at its location in *** ***Off-net services are provided through a third-party local loop that is provisioned by Cogent from a local access provider on behalf of the customer and delivered to the Cogent Demarcation Point (a pre-established demarcation point or minimum point of entry (MPOE), as determined by the local access provider) in the building housing the customer’s locationThe customer is responsible to facilitate with their building owner access to, and space for, any additional installation or connection necessary between the Cogent Demarcation Point and the customer’s premises in the building (see the Section of the Product Rider - Dedicated Internet Access).Cogent has provided service to the Cogent Demarcation Point in the building where the customer is located and has attempted through the local access provider to assist *** *** bring the service from the Cogent Demarcation Point to the customer’s suite, however, as *** has indicated, this proved difficult due to the tenancy of a U.SGovernment agency in the building.*** *** was aware the impediment that the presence of the of a U.SGovernment agency placed on receiving service in their suite while contracting with Cogent and has not facilitated the use of additional space in the risers necessary to connect customer’s suite to the Cogent Demarcation PointCogent’s contractual obligations to deliver service end at the Cogent Demarcation Point.*** ***’s account was terminated March 31, for non-payment

June 3, This letter is in response to your letter of May concerning a complaint from *** *** (**), assigned Revdex.com ID: ***.** states that it requested to convert its contract to month to month service in January 2012, Cogent has no record of receiving **s
request to go month-to-month in January or agreeing to permit the contract to convert to a month to month termThe first correspondence received by Cogent with regard to the purported revised term occurred in March when ** requested to terminate its contract at the end of April It alleged at that time that the contract term had been converted to month to monthCogent subsequently contacted ** to confirm the termination and inform ** that the contract had not been converted to a month to month term** did not respond to Cogents attempt to confirm the termination request or provide to Cogent any type of confirmation that it would have received from Cogent had the contract been converted to a month to month term.** cannot unilaterally amend a contract because its wishes for an openended service term that is more convenicnt for Cogent policy would have required ** to sign a new contract with a month to month term to the extent Cogent agreed to modify the term of the existing contractFurther, there was no change to a month to month term implicitly agreed toby Cogent as alleged in **s complaintFrom January to May 2013, ** continued to pay its monthly service fee pursuant to the one year autorenewed term of service as provided for in its contract.On September , 2013, ** submitted a termination notice to Cogent with an effective date of October 31, ** was assessed an early termination fee of $6,608.22, equal to the remaining dollar value of the applicable service order through the end of the one year term, which was added to the existing outstanding balance of $8,for non-payment from June to October On December , 2013, Cogents billing department contacted ** about its outstanding account balanceAt the end of January 2014, this 1natter was sent to collections as ** had failed to respond to Cogents requests to bring the account current.Notwithstanding that the contract was not converted to a month to month term, to the extent ** pays the $8,due for non-payment from June to October 2013, Cogent will waive the early termination fee

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:It is disingenius of Cogent to claim that I am not a customer of theirs - I do not wish to be a customer of theirs, but my SPAM checking application has identified Cogent as the ISP hosting the SPAM domain referenced in over 300 emails since the beginning
of June alone, in spite of over 150 formal complaints to their "abuse"
account.An example of the SPAM check output and some of the complaints is below:
Report Spam to:
Re: [redacted] (Administrator of network where email originates)
To: [redacted] (Notes)
Re: [redacted]... (Administrator of network hosting website referenced in spam)
Submitted:
13/09/2014 17:02:19 +0100:
[redacted] ([redacted]) sends you SWEET VIDEO kiss!
[redacted] ( http://[redacted] ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( http://[redacted].. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( [redacted] ) To:
[redacted]
Submitted:
13/09/2014 17:01:25 +0100:
[redacted] ([redacted]) sends you a virtual kiss!
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( [redacted] ) To:
[redacted]
Submitted:
06/09/2014 22:37:12 +0100:
Nic , Inna (status-online) invites you for chat.
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( [redacted] ) To: [redacted]
Submitted:
06/09/2014 22:35:23 +0100:
[redacted] (status-online) invites you for chat.
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( http:/[redacted]. ) To:
[redacted]
[redacted] ( [redacted] ) To:
[redacted]
Whilst the emails originate elsewhere ([redacted]), the ongoing provision of the SPAM domain, rather than its suspension, which demonstrates the "SPAM-friendly" nature of Cogent.For that reason alone, they should be censured.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 28, 2014
Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your letter of 27 May 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted], assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted].**. [redacted] is incorrect in his statement that Cogent did not inform [redacted] of the demarcation point. Cogent sent e-mails on September 5 and September 20, 2013 to [redacted] of [redacted], including [redacted] of [redacted] on the September 20th e-mail indicating that the off-net loop (demarc point) had been installed on the PI parking level.More fundamentally, **. [redacted] continues to overlook the fact that the landlord for his building will not permit either [redacted] (their own tenant) nor any third party service provider access to the building’s utility riser. The landlord has apparently taken this position at the request of a government agency anchor tenant in the building. Because all riser access is apparently closed to utility companies, the en suite service that **. [redacted] hopes for is aspirational at best. [redacted] was perhaps disingenuous in not making clear in their solicitation for off-net service bids the insurmountable hurdle of the landlord’s riser access moratorium. Notwithstanding these points, Cogent’s contract (provided with its earlier response and marked to note the appropriate sections) contemplates access difficulties and clearly indicates that the loop provider installation point will be Cogent’s point of service for any off-net product. In this circumstance, that installation point is on the PI parking level.Also as stated earlier, [redacted]’s account was terminated March 31,2014 for non-payment. **. [redacted]’s complaints to Revdex.com have shifted from his initial request to “complete installation to his office suite” to a different request via Revdex.com to cancel the contract. **. [redacted] would be better served addressing with his landlord the difficulties of utility access to his own leased offices at [redacted]

September 15, 2014Dear Ms. Horne:This letter is in response to your letter of 11 September 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted] (“[redacted]”), assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted],[redacted] is not apparently a Cogent customer, and Cogent can find no record of a customer at the...

address in the United Kingdom that [redacted] indicated. On these points alone, Revdex.com should close this matter.Ried Z Corporate Secretary

Complaint: [redacted]Greetings I am rejecting this response from Cogent,
Cogent, Your statements are contradictory and this double talk is exactly why things are as they are. Cogent has contradicted itself; in the first response by Cogent (May 19) they stated it was installed in the Demarcation Point which was communicated as our floor/suite OR MPOE (minimum point of entry) point. In the recent response they now changed it to Garage after we brought it up that after months of research and constantly emailing and calling Cogent on the status of where the service was installed that we finally found out it was in the garage. We have email logs of repeated contacts to Cogent asking where is the service and how do we get to it, including an exchange with their billing dept after we said we will not pay since services was not rendered. 
We have an email from the property management that stated they did not contact them to do a proper setup, Cogent's tech just installed the circuit at where they "felt like". To install a High speed line to a garage/parking lot is crazy and is not how a Big company should do business, not to mention it makes it highly inaccessible. In addition Cogent started communicating with an unauthorized person, [redacted] whom worked as an accountant, why they would talk to an accountant about technical stuff is beyond me. They disregarded the communication chain and did not reach out to myself or [redacted] whom signed the contract. Plus all communications from our side (the IT/Tech side) was ignored and has put us in this situation. If there is an issue it is with the lack of communication / failure to communicate to the proper & effective person.
We have since went with another telecom provider whom is much smaller than cogent and was able to effectively get the service installed without the communication problems or "excuses". They were able to get [proper] permission from the building to install, they correctly installed into the MPOE room, and recommended a contractor to then pull the service up to our suite. It is inexcusable the "reasons" they have and what they did of which the most horrendous was to install a High Speed Internet line into a garage because it was the easiest way.
Regards,
[redacted]

I received fingerprinting from a Cogent affiliated organization last May. I was told that my fingerprints would lead into me receiving an FBI background check and was assured this after asking multiple times before and after payment. However, I ended up receiving a check from by state highway patrol. I spoke with Cogent who told me to speak to the highway patrol as they could give me access to my FBI results. I spoke with the highway patrol who told me that they never received any results from the FBI. After calling Cogent again, I asked for a refund since I did not receive the services I was promised. The first time I asked, I was hung up on. The second time I spoke with a man who sole answer for all of my questions was "I don't know" after asking to speak with his supervisor, he told me that they all happened to be at lunch and that I should just keep trying back. Honestly, this company does not know how to deal with customers and obviously is just in it for the money and not to help anyone out.

Review: On 1/20/2012, we requested a change of our account from yearly to month-to-month billing as of the end of our contract term (March 2012), in anticipation of cancelling the contract during the next year. This had been described to us as the correct procedure by Cogent staff. We then requested a termination of the contract at the end of April 2012. On May 22 2012, [redacted] wrote back to ask if we still wanted to cancel the service. At that time we were not ready to cancel, so we told [redacted] to hold off on cancellation. We requested cancellation again on September 4 2013, to which we received an email from "Cogent Terminations" indicating that our request had been received but that they were going to charge us an early termination fee amounting to the rest of the year's charges on the contract (approx $6600). We objected to the charge, to which [redacted] (the same person that replied to our 2012 email) replied that there was no evidence that our account had been converted to Month-to-month status. We refused to pay the ETF and they sent our account to collections.

Cogent accepted our change of terms implicitly by accepting our payments with no complaint or further communication after our email request. At the very least, they should have rejected it when we communicated with **. [redacted] in May 2012 if they did not believe it to be a valid change. They need to remove the additional charges and collections surcharges, so that we can close our account in good standing.Desired Settlement: Elimination of early termination and collections charges.

Business

Response:

June 3, 2014This letter is in response to your letter of 19 May 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted] (**), assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted].** states that it requested to convert its contract to month to month service in January 2012, Cogent has no record of receiving **s request to go month-to-month in January 2012 or agreeing to permit the contract to convert to a month to month term. The first correspondence received by Cogent with regard to the purported revised term occurred in March 2012 when ** requested to terminate its contract at the end of April 2012. It alleged at that time that the contract term had been converted to month to month. Cogent subsequently contacted ** to confirm the termination and inform ** that the contract had not been converted to a month to month term. ** did not respond to Cogents attempt to confirm the termination request or provide to Cogent any type of confirmation that it would have received from Cogent had the contract been converted to a month to month term.** cannot unilaterally amend a contract because its wishes for an openended service term that is more convenicnt for . Cogent policy would have required ** to sign a new contract with a month to month term to the extent Cogent agreed to modify the term of the existing contract. Further, there was no change to a month to month term implicitly agreed toby Cogent as alleged in **s complaint. From January 2012 to May 2013, ** continued to pay its monthly service fee pursuant to the one year autorenewed term of service as provided for in its contract.On September , 2013, ** submitted a termination notice to Cogent with an effective date of October 31, 2013. ** was assessed an early termination fee of $6,608.22, equal to the remaining dollar value of the applicable service order through the end of the one year term, which was added to the existing outstanding balance of $8,098.75 for non-payment from June 2013 to October 2013. On December , 2013, Cogents billing department contacted ** about its outstanding account balance. At the end of January 2014, this 1natter was sent to collections as ** had failed to respond to Cogents requests to bring the account current.Notwithstanding that the contract was not converted to a month to month term, to the extent ** pays the $8,098.75 due for non-payment from June 2013 to October 2013, Cogent will waive the early termination fee.

Review: Cogent Communications is an internet service provider. As part of the services offered, Cogent host websites. Over the past 3 months, I have received no less than 139 SPAM emails relating to sites hosted by Cogent Communications. This is in spite of having referred each of these SPAM emails to Cogent via [redacted].

Cogent has failed to take any action regarding these websites, thus neglecting their obligations under various legislation. As a result of the failure by Cogent to close down these websites, I continue to receive SPAM, on a daily basis, directing me to them. In essence, Cogent in demonstrating that they are SPAM-friendly and colluding with Russian SPAM gangs.Desired Settlement: Action to be taken to close down these websites - [redacted] - and to cease to allow new such websites (which require SPAM action to publicise them) to be set up.

Business

Response:

September 15, 2014Dear Ms. Horne:This letter is in response to your letter of 11 September 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted] (“[redacted]”), assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted],[redacted] is not apparently a Cogent customer, and Cogent can find no record of a customer at the address in the United Kingdom that [redacted] indicated. On these points alone, Revdex.com should close this matter.Ried Z Corporate Secretary

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:It is disingenius of Cogent to claim that I am not a customer of theirs - I do not wish to be a customer of theirs, but my SPAM checking application has identified Cogent as the ISP hosting the SPAM domain referenced in over 300 emails since the beginning

of June alone, in spite of over 150 formal complaints to their "abuse"

account.An example of the SPAM check output and some of the complaints is below:Report Spam to:

Review: [redacted] terminated service with Cogent on Aug 31, 2012 (Cogent Ticket number [redacted]). Cogent continued to bill [redacted] for a component of our service after we terminated our account. I called several times to the billing dept and sent several emails to have them correct this error, to no avail. Cogent continued to send bills and add late fees, etc. They are now threatening to send us to collections. This is very frustrating for my small business that can't get any response from this big corporation.

The irony is that we had to terminate our service with Cogent because they changes their internal policies which essential made it impossible for them to be our supplier. This was done after we spend thousands of dollars designing our data network around their backbone architecture and assurances from their sales organization that they wished to grow with [redacted] throughout [redacted]. We had a spend thousands of dollars again to switch to a new provider after this Cogent internal policy change. Here is the original explanation provided in our termination request which was accepted by Cogent as mentioned above:

[redacted] "Cogent changed the terms our our agreement for geographical expansion in [redacted] after we signed up 2 years ago. We attempted to add multiple

locations under those original terms (e.g. not requiring [redacted] to be a

tenant in the lit building that we resell service from) but were rejected

by Cogent's legal/compliance department effectively reneging on our

agreement. Our entire network architecture with Cogent was based on

multiple locations and not economical for a single location. Since Cogent

refused to provide service to [redacted] going forward we needed to find a

new service provider. We don't intend to pursue damages resulting from

Cogent's breech of agreement, rather will move to a new provider. It is

our hope that we can work with Cogent again sometime in the future when

their policies support our business model." [redacted]Desired Settlement: Eliminate all outstanding balances owed by [redacted] (they are all erroneous charges beginning after the termination of our service.) We fully paid for our service through the termination date of 8/31/2012, so we don't owe anything else. We are not seeking compensation/damages from Cogent for their breech of agreement and the resulting costs incurred by [redacted].

Review: In our [redacted] office we were trying to find a new Internet Service Provider (ISP), we narrowed down our choices to 2 good companies and in the end we went with Cogent, after months we still do not have service at our office suite. Before we signed the contract they assured us that they can bring service to our suite because in the past this has been difficult with other ISP because this building also houses a US Embassy office. First they said their contractor was having issues getting into the telecom room, then they said it was up to us now to bring the service, and gave us the run around. After we noticed that they still cannot get this done we asked them to cancel the service, our original rep no longer works there and they would not let us off the contract even though we have yet to have service from them. Now they are saying that once they bring the service to our building their job is done and they would not setup further. This was not what was agreed upon, we have countless emails from the original rep who stated the service will go to our suite. They keep increasing the bill for us and we are refusing to pay since the service was not rendered. They refuse to make it right and bring service to the suite and they also refuse to cancel the contract.

Account Info [redacted]Desired Settlement: Finish the job and bring service to the suite or cancel the service contract.

Business

Response:

May 23, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your letter of 19 May 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted], assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted].Cogent has honored is contractual obligation to provide service to [redacted] at the demarcation point set forth in the customer’s contract. [redacted] contracted for off-net internet services at its location in [redacted]. Off-net services are provided through a third-party local loop that is provisioned by Cogent from a local access provider on behalf of the customer and delivered to the Cogent Demarcation Point (a pre-established demarcation point or minimum point of entry (MPOE), as determined by the local access provider) in the building housing the customer’s location. The customer is responsible to facilitate with their building owner access to, and space for, any additional installation or connection necessary between the Cogent Demarcation Point and the customer’s premises in the building (see the Section 4 of the Product Rider - Dedicated Internet Access).Cogent has provided service to the Cogent Demarcation Point in the building where the customer is located and has attempted through the local access provider to assist [redacted] bring the service from the Cogent Demarcation Point to the customer’s suite, however, as **. [redacted] has indicated, this proved difficult due to the tenancy of a U.S. Government agency in the building.[redacted] was aware the impediment that the presence of the of a U.S. Government agency placed on receiving service in their suite while contracting with Cogent and has not facilitated the use of additional space in the risers necessary to connect customer’s suite to the Cogent Demarcation Point. Cogent’s contractual obligations to deliver service end at the Cogent Demarcation Point.[redacted]’s account was terminated March 31, 2014 for non-payment.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The service was never installed in the MPOE room but in the garage, because it is in the garage we can not even get a contractor to pull the service through the MPOE room up the riser to our suite and the building said the vendor needs to correctly install it. After installation no one even told us where the service was installed at, we were checking the MPOE to no avail it was not until feb/march the installer finally got back to us telling us it is in a certain location which we resolved to be in the garage area. We have yet to pass any data through the internet line, horrible communication. I no longer want them to finish the installation but instead to cancel the contract as per non delivery.

Regards,

Business

Response:

May 28, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your letter of 27 May 2014 concerning a complaint from [redacted], assigned Revdex.com ID: [redacted].**. [redacted] is incorrect in his statement that Cogent did not inform [redacted] of the demarcation point. Cogent sent e-mails on September 5 and September 20, 2013 to [redacted] of [redacted], including [redacted] of [redacted] on the September 20th e-mail indicating that the off-net loop (demarc point) had been installed on the PI parking level.More fundamentally, **. [redacted] continues to overlook the fact that the landlord for his building will not permit either [redacted] (their own tenant) nor any third party service provider access to the building’s utility riser. The landlord has apparently taken this position at the request of a government agency anchor tenant in the building. Because all riser access is apparently closed to utility companies, the en suite service that **. [redacted] hopes for is aspirational at best. [redacted] was perhaps disingenuous in not making clear in their solicitation for off-net service bids the insurmountable hurdle of the landlord’s riser access moratorium. Notwithstanding these points, Cogent’s contract (provided with its earlier response and marked to note the appropriate sections) contemplates access difficulties and clearly indicates that the loop provider installation point will be Cogent’s point of service for any off-net product. In this circumstance, that installation point is on the PI parking level.Also as stated earlier, [redacted]’s account was terminated March 31,2014 for non-payment. **. [redacted]’s complaints to Revdex.com have shifted from his initial request to “complete installation to his office suite” to a different request via Revdex.com to cancel the contract. **. [redacted] would be better served addressing with his landlord the difficulties of utility access to his own leased offices at [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

Greetings I am rejecting this response from Cogent,