I know the link is paywalled, but it's super high level so not much is lost. But what does everybody think of this? I imagine that just Cogent cutting them off isn't going to make much difference.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/04/russia-ukraine-internet-cogent-cutoff/
Mike
The link will not connect, cannot make secure connection with archive.php.
The link will not connect, cannot make secure connection with archive.php.
Here’s a paywall-free version:
FWIW, the WashPost link works for me, and I am not a paying subscriber, so I'd try that first, here it is again:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/04/russia-ukraine-internet-cogent-cutoff/
Anne
here's a Reuters which shouldn't be paywalled.
Mike
It seems the much more concerning news coming out now is that Russia is banning all foreign and independent media from BBC to Facebook and all in between with heavy threats of prison and fines. So they are cutting themselves off presumably to keep the Russian people in the dark about what is happening.
Cogent already does not provide access to the Internet, only to parts
of the Internet, so this just changes the perimeter of their Intranet.
That said, it's more likely they are afraid of sanctions and/or not
getting paid for services than ideologically motivated.
Rubens
It seems the much more concerning news coming out now is that Russia is banning all
foreign and independent media from BBC to Facebook and all in between with heavy threats of
prison and fines. So they are cutting themselves off presumably to keep the Russian people
in the dark about what is happening.
Brandon
All the American social media platforms that banned Americans from having open discussions about things over the past 2 years?
Oh no, how could they.
Archive.ph worked fine for me. It's .ph, not .php
- E
I think I see the connection you are trying to make, but this seems very much different if not completely opposite. American social media companies were/are banning/blocking some misinformation and lies.
This (today) is the Russian state (Putin) outlawing the truth and any reporting that is not state sanctioned or agreeing completely with the fake/false narrative they wish to push on their citizens to keep them in the dark.
I would argue they don’t have much of a choice:
“The economic sanctions put in place as a result of the invasion and the increasingly uncertain security situation make it impossible for Cogent to continue to provide you with service.”
I would expect to see others follow suit if that is the case.
But Tier 1's don't pay for peering.
Rostelecom isn’t a tier one.
Owen
As someone who once had to have lawyers argue (at different times) with the US Dept. of Treasury for (a) providing open source software deemed a munition internationally and (b) updating certain globally accessible lists of names and numbers for Internet use at no charge (under a US government contract no less): you do not have to receive money to be viewed as providing a service.
Regards,
-drc
That’s an interesting slope to slide along…
I fully understand ISPs disconnecting customers for non-payment; we’ve
all had to do that at one point or another in our careers, I’m sure.
However, that’s generally done after the customer has demonstrated
an inability or unwillingness to pay their bills.
This doesn’t seem to indicate that any existing invoices have gone
unpaid past their due date, but simply that there is concern that a
future bill might go unpaid due to the economic sanctions.
I’m not sure that’s a good precedent for a service provider to create;
“we may terminate your service at any point if we suspect that at an
unspecified time in the future, you may become unable to pay future
invoices.”
Shades of Minority Report. We’ll imprison you today for a crime we
suspect you will commit in the future. ^_^;
If and when bills go unpaid, I fully support turning off customers.
I worry about the precedent of disconnecting based on suspicions
of what might happen in the future, however.
Matt
With sanctions, isn't there a possibility that they literally *can't* get paid? That is, they are running on free service as of now?
Mike
I think you're reading it incorrectly.
The US government and many other countries have imposed sanctions against Russia and barred businesses in those countries from doing business in Russia. Cogent is a US based company and, even if it operates on foreign jurisdictions through subsidiaries, has issues providing services to sanctioned entities. That's how I read the excerpt provided.
Aaron
If sanctions were to come out after payment was received but before services are rendered, most providers would still not be able to provide the service.
It’s also likely that banks in question can no longer forward funds from Russia, even if it were still possible to provide a service. I’m not a lawyer and this is where you need one, but doing business at all in Russia is going to become close to impossible.
I’d be curious to know how much of Cogent’s decision was weighted by choosing not to connect Russian customers vs being legally forced to stop.
A third possibility is that Cogent’s Russian entity (if they have one) or their US one is refusing to install new state-mandated surveillance hardware or follow certain procedures such as FSB/NSA letters, etc.
-LB
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
ben@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME
FCC License KJ6FJJ
With the sanctions in place, how would Cogent get paid for providing service?
With the sanctions in place, how would Cogent get paid for providing service?
Even considering that payments are still flowing, there is still a
risk of running afoul of sanctions. This supply chain is formally
excluded from the sanctions, but the uncertainty around them made it
stop doing business with Russia anyways:
Rubens
With the sanctions in place, how would Cogent get paid for providing service?
As has been said previously, taking preemptive actions based on what MAY or MAY NOT occur is a slippery slope to be on.