They exist: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=26878307
http://canadabizdb.com/company/3264874/cogent-canada-inc http://www.contracts-contrats.hc-sc.gc.ca/cfob/mssid/contractdisc.nsf/WEBbypurpose/A35BA8F8DB21C5E98525787E0066931A?OpenDocument&lang=eng&; http://listings.ftb-companies-ca.com/l/112540553/Cogent-Canada-Inc-in-Toronto-ON My cogent invoice: Cogent Canada, Inc. P.O.Box 46067 Postal Station A Toronto, Ontario M5W 4K9 [ Dont visit the Cogent Canada facebook page. Not quite the same industry. Or the @CogentCanada twitter feed. (Something about semen vouchers.) ] Anyway, they exist as a Canadian entity (and have even made submissions to the CRTC bitching about rulings favouring Bell), so they're certainly operating in Canada. Anyone wanna file a complaint to the CCTS in Canada? https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/ /kc On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 01:19:41PM -0500, Christopher Morrow said: >On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei < >jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote: >> > So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is >> now a conspiracy? >> >> >> Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope. When China >> tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China. >> >> >'when possible' (also, PRC is a special case...) > >you might make the analogy here to the singaporian 'block these 100 >objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though. > > >> If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it >> doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA. >> >> >yes, because of course the networks in question here are built around >national borders... and of course also on internal (to the nation) >boundaries.. and of course even more granularly on the internal, internal >national boundaries (country -> state -> county -. city -> burrough -> >apt-building -> floor - door -> room -> person -> device clearly cogent did >this as well) > > >> Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results >> is a content issue, not a telecom issue. >> >> Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should >> this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation. >> >> >excellent, goodluck fellow traveler. > > >> And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do >> not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers), >> then this is really not correct. >> >> >sure, but... > >what about dhs/ice revocation of domains in com/net/org/etc? :) > > >> >> In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all >> reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for >> the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier >> starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity. >> >> >good thing cogent isn't a canadian company I suppose? > > >> Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA. >> > > >it sure does, you might have luck bringing this up with your equivalent to >the US State Department, no? Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada
