...

...

The link will not connect, cannot make secure connection with archive.php.

...

Here’s a paywall-free version:

...

https://archive.ph/TFgyg

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...

Anne --- Outsource your email deliverability headaches to us, and get to the inbox, guaranteed! www.GetToTheInbox.com Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)

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 * On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:09 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

here's a Reuters which shouldn't be paywalled.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-firm-cogent-cutting-internet-service-r...

Mike

On 3/4/22 12:02 PM, Anne Mitchell wrote:

...

...

...

...

The link will not connect, cannot make secure connection with

archive.php.

...

...

...

Here’s a paywall-free version: https://archive.ph/TFgyg 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... Anne

--- Outsource your email deliverability headaches to us, and get to the inbox, guaranteed! www.GetToTheInbox.com

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO Get to the Inbox by SuretyMail Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop In-house Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (Closed in 2004)

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. *Brandon * On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:24 PM Ethan O'Toole <telmnstr@757.org> wrote:

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.

- E

On 3/4/22 3:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

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."

But Tier 1's don't pay for peering. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

Some are suggesting that the disconnect by Cogent is financially motivated. However, it could also be that given the quick rise in cyber warfare that they do not want to be caught in the crossfire and carrying and dealing with the loads of DDOS and pure hacking attempts going in both directions. The burden of dealing with this as well as payment issues and maybe for purely ethical issues of dealing with a proven lying dictatorship may have been the full motivation. Nicole On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 1:41 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

...

On Mar 4, 2022, at 13:14 , Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:

On 3/4/22 3:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

...

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."

But Tier 1's don't pay for peering.

Rostelecom isn’t a tier one.

Owen

-- * Nicole Harrington * * Operations & Engineering Manager - UNIX Systems Mistress * * Powered by FreeBSD*,* Linux & All Things Open Source *

Tom Beecher wrote:

If providers start making their own determinations about what is and isn't 'ok', it's a road to massive segmentation and separation of the internet.

That's what GAFA has been doing at the application layer, which is more effective than similar attempts at the networking layer. Masataka Ohta

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 <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ

On Mar 4, 2022, at 1:45 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:

...

On 3/4/22 3:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

...

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."

But Tier 1's don't pay for peering.

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

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: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/03/investing/russia-oil-sanctions-ukraine/in... Rubens

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:55 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

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 On 3/4/2022 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:55 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

-- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================

On Mar 4, 2022, at 14:03 , Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:55 PM Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com <mailto:hannigan@gmail.com>> wrote:

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.

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.

Sanctions cut both ways, and there is the possibility that Cogent’s legal team has said “Continue to do business with X in Russia puts you at risk of violating sanctions.” It’s not clear whether that’s the case or not, but I will say that if I were doing business there and my legal team said something like that, I’d seriously consider dropping the relevant customers quickly if it wouldn’t be a worse consequence than violating said sanctions (which seems unlikely).

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."

Yeah, I don’t think that’s what is happening here. Think of this more like businesses that were trading with Cuba during the Kennedy administration. All of that abruptly stopped pretty much one day.

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.

What about “If and when it becomes clear that it’s illegal to keep those customers”? Owen

Sean Donelan wrote:

The Russia sanctions are different (see a lawyer),

It seems to me that, according to https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ukraine_overview_of_sanctions.pdf sanctions to prohibit "the exportation or importation of any goods, services, or technology" is "to or from the Crimea region of Ukraine", not Russia.

and don't have an explicit general license for telecommunications and mail.

They are not necessary. Masataka Ohta

Matthew Petach wrote:

...

sanctions to prohibit "the exportation or importation of any goods, services, or technology" is "to or from the Crimea region of Ukraine", not Russia.

That document is from 2016.

Oops.

I suspect there's a more recent one related to the current situation. ^_^;

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/14065.pdf should be the current most one, which is for "the so-called DNR or LNR regions of Ukraine or such other regions of Ukraine as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State", not Russia. Masataka Ohta

JeffP wrote:

Actually, try this:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0628

Are you saying "sanctioning numerous Russian elites and their family members" has something to do with NANOG? Masataka Ohta