Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. (FNSI), co-founded by David J. Koch, was a profitable Tier One internet backbone and two-time Inc. 500 company. By 2001, it operated multiple revenue-generating data centers and a fully developed network infrastructure serving enterprise customers across the United States.
Before its 2003 transfer to Cogent Communications, FNSI was an established, audited business with documented operations, customers, and financial performance. This site preserves the historical record of that company and the events that followed.
It was never about flash. It was about fundamentals: engineering excellence, mentorship, and creating a real career path for people in their 20s, including a young Kyle Bacon, who joined the effort shortly after finishing his engineering degree. Dave built the business model, the team, the national reach — and trained his own replacement so that others could take flight too.
In February 2003, during a period of documented medical incapacitation, Fiber Network Solutions was transferred to Cogent Communications through a transaction structured as an asset sale. The transaction eliminated Koch’s 1.2 million shares and removed FNSI from public disclosure as an operating business, appearing only as a “miscellaneous asset purchase” within Cogent’s SEC filings.
Individuals involved in the transaction, including Kyle Bacon, subsequently assumed roles within Cogent Communications following the transfer.
This site presents the documented history of FNSI — its founding, growth, and the evidentiary record associated with its 2003 transfer. Koch’s 1.2 million shares are reflected in contemporaneous KPMG audit reports and in the McDonald Investments memorandum, both available on the Evidence page.
It also documents the ongoing federal whistleblower proceedings, including disclosures to the SEC, FBI, DOJ, and IRS-CI.
Because the truth doesn’t sink.
Kyle Bacon (left) Dave Koch (right) Fiber Network Solutions' Network Operations Center
Fiber Network Solutions' Network Operations Center
Dave Koch, President, CEO & Chairman
Fiber Network Solutions, Inc.
Fiber Network Solutions, Inc.
Corporate Headquarters - Columbus, Ohio
FNSI had been profitable for years and received consecutive unqualified audit opinions from KPMG. Based on these industry benchmarks, its estimated valuation fell between $200 million and $1 billion.
But in early 2003, instead of a standard equity transaction, the deal was camouflaged as an “asset sale” — a structure that nullified Koch’s 1.2 million shares and funneled value through a network of undisclosed and deliberately concealed mechanisms, including Exhibit 2.5, stripped of all schedules and buried in Cogent’s S-1 SEC registration as a “miscellaneous asset purchase.”
Combine the hidden Exhibit 2.5 with the authorship of Koch’s proxy given to Kyle Bacon because he was too ill to attend board or shareholder meetings. These are the bookends of a fraud. According to recently discovered forensic evidence, that proxy was authored by Bill Kelly, a Columbus, Ohio attorney Koch fired for cause two years prior.
The proxy and the concealed Exhibit 2.5 form the bookends of a calculated fraud: one conferring false authority, the other burying its paper trail. Together, they demonstrate both the intent to commit fraud and the conscious effort to conceal it.
“At the time, I trusted Kyle, States Koch. “I was too sick to even consider if I was concerned whether he would vote my shares in my best interest and not engage in any kind of self-dealing.”
The assumption of the conspirators' was simple: Koch wouldn’t survive long enough to uncover what had been done.
While in and out of the hospital and at home, Kyle Bacon made Koch believe that his absence caused the company to decline to a point that both business and personal bankruptcy were looming. Believing that Bacon was his trusted partner, Koch was manipulated during this vulnerable period to believe that Cogent Communications would rescue Koch by taking over the debt of FNSI, thereby negating the bankruptcy threat.
The applicable statute of limitations remains open under established federal tolling doctrines.
This is the official site of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. — and the federal whistleblower who exposed how it was stolen, buried, and erased from history. What follows is the true story of how it was built, and how its theft is finally being brought to light.
The June 17, 2025 news release exposed the smoking gun that connected all the dots — proving that Cogent Communications did not build a data center empire, but deployed one stolen from Fiber Network Solutions.
It implicates key players — Dave Schaeffer, Kyle Bacon, Diana Ritchie Thomas (formerly Diana Anderson), Vince Bacon, Jim Bacon, Bill Kelly, Craig Housley, and Inga Housley — as participants in a racketeering scheme consistent with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO).
This release contains:
➤ Recorded admissions by former Cogent CIO Kyle Bacon (The individual recording
snippets have been enhanced for audio volume and noise reduction only using audio editing
software, Audacity. That can be confirmed by downloading the raw untouched recordings.)
➤ The original 2001 FNSI brochure from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine
➤ Timeline proof of misappropriation and concealment
➤ Forensic evidence confirming board-level knowledge and insider
stock sales exceeding $47 million
The compilation of forensic, documented and third-party archived evidence converge
The Fraudulent Acquisition of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. (FNSI) by Dave Schaeffer and Cogent Communications (NASDAQ: CCOI)
Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. (FNSI) was a profitable, audited Tier One internet backbone provider co-founded by David J. Koch. In February 2003, during a period of documented medical incapacitation, FNSI was transferred to Cogent Communications through a transaction presented as an asset sale, eliminating Koch’s 1.2 million shares and removing the company from public disclosure as an operating business - despite years of historic media in credible publications for nearly a decade prior.
This site presents the documented evidentiary record of that transaction and its aftermath. The materials include contemporaneous corporate records, third-party publications, archived documents, forensic evidence, recorded admissions, and formal whistleblower disclosures submitted to federal agencies, including the SEC, DOJ, FBI, and IRS-CI.
The record reflects a consistent pattern: asset transfer without equivalent shareholder consideration, concealment of transaction details, and the subsequent construction of a public narrative that omits FNSI’s operational history and authorship. These materials are organized chronologically and supported by primary-source documentation to allow independent verification.
This archive exists as a permanent, structured reference for regulators, investigators, and the public.
Case Overview
The Question of Consent
At the time of the February 26, 2003 transfer of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc., did David J. Koch possess the legal capacity required to provide informed consent, in light of contemporaneously documented severe physical and psychological impairments?
More fundamentally, what transaction was Koch told he was consenting to?
Kyle Bacon, VP & COO FNSI, / CIO Cogent Communications
Kyle Bacon, VP & COO FNSI, / CIO Cogent Communications
Kyle Bacon, VP & COO FNSI, / CIO Cogent Communications
Kyle Bacon, VP & COO FNSI, / CIO Cogent Communications
Kyle Bacon, VP & COO FNSI, / CIO Cogent Communications
Let's let Kyle Bacon tell us if Dave Koch was capable of giving consent.
Ya know. Clear the air with FNSI. Everything we did, what happened at the end, ...uhh. The decisions, like... They weren't even decisions from Dave, like I made the decisions. [unintelligible] So, it's all on me... like... you, you, you were not capable of making decisions cause of your health... — Kyle Bacon
Yeah, I mean... The deal closed... Uhhh... February 29th... twenty... uhhh two thousand and three. I know what [unintelligible] can do. Ya know, like September twenty... two thousand... The doctor said, you need to check out or you're, you're gone. And I'm glad you checked out and I'm glad I helped [unintelligible] I said, Dave, I'll take care of it. — Kyle Bacon
"Chris, the last time I saw you, Dave was like basically told by the doctor, get the fuck out of work." — Kyle Bacon "Yeah, and we talked about that. I mean, the doctors said, I think to you and I, he has maybe six months." — Chris Myers "Yeah!" — Kyle Bacon
"The point is... Dave, who was on his deathbed, climbs a ladder to the roof of his RV. You have no idea how happy that makes me feel." — Kyle Bacon
"I remember telling you to live to fight another day... that I'll take care of it. Stop worrying about your little kid, ...Kyle... and live. Your doctors said don't come back before it's done. Because you surviving and enjoying the past twenty years of your life is way more valuable to me... than anything else." — Kyle Bacon
What was Fiber Network Solutions
Exploitation of the FNSI President, CEO & Chairman
Who Is Dave Koch? Click Here to learn about Dave and his work.
The Deliberate and Orchestrated Financial Fraud
Where did Cogent Communications' Data Center Model Originate?
Kyle Bacon, (Former) CIO Cogent Communications
"Cogent didn't have a product to sell for these data centers that they bought from PSI." — Kyle Bacon "I took our model. I took our data center model, from FNSI... from FiberNet, then I packaged it up, made a nice presentation for the sales team so they could all understand it, and I said, go sell the shit out of this, because no one else is doing it." — Kyle Bacon "That's what put me on Dave Schaffer's and Cogent's RADAR. Because I took his turd and turned it to gold. I didn't build anything new. I just took what we had at Fibernet..." — Kyle Bacon
For more than two decades, Cogent Communications presented its colocation model as a proprietary innovation. It was not.
Cogent deployed a pre-existing, profitable data center architecture built by Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. — a company it acquired through fraud and then concealed as the true source of its model.
Before joining Cogent, Kyle Bacon served as Vice President and COO of FNSI under David J. Koch. He later participated in the fraudulent transfer of FNSI to Cogent, during which Koch — incapacitated by severe, life-threatening illness — was stripped of 1.2 million shares.
A timestamped 2001 FNSI brochure, preserved by the Internet Archive, confirms that this data center infrastructure was already operational and serving customers well before Cogent’s 2002 acquisition of PSINet assets.
Let's let Kyle Bacon tell us where Cogent's data center model came from.
If David J. Koch consented to the transaction, why does his signature not appear on the controlling document? Koch was FNSI's Co-Founder, President, CEO, Chairman and majority shareholder.
If the transaction documents specifically address employment agreements, non-competition agreements, and other contingencies that expressly identify David J. Koch as a party, where are those agreements?
If those agreements existed, why have the schedules referenced in Exhibit 2.5 never been produced?
Why have those schedules not been provided to David J. Koch, who was, as a matter of record, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, and one of the largest individual shareholders of Fiber Network Solutions at the time of the transaction?
Why has Cogent Communications, through its Chief Legal Officer, refused repeated requests for the production of those schedules?
See Requests: May 16, 2025 and May 23, 2025 / First Notices: March 14-19, 2025
Cogent official reply: May 23, 2025 / Cogent official reply: March 19, 2025
Reply to Cogent: May 23, 2025
More than twenty years after the acquisition, the questions remain unanswered.
Exhibit 2.5 raises a simple question: If the transaction occurred as represented, where are the schedules and agreements referenced by the controlling document?
The Controlling Document — Exhibit 2.5
Questions Concerning Exhibit 2.5
When this website was first published in February 2025, Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCOI) was trading at approximately $83.44 per share.
By September 10, 2026, Cogent’s share price had fallen to a new 52-week low of $8.68 per share—a decline of approximately 89.6%. Its market capitalization declined from more than $4 billion to roughly $446 million, a decline of more than 88.9%.
Why Does Cogent Communications (CCOI) Stock Appear Volatile?
Examine the FNSI–Cogent Transaction
Examine The Fraud Summary
Review the Documentary Evidence
Although evidence is located throughout this Website, start with reviewing The Evidence Page.
Examine Cogent Leadership and Dave Schaeffer
Read the governing document - SEC Exhibit 2.5
That Cogent continues to conceal its schedules. What is Cogent hiding?
If David J. Koch authorized and consented to the sale, why is he not a signatory to the controlling Asset Purchase Agreement (SEC Exhibit 2.5), despite being expressly identified throughout the agreement as a significant participant whose employment, liabilities, releases, and non-compete obligations are integral to the transaction?
The Statute of Limitations is not based upon the date of the transaction.
As explained in great detail below, The age of the original transaction is therefore not the age of the entire evidentiary record.
Fiber Network Solutions' Corporate Headquarters
The acquisition of Fiber Network Solutions by Cogent Communications was structured as an asset transaction rather than a standard equity purchase, resulting in the elimination of existing shareholder interests. The structure and documentation of the transaction form a central part of the evidentiary record presented on this site.
While he was incapacitated due to severe illness, under activities that demonstrate clear legal, ethical, and criminal misconduct, Koch was forcibly and unlawfully divested of control of his company, along with his 1.2 million shares.
FNSI was an eight-year-old Tier One Internet backbone — a mature, revenue-generating enterprise producing eight figures annually. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, technology companies were frequently valued using revenue multiples ranging from 20x to 100x, based on growth rates, profitability, and acquisition trends.
Left to right: Brian Shearrow, Kyle Bacon and Dave Koch
For more than twenty years, the individuals responsible for the FNSI–Cogent transaction operated under the assumption that the passage of time would insulate their conduct from scrutiny.
The documentary record now demonstrates why that assumption is wrong.
The limitations analysis begins with a fundamental fact:
the transaction David J. Koch was told he would be approving during a period of severe and independently documented medical impairment was materially different from the economic transaction later revealed through documentary reconstruction.
Koch’s contemporaneously documented understanding was that Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. (“FNSI”) had deteriorated into catastrophic financial circumstances during his medical absence; that the proposed Cogent transaction was a distressed rescue necessary to protect him from personal bankruptcy and economic catastrophe; and that neither Koch, his longtime business partner Kyle Bacon, nor any other FNSI shareholder would receive compensation from the transaction.
Koch continued to accept that basic explanation for more than two decades.
That understanding did not begin to collapse until a documentary reconstruction undertaken beginning in late 2023 materially developed during 2024 and early 2025.
The evidence assembled through that reconstruction raised a fundamentally different question:
Was the transaction Koch was told he was approving the transaction that actually occurred?
The record now contains substantial evidence concerning economic terms, transaction consideration, stock options, employment arrangements, post-closing benefits, corporate authority, omitted schedules, and subsequent conduct that were not part of the rescue narrative Koch had been given and continued to believe.
The statute-of-limitations question therefore cannot be reduced to the date on which the Asset Purchase Agreement was executed.
The controlling issue is when Koch knew—or through reasonable diligence reasonably should have known—that the transaction he had been told occurred was materially different from the transaction that actually occurred.
Possession of isolated documents is not discovery of concealed wrongdoing.
Knowing that a distressed transaction occurred is not the same as knowing that undisclosed consideration, compensation, self-dealing, or other economic arrangements may have existed behind it.
Suspicion is not discovery.
And a victim cannot reasonably discover material transaction information that has been withheld from him and remains contained within documents that have never been produced.
Discovery of the Fraud
Koch’s first documented realization that the historical transaction may have been fundamentally different from what he had been told occurred during approximately January 30 through February 1, 2025.
That discovery chronology is not based merely upon retrospective recollection.
It is supported by a plethora of contemporaneous documents, recorded communications, archived corporate records, SEC filings, transaction documents, historical records, and objectively dated investigative activity.
Those materials document the evolution from historical reconstruction, to suspicion, to active investigation, and ultimately to discovery of facts materially inconsistent with the rescue narrative Koch had accepted for more than twenty years.
The relevant inquiry is not when Koch knew that FNSI had been transferred to Cogent.
He knew a transaction had occurred.
What he did not know was whether the transaction that actually occurred was materially different from the transaction he had been told occurred.
During his illness, Koch understood that FNSI’s financial condition had deteriorated dramatically; that personal bankruptcy and economic catastrophe were looming; that Cogent was rescuing the company by assuming its obligations; and that the shareholders, including Koch and Bacon, were receiving no compensation.
That explanation provided an internally coherent reason for what Koch believed had happened.
The documentary reconstruction changed that understanding.
It revealed questions about the complete economic structure of the transaction that could not have been answered merely from Koch’s knowledge that an asset sale had taken place.
The Rescue Narrative and Why Earlier Discovery Was Not Reasonably Possible
The concealment was effective because the transaction had been explained to Koch in a way that accounted for the catastrophic result he experienced.
Koch had co-founded and built an established telecommunications company that had twice achieved recognition on the Inc. 500 and had received unqualified audit opinions from KPMG.
During a period of severe medical impairment and substantial absence from customary executive responsibilities, Koch was told that FNSI had deteriorated to the point that both corporate and personal financial catastrophe threatened.
• The Cogent transaction was presented as the solution.
• Cogent would take over FNSI’s business and obligations.
• Koch would avoid personal bankruptcy.
• Kyle Bacon would not be enriched.
• The other FNSI shareholders would not be enriched.
• All shareholders and stock options holders would lose their equity, but the financial catastrophe would be contained. This was confirmed by Kyle Bacon as recently as March 19, 2025.
That was the transaction Koch believed had occurred.
The later documentary reconstruction raised a dramatically different question:
If no shareholder was supposed to receive compensation because the transaction was merely a distressed rescue, who received the economic benefits reflected in the transaction documents and subsequent arrangements?
Answering that question required far more than knowing that FNSI had been transferred.
It required reconstructing the transaction through SEC filings, the Asset Purchase Agreement, historical corporate records, post-closing employment and financial relationships, omitted schedules, archived evidence, and Bacon’s subsequent recorded statements.
The existence of the transaction was never the concealed fact.
The concealed fact was its actual economic structure and the identity of those who benefited from it.
That distinction is central to the discovery rule.
Continuing Concealment — Ongoing Tolling
The concealment did not end when Koch began investigating.
The schedules incorporated by reference in Exhibit 2.5 of Cogent’s SEC-filed Asset Purchase Agreement have never been produced to Koch.
Those schedules contain critical information concerning the complete structure of the transaction, including consideration, assumed liabilities, employment agreements, restrictive covenants, compensation, equity arrangements, and other economic terms.
Koch formally demanded production of those materials.
On May 23, 2025, Cogent Chief Legal Officer John Chang responded in writing:
“You are not entitled to those materials and we are not obligated to provide those to you.”
That refusal is a documented post-discovery event occurring more than two decades after the transaction.
The schedules remain withheld.
The significance is straightforward:
Documents capable of resolving central questions concerning the complete economics of the transaction remain unavailable to the man who was FNSI’s co-founder, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and one of its largest shareholders.
Under fraudulent-concealment principles, a party cannot ordinarily use the passage of time created by its own concealment as both a shield from discovery and a statute-of-limitations defense.
The continued withholding of the Exhibit 2.5 schedules therefore remains directly relevant to concealment, accrual, tolling, and the reasonableness of Koch’s discovery chronology.
The evidentiary record also contains materially more recent conduct occurring during 2024 through 2026, including post-discovery communications, responses to requests for documents, conduct directed toward publication intermediaries, and other events that may constitute independent acts or bear upon continuing concealment, obstruction, retaliation, or other legal theories.
The age of the original transaction is therefore not the age of the entire evidentiary record.
Resulting Statute of Limitations Framework
The documentary record supports two independent and reinforcing limitations propositions.
First — Delayed Discovery
Koch did not discover the alleged concealed economic structure of the transaction merely because the transaction occurred in February 2003.
His understanding materially changed only after the documentary reconstruction culminated during approximately January 30 through February 1, 2025.
The documentary chronology supports the position that the applicable discovery-based limitations analysis begins when the alleged concealed facts became reasonably discoverable—not automatically on the date the transaction closed.
Second — Continuing Concealment
Material transaction information remains withheld.
The schedules incorporated into the controlling Asset Purchase Agreement have never been produced and may disclose information necessary to determine the complete allocation of transaction consideration, employment and compensation arrangements, liabilities, restrictive covenants, equity interests, and other financial benefits.
Cogent expressly refused Koch’s written request for those materials in May 2025.
The concealment therefore did not simply disappear with the passage of time.
The limitations analysis does not begin and end with February 26, 2003.
• It requires consideration of:
• the discovery rule;
• reasonable diligence;
• fraudulent concealment;
• continuing withholding of material information;
• claim-specific accrual;
• potentially applicable tolling doctrines;
• the effect of later conduct;
• independently actionable post-transaction conduct;
• and any applicable statutes of repose.
The documentary record supports the position that the applicable limitations periods remain subject to delayed-accrual and tolling principles and that a limitations defense based solely upon the age of the February 2003 transaction does not resolve the matter.
The passage of time does not convert concealed information into discoverable information.
It does not make withheld transaction schedules available to the person from whom they were withheld.
And it does not permit a party to rely upon the very concealment that prevented discovery as the basis for arguing that discovery came too late.
The transaction is old. The discovery is not. The concealment remains documented.
Key Case Law
The federal whistleblower record and accompanying legal analysis reference, among other authorities:
Holmberg v. Armbrecht — fraudulent concealment and federal equitable tolling principles.
Klehr v. A.O. Smith — civil RICO accrual and fraudulent concealment, including reasonable diligence.
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds — discovery of facts constituting a securities-fraud violation.
Love v. National Medical Enterprises — Fifth Circuit civil RICO injury-discovery and separate accrual.
State of Texas v. Allan Construction Co. — Fifth Circuit recognition that inquiry notice does not necessarily establish that reasonable diligence would have uncovered sufficient facts to bring a claim.
Toussie v. United States — federal criminal limitations and the restrictive framework governing continuing offenses; included as a limiting authority rather than as affirmative support for tolling.
Addressing the treatment of continuing offenses and federal criminal limitations principles.
These authorities must be applied to the particular causes of action, statutes, alleged conduct, and evidentiary chronology involved. Their relevance is addressed within the broader whistleblower and litigation record.
Statutory Violations Referenced
The evidentiary and whistleblower materials reference potential violations and related federal statutory provisions including:
18 U.S.C. § 1001 — False Statements and Concealment of Material Facts
Potentially applicable to materially false statements, representations, or concealment of material facts within matters under federal jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 — Obstruction of Criminal Investigations
Referenced in connection with conduct that may interfere with or obstruct communications of information concerning potential federal offenses.
18 U.S.C. § 1512 — Witness Tampering and Interference With Evidence
Referenced in connection with potential interference with witnesses, evidence, communications, or federal proceedings.
18 U.S.C. § 4 — Misprision of Felony
Referenced within the governmental submissions concerning knowledge and concealment of alleged federal offenses.
18 U.S.C. § 3282 — General Federal Statute of Limitations for Non-Capital Offenses
This is a limitations provision rather than a substantive criminal violation and is referenced because of its potential relevance to the federal criminal limitations analysis.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) — Unauthorized Access to Protected Computers
Referenced in connection with alleged unauthorized acquisition of information from protected computer systems.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) — Intentional Damage to Protected Computers
Referenced in connection with alleged intentional impairment, alteration, destruction, or damage involving protected computer systems or data.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(b) — Conspiracy and Attempt Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Referenced in connection with potential attempts or conspiracies involving conduct prohibited by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
18 U.S.C. § 1029 — Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Access Devices
Referenced within the broader evidentiary record concerning alleged fraud involving access devices or related electronic conduct.
The identification of these statutes reflects matters referred for governmental investigation and does not depend upon private prosecution by Koch. Federal authorities determine whether particular conduct satisfies the elements of any criminal offense and whether prosecution is appropriate.
For an in-depth, comprehensive overview of the documentary timeline regarding the fraudulent acquisition of Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. by Cogent Communications (NASDAQ: CCOI), visit the Download PDF's page, or read the html versions at the Read Doc's On-Line page.
This site is a federally protected whistleblower disclosure and investigative reporting platform.
© All Rights Reserved
The materials published herein are maintained pursuant to rights and protections afforded under federal and state law, including whistleblower, witness-retaliation, public-interest reporting, and anti-retaliation protections, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1513, and, where applicable, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1514A and 1962. The content is presented solely for lawful public-interest, investigative, evidentiary, and journalistic purposes.
The statements, exhibits, recordings, and memorandums contained on this site are derived from contemporaneous records and documentary evidence, including corporate filings, emails, written communications, social media messages, financial records, archived materials, and audio recordings. The recordings referenced on this site are authentic, unedited, and preserved in their original form. Certain recordings were captured during conversations initiated by Kyle Bacon in March 2024 and are independently corroborated by telecommunications and billing records reflecting incoming calls to whistleblower David J. Koch.
This platform maintains evidentiary preservation protocols, activity logging, and archival continuity measures. Any attempt to intimidate, suppress, censor, retaliate against, interfere with, or improperly compel removal of protected whistleblower disclosures or public-interest reporting may implicate federal and state civil and criminal statutes, including obstruction, witness retaliation, spoliation, abuse of process, and unlawful interference with protected whistleblower activity.
