It’s my understanding that doing NAT at the scale becomes very expensive due to state tracking and syncing between gateways to the point that ipv6 is getting to be the cheaper option.
There might yet be hope.
Google offered all free IPv6 peering to all major transit carriers. Cogent turned them down and said, no, you need to pay Cogent for this. They were the only carrier to do this. So Cogent uses other transit carriers to reach Google. If you're on Cogent, you don't have a direct peering connection to Google. They probably did this to balance out their ratios with other carriers, but it's bad from a customer perspective.
You're better off using another tier 1 carrier than Cogent if you use a fair amount of Google.
I'm not seeing any connectivity between Cogent and Google.
Try Cogent's Looking Glass[1] and test connectivity to www.google.com, for example. ("Destination unreachable: No route")
Ignoring and not adopting IPv6 is bad enough, but being negative about it? What did they say?
Sometimes I think we’re never going to fully adopt IPv6. It’ll just be layers of CGNAT.