Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
 ·Embarq
| Advertised Sync Rate
The rate of 5888/896 is not the "advertised" rate. That is the rate you have been told by Embarq techs and people on this board. The correct "advertised" rate is 5120/768. I know its nitpicking, but just trying to keep all things fair. The rates you are referring to, are the overprovisioning speed Embarq has in place to make up for the overhead on each packet, to get you closer to the "advertised" speed. |
|
dav0r
translate
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Albertville, MN
 ·Charter Pipeline
·Embarq
| I am aware of this. I'm talking about sync rate not actual throughput. They threw me on g.dmt and I synced at 768 up which gave me about 655 actual throughput which is not what I paid for. I had to talk to 5 people to be put back on the T1 ADSL1 flavor and still only get 864 after multiple modem resets (tried two 660r modems) and most typically would get 448 up sync. Even though I'm only 3,000 ft away my up noise margin is only 9.5. No one ever tried to change that because the techs would get full sync of 5888/896 every time. So either the modem isn't as good as it should be or the test equipment is way better than residential equipment. Regardless if I'm not getting 896 I think something else should have been done. It wasn't. Latency is also too high at 15-16ms first hop and over 40ms to Chicago Speakeasy (basically anywhere from 20-40ms higher to every destination above what I consider to be normal). Indirect GLBX routing exacerbates things here locally as I go through LA to get to Denver, for example. Soemtimes I'd even go through LA to get to Texas depending on BGP which I don't fully understand. I don't really care. All I know is 100ms to Seattle Speakeasy, 90ms to Denver, and 66ms to New York is too high for what is supposed to be a premium broadband connection. Yes it's residential but more normal stats from here are under 80ms to Seattle, under 60ms to Denver, and 40ms to New York. On cable I'd get 73-77 to Seattle, 45ms to Denver, and just under 40ms to New York. I also base this review in part due to my experience of DSL when I lived in Lenexa, KS through SBCGLOBAL. That connection was wonderful and felt like private line to some degree; it never budged, max throughput always available, every modem restart synced at the max rate. Even cable which was outage prone and not as steady was better than Embarq for the most part.
Bottom line: If Embarq would use better peering in my area the first hop would not be such a big deal. Furthermore if they would give me full throughput at all times of day and help to ensure my modem synced up at full rates when I am clearly close enough for good service I would be happy. Finally the FTP solution for users is unacceptable to me. The only thing I'll miss was the customer service which really was better than average. Until some of the other issues get better I don't expect latency-centric gamers/VPN users in my area to give Embarq a real chance. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05 | You are one of the few customers actually peering with Global Crossing. The majority go through Sprintlink, which I too think has it's own issues in some areas. I would like to see more peering through Level 3, which I know they do as well. |
|
dav0r
translate
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Albertville, MN | Charter used Level3 extensively and although there was some loss form time to time they did a better job than GLBX for sure. |
|
