 | fp They didn't downgrade you, they just didn't know you were on fastpath in the first place.
Anyway, I get better latency with GWI interleave than I did with VZ fastpath. |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME 1 edit | I do not think my snr is good, I do not know where you got the idea that interleave was faster in latency,perhaps you are unsure of the diffidence.
Thanks for the info and interest. Bruce |
|
|
|
 | reply to wcnghj Fastpath w/ Verizon pinging to google= 50ms
GWI= 38ms |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME 2 edits | I disagree that interleave can be faster, but glad you are having such good ping times. Bruce |
|
 | reply to wcnghj I do have a DSL homerun if that makes any difference on latency. |
|
 hawk82 join:2001-04-26 Oakland, ME Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to wcnghj Comparing a ping test using Verizon DSL to google.com vs. GWI DSL to google.com is like comparing apples to bananas. Each provider has different paths to the end point. One ping test or traceroute might take a couple more hops than the other.
Just pointing that out. |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| reply to wcnghj Yea everyone I know has a Home run,mine is cat5 not cat 3,have used it for 3 years. but a few feet of wire does not add more the a pico second so I do not thinked it is a help that way. I think most people do not want the micro filters on each ringer, so this is a cleaner way to go. When I ran mine it help my snr not my pings.perhaps you should look fastpath up and understand the difference. Bruce |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| reply to wcnghj said by wcnghj:Fastpath w/ Verizon pinging to google= 50ms GWI= 38ms Hi again could you run a trace route and post the screen shot? Thanks |
|
 Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to wcnghj Sure, but of course when I do it now it goes higher, oh well.
Tracing route to google.com [72.14.207.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms rmfr-co-ls1.gwi.net [66.55.208.134]
2 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms rmfr-co-r1-rmfr-co-ls1.gwi.net [66.55.208.133]
3 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms agstco-ds3-rmfrco-ds3.gwi.net [207.5.136.41]
4 14 ms 13 ms 14 ms 340c-core-r1--sonet.gwi.net [66.63.104.84]
5 23 ms 22 ms 23 ms bst-edge-04.inet.qwest.net [67.130.100.237]
6 28 ms 29 ms 28 ms jfk-core-01.inet.qwest.net [67.14.5.90]
7 29 ms 28 ms 29 ms jfk-edge-20.inet.qwest.net [205.171.230.13]
8 47 ms 45 ms 46 ms 205.171.37.10
9 42 ms 46 ms 45 ms 72.14.233.113
10 47 ms 45 ms 44 ms 66.249.94.92
11 54 ms 45 ms 53 ms 72.14.236.134
12 47 ms 45 ms 45 ms eh-in-f99.google.com [72.14.207.99]
I suppose fastpath would be nice. |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME | Your pings beat mine all to hell. Bruce |
|
 | reply to wcnghj Maybe ErickGWI could be of assistance to you. |
|