Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits |  [TWC] Heavy Packet loss HIGH PING! Slow speed! ____CA & HI
500byte/s to 5KB speed to the east cost
[code=..]
Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 ping -t dslreports.com
Pinging dslreports.com [209.123.109.175] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=396ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=446ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=401ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=428ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=411ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=406ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=420ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Request timed out.
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=201ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=429ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=40
Reply from 209.123.109.175: bytes=32 time=203ms TTL=40
Ping statistics for 209.123.109.175:
Packets: Sent = 97, Received = 86, Lost = 11 (11% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 200ms, Maximum = 446ms, Average = 227ms
[code=..] |
|
rr_user
@rr.com | Re: [TWC] Hevey Packet loss HIGH PING! 500byte/s to 5KB speed
hey punker maybe they are doing upgrades maybe? or they finally are slowing you down because or your heavy useage? but more or less upgrades sounds to par what they are doing and why you are seeing these problems. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | phone is dropping out also |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to Anonymous_
Not sure what's up.
My speedtest.net test to Los Angeles is good:
But my results to others suck:
Usually that's caused by a route with a bad link... so some routes are fast and others slow...
--
Don't mind me, I'm just trying to help...
|
|
mdfudge
join:2002-08-26
Palmdale, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit |  reply to Anonymous_
I am having issues with my internet as well and I'am in Palmdale, CA. lots of packet loss and my VOIP server is droping packets to it with a High Ping of 126 which is usually 24ms to the server. Here is my line quality test link. Hope they fix it soon, I'am a Mad Gammer! :P
»/linequality/nil/2409750
### UPDATE jULY 22, 2008 @ 1:36am PST ###
LOOKS LIKE THEY FIXED IT! It was some sort of fiber issue and routing issues they had to re-route, it was a mess I read in an earlier post. GG
|
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to MacLeech
it look like the support line is full of calls
i am calling via skype 
thanks to the person that has there wifi open
(my brothers friend) |
|
vxspiritxv
join:2003-10-29
| reply to Anonymous_
I'm having packet loss / high ping as well (rialto CA 92376)
(trace route is to my works vpn box in Irvine CA, about 40miles away, usually ping sub 50s) |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | my is not any better
look like it's STATE wide
going by what the person on the phone was saying |
|
suckawha
@rr.com
| reply to Anonymous_
I have the same problem coming from Oahu.
Whatever the 5th hop is, that's where I start to see the packet loss and increased latency, and I see that hop on your trace as well.
C:\Documents and Settings\matt>tracert vpn.uscbinc.com
Tracing route to vpn.uscbinc.com [216.65.212.120]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms nolove [192.168.1.1]
2 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 10.99.96.1
3 9 ms 10 ms 10 ms gig11-0-6.oahuhimili-gsr2.hawaii.rr.com [24.25.224.33]
4 139 ms 139 ms * so-0-1-3.lsanca4-rtr1.socal.rr.com [24.25.224.86]
5 129 ms 127 ms * ae11.lsanca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.50]
6 127 ms 128 ms 125 ms GIG2-0.TUSTCA1-RTR1.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.158]
7 140 ms 128 ms 128 ms te-1-3.car1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.79.140.37]
8 183 ms 206 ms * ae-2-3.bar1.Tustin1.Level3.net [4.69.132.218]
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 204 ms 196 ms 198 ms ae-91-91.csw4.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.69.137.14]
11 182 ms 182 ms 182 ms ae-4-99.edge1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.68.20.199]
12 158 ms 140 ms 154 ms level3-gw.la2ca.ip.att.net [192.205.33.229]
13 141 ms 140 ms 141 ms tbr2.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.127.3.222]
14 * 138 ms 147 ms 12.127.3.189
15 140 ms * 142 ms 12.122.255.246
16 142 ms 145 ms 141 ms core2-z-g1-1.irv.sbcidc.com [216.65.209.14]
17 * 140 ms 142 ms dst1-b-g2-1.irv.sbcidc.com [216.65.208.137]
18 140 ms 151 ms 140 ms vpn.uscbinc.com [216.65.212.120]
Trace complete. |
|
forfrance
join:2003-01-23
Redondo Beach, CA
|  reply to Anonymous_
This is ABSURD!! After a few months at respectable EXTREME speed rates (what I am paying for....) I now have this!!
Anyone with a clue as to how long we have to live in this "ADSL" arena of slow-mo???!!!
What a pisser! |
|
avsir
@rr.com
| reply to Anonymous_
Having same issue.
7 24ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% tge9-3.lamdca1-swt1.socal.rr.com [
76.167.2.52]
8/ 100 = 8% |
8 --- 100/ 100 =100% 92/ 100 = 92% tge4-0-0.lsanca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com
[76.167.2.56]
0/ 100 = 0% | |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
| damn your internet is better then my |
|
go_ahead_ed
join:2008-02-29
Anaheim, CA | reply to Anonymous_
Yeah, mine stinks too...
as opposed to last week...
They'll sort it out soon (I hope). |
|
Zoglog
@rr.com | reply to Anonymous_
Yeah, i'm in Los angeles, and i'm getting some horrible speed
 |
|
Zoglog
@rr.com | Just a side note has anyone else noticed this happening constantly? It's been like this for 2 weeks now on and off. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | yea it did the same sh** last week |
|
Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA | reply to Anonymous_
Re: [TWC] Heavy Packet loss HIGH PING! 500byte/s to 5KB speed
Same problem here in Anaheim, CA. I get about 1 meg down & I'm getting some bad packet loss as well.  |
|
racer9876
Defender Of The Universe
Premium
join:2000-07-03
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Zoglog
Re: [TWC] Hevey Packet loss HIGH PING! 500byte/s to 5KB speed
Yeah my memory seems to indicate this is a cyclic pattern to this. About 3-4 weeks we go through this statewide network problem. Either the regional network is run by a bunch of idiots (30%), they are doing massive upgrades to increase capacity (5%), or they are installing monitoring equipment and keep fubaring it up (65%). My money is installing new monitoring equipment and they try to pass it off as "network upgrades". |
|
Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA | reply to Anonymous_
Re: [TWC] Heavy Packet loss HIGH PING! 500byte/s to 5KB speed
Has anyone called in yet? I guess I will. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Techie714
att is faster!
i am getting 2/384 with the open AP!
 |
|
