dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
56941
share rss forum feed

Billy B

join:2006-03-22
Robbinsville, NC
reply to Smith6612

Re: [Internet] For anyone seeing speed issues...


Good Morning Smith6612. Here is the same Ping Test
results performed at 6.15 AM. this morning under "no load" conditions. I achieved the usual 2.88 DL / 0.72 UL Speeds at Speedtest. net.

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

ping 10.37.1.1 -t

Pinging 10.37.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
eply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126

ing statistics for 10.37.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 39, Received = 39, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
pproximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 54ms, Maximum = 56ms, Average = 54ms
ontrol-C



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24

Looks like you are seeing congestion during the evening/night too, besides unusually high first hop counts. I hope Frontier gets that fixed and also lowers that first hop count, as it's not something I'd consider ideal for broadband at all.


Billy B

join:2006-03-22
Robbinsville, NC
reply to Smith6612

Good Morning Smith6612.
Just a quick follow-up posting with the results from my latest & repeat ping test performed at 8AM this morning.
Clearly my initial ping "without load" was around 55MS and then changed to the 170 / 180 MS range while downloading the 100 MB file before returning to "normal"

Significantly for me and evidence that your theory about congestion being my local problem is that yesterday the kids all returned to school and my speedtest results showed my normal 2.87 DL speed all day and into the evening.
Thanks for everything, I really do appreciate the help and education. Billy B.

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Pinging 10.37.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.37.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 10.37.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 103, Received = 103, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 54ms, Maximum = 185ms, Average = 137ms
Control-C
^C



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..

Your first hop latency is still rather high for a FastPath line, but I'm glad to hear the speed has returned. I'm hoping Frontier is bringing in more bandwidth and figuring out the best way to route things however. A high speed line doesn't mean anything if first hop latency is higher than 15ms on FastPath.


Kemeko

join:2010-05-03
reply to Smith6612

Do you want me to do another test? I'm still dreading to call there again i know i should've the first day after they replaced the modem and it didn't work right, but i also think it's useless sometimes too heh.



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24

Up to you if you wish to run another one.


Billy B

join:2006-03-22
Robbinsville, NC
reply to Smith6612

Good Morning Smith6612 and thanks for your imput once again but which prompts another Q.
I have always had a ping of about 55MS to my first hop and a DL Speed of 2.88 during the 4 1/2 years that I have had Vz / Frontier DSL. Does the fact that I am located 2.2 miles down "copper" from a Remote Terminal and another 4 miles along a FIOS cable to the DSLAM in our local town play into that ping stat? Thanks in advance.


chutzler

join:2010-08-14
Martinsburg, WV
reply to Smith6612

Unfortunately I solved my problem the hard way, comcast installer was here yesterday. While I loved my directv, I had to go with a bundled service with CC to get a decent price. Though Frontier was nice enough to credit me for my problems....I really hope they get their act together, but as I use my connection for work (VPN) I don't have the luxury of waiting for them to figure it out


jhamps10

join:2006-01-06
Flora, IL

I wish I was in a comcast, or any other cable company who gives a damn's service area right about now too. This is worse than Cable internet in 1998!



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..

2 edits
reply to Billy B

Click for full size
Pings
The latency shouldn't be that for such a route. I'm going over 2 miles of copper to an RT that is Fiber Fed. From there, the Optical cable is running anywhere between 4-8 miles in length to the central office, and this is the kind of latency I get. I'm on FastPath with a 1Mbps connection. The latency is bumped up an extra millisecond or less since that connection is running through two routers on my end (Double NAT). I'm connected via Ethernet as this is my gaming PC.

Billy B

join:2006-03-22
Robbinsville, NC
reply to Smith6612

Smith6612: Thanks for all that info and stats. I have never seen any latency below 50 let alone anywhere close to yours. A friend of mine who lives over the Mtn. and who recently got VZ 3MB/768 DSL
out of an "upgraded" RT gets "37" at a distance of less than 1 mile down 10 year old copper. It's taking a month to get any local Phone Repr. Guy to show up out here because of staffing issues "post Frontier M&A" so I am going to "grin and bear it" for now.


Kemeko

join:2010-05-03
reply to Smith6612

Well if posting the test thing would somehow magically fix my connection that would be fine and dandy!

It has once again been disconnecting and so here I am once again in these forums looking for solutions.

Hmm, I still have not called, been busy of late. Will call them on a Monday perhaps so they will have plenty of days to show up. The phone lines have even started going out again or full of clicks/interference and on it the receiver's volume is low, but i believe my voice carries through to others clearly on it at least.

The sound being low seems to be sort've random, but the clicks are constant and especially audible when i'm having disconnects.



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24

1 edit

See about getting the noise on the phone line solved. DSL should improve once that is fixed up. The phone going out may or may not be related or pointing to a circuit trouble at all.


stephen62

join:2010-09-02
Chesterton, IN

Appreciate your thoroughness at investigating these matters, Smith!

I am a former Verizon DSL customer moved over to Frontier (and a newbie member of DSLreports, although I've used the tests for over a year).
System: WinXP on a Dell XPS.
Wired connection: Westell 6100G bridged to Linksys Wireless-G Router WRT54GSV4
Plan: 7MB downloand/700K upload.
Usual average download speed prior to switchover: 6-6.5MB.

Began noticing significant spotty speed Aug. 30, 2010. Have not called Frontier as yet.
Aug. 30 Speed test downloads of 1MB or lower at 6pm, increasing to 6MB by midnight. Uploads consistently 600-700K.
Small improvement on early evening speed tests as week wore on, but Netflix movie streaming on XBox 360 inconsistent: bumped from HD to SD to occasional loss of signal (last checked Thursday Sept. 2.)
This evening (9-3-2010) speed test downloads ranging from 6MB to 2MB 6-7:30pm. Uploads consistently 600-700K.

Speed test prior to tracert (7:40pm):
2694 download
824 upload
Speed test immediately after tracert:
2152
718

Speed test again at 8pm (prior to posting this report):
6366
762
Now to the actual tracert:
tracert log begun at about 7:41pm. Tracert below is typical of results I received during trial runs yesterday. Note timeouts and inconsistant ping results. No idea why.

Begin log:

C:\Documents and Settings\Steve>tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [74.125.95.106]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 * * * Request timed out.
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * 42 ms * iw-in-f106.1e100.net [74.125.95.106]
13 * * 42 ms iw-in-f106.1e100.net [74.125.95.106]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Steve>ping 74.125.95.106

Pinging 74.125.95.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 74.125.95.106: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.106: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.125.95.106: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=52
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 74.125.95.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 43ms, Average = 42ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Steve>ping 74.125.95.106

Pinging 74.125.95.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 74.125.95.106: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 74.125.95.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 1, Lost = 3 (75% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 42ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 42ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Steve>

End log


stephen62

join:2010-09-02
Chesterton, IN

Forgot to add:
Location: Chesterton, Indiana (near Chicago, Ill,)



dbs179

@ncnetwork.net
reply to Smith6612

Smith,

I am a former Verizon Customer in the Eastern Panhandle of WV. I LOVED my Verizon DSL. I always had a great connection, got around 2.8 down and 780 up on Speedtest.net and always was able to game online with low latency. I almost always connected to games with less than 50ms of latency.

Not the case since I was hijacked to Frontier. It took them over a week to even get me online following the switch over. All of my internal networking has stayed the same but now I normally connect to games with at least 70 to 80ms and sometimes 100ms of latency no matter what I do. My normal internet surfing seems ok, downloads are good too, but streaming video stutters a bit and gaming is almost impossible (compared to the old service). I hope you can offer some advice. Below are my test results.

Thanks,
Dave











Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..
reply to stephen62

Looks like you are suffering from congestion, as indicative of the packet loss in your pings. I don't know what is up with the trace route, as normally when I see traces such as that it's generally a firewall messing things up. If you have time, give Frontier a call and let them know you are seeing congestion on their end of the network. Don't let them bump your speeds down of course .

@dbs179: Looks like you're seeing some some occasional congestion as well, despite your speeds being good as the trace route is showing some latency spikes at times, along with your pings. The pingtest.net test showing jitter (which is caused by congestion for the most part) is showing what is going on with your games as well. You are however on FastPath which is good. You were on Ethernet while running those tests I am assuming, correct?



dbs179

@ncnetwork.net

Smith,

I was on a hardwired ethernet connection. I try to stay away from wireless unless I absolutely have too. Thanks for the insight. I'll just live with it for now I guess. I hope to get rid of Frontier as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Dave


stephen62

join:2010-09-02
Chesterton, IN
reply to Smith6612

Thanks for the confirmation about congestion. I'd already ruled out line noise and modem problems, so I can confidently inform Frontier that it's their problem. In talking with friends and others on Verizon/Frontier here in the Chesterton and Valparaiso, Indiana area, the story has been about the same: inconsistent speeds and occasional loss of connection and all after the switch from Verizon to Frontier. In my case, for example: I watched an entire 13 part TV series on Netflix streaming on XBox 360 in June with only rare losses of HD quality (only once or twice). Watching one episode of the same series on Sept. 2, HD cut down to SD 3 or 4 times and signal was lost completely at least twice. I hope its just an unfortunate aspect of the Verizon/Frontier changeover that will eventually be taken care of in a week or three ...
Anyway, thanks again. Now back to re-bridging my Westell to the Linksys router.



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
reply to dbs179

Not a problem to both of you guys. dbs179, it's interesting to note that your address is now an NC Network address instead of a Verizon address. Looks like they are changing things slowly for many people with the DSL side.


stephen62

join:2010-09-02
Chesterton, IN

I did report the congestion issue in Northwest Indiana to a tech. support person at Frontier (to get help upgrading from a Westell 6100G to a GT704WGB 4 port rmodem/router so I don't have to mess with "bridging" anymore). She suggested that they may be installing new hardware and that the process could be contributing to the slowness. Not the most definite answer, but at least I'm on record about the congestion. BTW, if I could rate tech. support people, this pleasant Southern-accented lady would get an A from me. Very helpful, calm, and pleasant (as opposed to the person I talked to on Sept. 4: C or C-)



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24

Glad to hear it's been acknowledged, even if of course it wasn't what you may have hoped. None the less, let's see how long it takes to clear up for you.


stephen62

join:2010-09-02
Chesterton, IN

One last followup (in case any other northwest Indiana subscribers are following this): tonight I called Frontier's DSL repair dispatch (presumably based here in Indiana) to cancel a service call made for me by tech. support on Saturday (long story I won't bore you with). I told the dispatcher about the congestion and slow speed and he confirmed that Indiana is having a rough time of it at present (which he claimed was likely inherited from Verizon), but that Frontier is working on the problem. So I'll hope for the best and stay optimistic: after all, turning a pot-holed 4-lane highway into a smooth 8-lane highway often involves months of jammed traffic on a 1-lane highway.


RhythmGuru

join:2010-09-09
Goshen, IN
reply to Smith6612

I'm an Ex-Verizon (Now Frontier) customer paying for a 7mb package that is also seeing consistent slowdowns in the evening. Mornings are at the correct speed. I am in Goshen, Indiana, east of Chicago about 2 hours. I called last night, they couldn't find anything wrong, but are running a 24 test that should conclude tonight. Frontier did fess up that at least one other person in my area has complained about the speed issue. I end up watching Netflix on my iPhone because 3g from aT&T is twice (or more) as fast as my DSL at night. This is very frustrating, and I feel like I'm over a barrel due to no DSL competition in this area.


RhythmGuru

join:2010-09-09
Goshen, IN

1 edit
reply to stephen62

THANKS FOR THE UPDATE! I'm looking for a call back after my 24 line test Frontier is running right now. Stupid slow at night.
Previous post of mine:
"I'm an Ex-Verizon (Now Frontier) customer paying for a 7mb package that is also seeing consistent slowdowns in the evening. Mornings are at the correct speed. I am in Goshen, Indiana, east of Chicago about 2 hours. I called last night, they couldn't find anything wrong, but are running a 24 test that should conclude tonight. Frontier did fess up that at least one other person in my area has complained about the speed issue. I end up watching Netflix on my iPhone because 3g from aT&T is twice (or more) as fast as my DSL at night. This is very frustrating, and I feel like I'm over a barrel due to no DSL competition in this area."


firehawk618

join:2003-05-29
reply to Smith6612

Mine's always been consistent. I am on FiOS


mom60

join:2010-11-05
Charleston, WV

Speed has been bad for a week or two here (Charleston, WV). Called and tech support wouldn't even attempt by phone. Sent service tech today (despite me saying I couldn't be here, he caught me home for lunch). Tech said I was probably set "too fast" and if I was set for 3.0 but really running 1.5, I would not even get 1.5. He said he probably needed to set it slower. No!!

Asked him to suggest a speed test website. PC came in at 2.87 download and .77 upload. He acknowledged that this was good. And yet tonight, I still can't watch NetFlix (spending as much time loading as watching).

I hope I've collected all the right data. The ping report covers before, during, and briefly after the file download. I've tried to bold the download portion, but I think it is obvious even without that.

What can I do to fix this? It did not used to be like this. Had Verizon until recent change to Frontier.

Trace route (the * = "less than," because the "less than" symbol messed up text that followed it)

Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 *1 ms *1 ms *1 ms dslrouter [192.168.1.1]
2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 10.2.11.1
3 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 184.19.254.18
4 25 ms 23 ms 24 ms 184.13.127.161
5 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms xe-0-2-0--0-cor01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.213]
6 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms ae1---0.cbr01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.174]
7 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms eqix.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [206.223.115.69]
8 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.e2-19.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.11.17]
9 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
10 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
11 31 ms 32 ms 32 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

Trace complete.


Ping report

Pinging 10.2.11.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=255

Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.2.11.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=255


Please help!


mom60

join:2010-11-05
Charleston, WV

1 edit

I'm still reading all the information in this thread. In case it is any help, I also did the connection analysis. Results are here:

»174.34.146.20/myspeed/db/report?id=256578

On the capacity test, on the upload graph on the bottom half of the page, there are instances of 100% loss. These correspond to the times I scrolled the test window to see the text during the test (my fault, but pretty severe, isn't it?).

Thank you again for any help you can offer!

Editing . . . I did IP address lookups on the trace route addresses in lines 2-7. All returned almost immediately except line 4, which took some time. That's also where my slowing seems to be occurring. Just wondering . . .



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24

Your connection seems to be running fine. Mind providing the Trace Route if possible?


mom60

join:2010-11-05
Charleston, WV

Is the bold text below the trace route?

Connection seems to be working from PCs now, with adjustments I made to router before running the results shown. But I might as well cancel NetFlix. It is impossible to watch, stopping every 3-6 minutes for a lengthy retrieval.

Trace route (the * = "less than," because the "less than" symbol messed up text that followed it)

Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 *1 ms *1 ms *1 ms dslrouter [192.168.1.1]
2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 10.2.11.1
3 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 184.19.254.18
4 25 ms 23 ms 24 ms 184.13.127.161
5 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms xe-0-2-0--0-cor01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.213]
6 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms ae1---0.cbr01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.174]
7 25 ms 24 ms 24 ms eqix.ge-0-0-0.gbr1.ash.nac.net [206.223.115.69]
8 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.e2-19.tbr1.ewr.nac.net [209.123.11.17]
9 32 ms 31 ms 31 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
10 31 ms 31 ms 31 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
11 31 ms 32 ms 32 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

Trace complete.