Topic 'Re: [Internet] For anyone seeing speed issues...' in forum 'Frontier Communications' - dslreports.com

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

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:51:22 EDT

whenthepawn posted : I've been experiencing terrible speed today (download/upload).

I called the Tech support line to see if there was a network status message, but nope.

Here is what Fronter's speed test said a few minutes ago (I'm about 3 hours away from Cookeville, TN):

Download Speed: 377 kbps (47.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 56 kbps (7 KB/sec transfer rate)
Latency: 252 ms
Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:36:55 PM

Anyone else near me having issues?

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

Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:15:11 EDT

gonewthedsm posted : Smith,

These were completed on 1:00pm 11/11/12. (Connection is not bad at this time)
Please let me know your thoughts. I hope there is help for me yet because I am more that frustrated with Frontier. Over 4 years have I suffered with their so call high speed internet. With no hope in sight.

Set at 2624/640 but I believe my area is provisioned for 1mbps.

Normal Run

C:\Windows\system32>ping -t 74.42.149.41

Pinging 74.42.149.41 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=62

Ping statistics for 74.42.149.41:
Packets: Sent = 23, Received = 23, Lost = 0 (0% los
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 91ms, Average = 28ms
Control-C
^C
Load Run

C:\Windows\system32>ping -t 74.42.149.41

Pinging 74.42.149.41 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: ┌────────────────────────────┐
Reply from 74.42.149.41: │Enter char to copy up to: │
Reply from 74.42.149.41: └────────────────────────────┘
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=462ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=479ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=465ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=398ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=396ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=444ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=392ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=386ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=400ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=395ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=426ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=390ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=368ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=463ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=62
Reply from 74.42.149.41: bytes=32 time=372ms TTL=62

Ping statistics for 74.42.149.41:
Packets: Sent = 21, Received = 21, Lost = 0 (0% los
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 368ms, Maximum = 479ms, Average = 418ms

»/testhistory/1694608/8addb

[att=1]

[att=2]

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

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:16:29 EDT

richardf posted : DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec) 2624 316
Margin (dB) 18.7 24.0
Line Attenuation (dB) 56.0 32.8
Transmit Power (dBm) 0.5 12.2
FEC Errors 0 0
HEC Errors 204 90
CRC Errors 363 0

Errored Seconds 324
LOS Errors 0

»speedtest.net/result/2286409891.png

From Fort Mohave, Arizona
6Mbps/769k Plan

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

Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:35:00 EDT

Chameleon posted : Please help. I don't have time to sit and talk customer service thru this. Get better results thru here.!!!

I have 3meg/1meg package with home-run from NID to modem then into DD-WRT WRT54GL. I have been having issues with computer's connections when playing Netflix. Not necessarily speeds.

I have Ping-Plotter »www.pingplotter.com/ to do the work. The last hop is Frontier's last before hitting Level3 networks.

Also I have DSLR monitoring my IP. It's been showing packet loss, and that's what I'm seeing with Ping-Plotter.

At 7:34 I started the test without load/traffic.

7:35 started load from FCC site 688MB download (345KB/sec steady at 50% downloaded) ended at 7:56

7:58 started PS3 with Netflix.

8:03 continuing Netflix and added download from above. (roughly 55-120KB/sec at 15-20% downloaded - jumping around often).

8:24 stopped FCC download left Netflix going.

Can someone explain what is going on?


Max Allowed Speed (kbps)	3360	864
SN Margin (dB)	31.0	
Line Attenuation (dB)	20.0	

To modem              To internet
Loss of Signal	0                       	-
Loss of Frame	0	                        0
CRC Errors	        1	                       137

edit: added signal info

Thanks in advance.

Mark
--
I used to have super human powers.....

But my therapist took them away.

ae0---0.cbr0···.pp2.zip 12,568 bytes
pingplotter test 10-14-12

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

Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:03:15 EDT

jwild posted : What speed are you suppose to have?? Your noise margin is not bad @ 15.9db, just wondering what the speed you should be at(1.5 or 3.0 mb)

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

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:15:26 EDT

Smith6612 posted :

said by SuperSpy:

Frontier just came and installed DSL this morning and I was curious about the result.

Following the instructions in the OP I got.

34 packets transmitted, 34 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 45.322/66.508/310.375 ms
while the connection was mostly idle, and
36 packets transmitted, 30 packets received, 16% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 45.908/86.272/304.378 ms
while downloading the 100mb test file linked in the OP.

Router stats page:DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec) 1788 172 Margin (dB) 15.9 9.8 Line Attenuation (dB) 41.7 56.1 Transmit Power (dBm) 17.1 12.4 FEC Errors 11094 2 HEC Errors 0 0 CRC Errors 0 0
The latency seems high, especially loaded, but also the upload is abysmally slow. My line is pretty long (~3km according to the attenuation calculators), so I was curious if this is normal or if something is amiss.

EDIT: another oddity: the first hop (from my router to the netgear 7550 router/modem) reports between 3 and 6 ms instead of sub-1 ms like one would expect from ethernet.

Looks like you've got some sort of Line Problem there anyways. If the problem isn't due to congestion, your upstream is certainly poor and you seem to be having some noise issues on your line. Get a tech out to correct those issues and we'll see if the problem is further down the line in the backbone/CO (I wouldn't doubt it if it was anyways).

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

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:54:31 EDT

SuperSpy posted : Frontier just came and installed DSL this morning and I was curious about the result.

Following the instructions in the OP I got.

34 packets transmitted, 34 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 45.322/66.508/310.375 ms

while the connection was mostly idle, and

36 packets transmitted, 30 packets received, 16% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 45.908/86.272/304.378 ms

while downloading the 100mb test file linked in the OP.

Router stats page:


DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)	1788	172
Margin (dB)	15.9	9.8
Line Attenuation (dB)	41.7	56.1
Transmit Power (dBm)	17.1	12.4
FEC Errors	11094	2
HEC Errors	0	0
CRC Errors	0	0

The latency seems high, especially loaded, but also the upload is abysmally slow. My line is pretty long (~3km according to the attenuation calculators), so I was curious if this is normal or if something is amiss.

EDIT: another oddity: the first hop (from my router to the netgear 7550 router/modem) reports between 3 and 6 ms instead of sub-1 ms like one would expect from ethernet.

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

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:44:56 EDT

anon posted : New Frontier customer in the Southern Ohio area. Extremely disappointed and frustrated so far with my service, especially since I work in IT and frequently log into remote machines from home.

So I started doing some digging and the general pattern is that anytime I am using a good bit of bandwidth my latency skyrockets. This means I can play a video game and have decent latency, but as soon as I try to stream music and play a video game, everything goes to hell. I can watch Netflix, but if I try to browse at the same time same problems. Here is the data I have collected...

Ping while inactive to google (no downloads, streaming, etc...)

500 packets transmitted, 500 received, 0% packet loss, time 499623msrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 37.210/57.820/293.664/27.645 ms

Ping while downloading 100mb file:

500 packets transmitted, 381 received, 23% packet loss, time 499699msrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 108.544/406.395/864.156/147.719 ms

Modem Stats:

Transceiver Information Down Stream Path    Up Stream PathDSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)   3318    95Margin (dB) 7.0 6.1Line Attenuation (dB)   53.2    54.3Transmit Power (dBm)    19.4    11.7FEC Errors  21724741    0HEC Errors  391496  1815CRC Errors  39703   0

Traceroute 1:

 1  dslrouter.netgear.com (192.168.254.254)  2.919 ms  2.554 ms  2.572 ms 2  drr03.athn.oh.frontiernet.net (74.42.148.83)  33.705 ms  35.945 ms  36.088 ms 3  * * * 4  xe--9-0-0---0.cor02.chcg.il.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.125)  47.401 ms  48.658 ms  111.662 ms 5  ae1---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net (74.40.4.142)  43.827 ms  45.284 ms  49.840 ms 6  72.14.212.143 (72.14.212.143)  52.028 ms  41.780 ms  49.008 ms 7  209.85.254.120 (209.85.254.120)  74.164 ms  54.141 ms  45.439 ms 8  209.85.242.215 (209.85.242.215)  63.949 ms  64.715 ms  81.509 ms 9  209.85.249.45 (209.85.249.45)  82.263 ms  69.791 ms  70.785 ms10  216.239.48.157 (216.239.48.157)  72.391 ms 216.239.48.59 (216.239.48.59)  70.302 ms  69.723 ms11  * * *12  ve-in-f105.1e100.net (173.194.75.105)  105.075 ms  92.943 ms  97.068 ms

Traceroute 2:

 1  dslrouter.netgear.com (192.168.254.254)  2.640 ms  2.601 ms  2.539 ms 2  drr03.athn.oh.frontiernet.net (74.42.148.83)  36.213 ms  43.746 ms  39.590 ms 3  * * * 4  xe--9-0-0---0.cor02.chcg.il.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.125)  46.763 ms  71.590 ms  95.259 ms 5  ae1---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net (74.40.4.142)  53.271 ms  52.037 ms  43.603 ms 6  72.14.212.143 (72.14.212.143)  42.027 ms  45.716 ms  57.612 ms 7  209.85.254.120 (209.85.254.120)  48.717 ms  43.098 ms  50.373 ms 8  209.85.242.215 (209.85.242.215)  74.895 ms  102.210 ms  107.488 ms 9  209.85.249.45 (209.85.249.45)  93.753 ms  108.448 ms  108.240 ms10  216.239.48.59 (216.239.48.59)  89.591 ms 216.239.48.157 (216.239.48.157)  113.430 ms  73.584 ms11  * * *12  ve-in-f103.1e100.net (173.194.75.103)  97.495 ms  75.183 ms  75.324 ms

ATM Stats (sorry for poor formatting):

	ATM Statistics StatsPacket Information for:MTUVPI / VCI In ErrorsIn Discard PacketsIn Non-Unicast PacketsIn Unicast PacketsIn Octets Out ErrorsOut Discard PacketsOut Non-Unicast PacketsOut Unicast PacketsOut Octets Interface Description------------------------------------ATMPVC114920/35 79422434609660181871104220412 00014229018932213 PPP

I am signed up for 7mbit service. I called tech support 10 days ago, got a very nice guy on the phone who seemed knowledgeable and appalled at the figures I was giving him. He said I would be contacted soon to further resolve the issue. He said there should be no reason for me to be seeing so many errors, and my upload speeds were completely out of line with what I was paying for. So far I have had no further communication from them and will be calling again this evening. Just looking for any advice/comments/knowledge from those of you who know what this all means. I came from TWC which was not the best but OH MY GOD worlds better than this crap.

thanks

Fort Wayne FiOS Issues (5/30/12)

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:58:37 EDT

jtlightner posted : I am on Frontier FiOS in Fort Wayne and I am having issues. I pay for 35/35 and this last four days have been horrendous for me.

Anyone else in the Fort Wayne area having issues?

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

Mon, 28 May 2012 12:59:36 EDT

Dr_Fubar posted : Sorry for the late response. Nice to see DSLReports back online.

They actually fixed our internet on around May 5th, 2012; a month after it went down. We were up from 1Mbit to our provisioned speed of 3Mbit. It was amazing!

This is in the Hampshire County, WV (Capon Bridge) area.

Up until May 26, 2012, now it looks like a DNS server went down somewhere:

quote:
/bin/bash:~ Dr_Fubar$ traceroute frontier.com
traceroute to frontier.com (66.133.172.205), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.254.254 (192.168.254.254) 7.808 ms 1.349 ms 0.995 ms
2 74-47-212-1.dr02.rmny.wv.frontiernet.net (74.47.212.1) 15.927 ms 18.024 ms 16.563 ms
3 70.100.31.185 (70.100.31.185) 13.389 ms 13.556 ms 14.624 ms
4 184.19.145.65 (184.19.145.65) 17.968 ms 16.734 ms 16.458 ms
5 ae5--2--ge.cor02.asbn.va.frontiernet.net (74.40.1.237) 26.539 ms 28.604 ms 25.894 ms
6 ae3---0.cor01.roch.ny.frontiernet.net (74.40.5.17) 35.419 ms 37.544 ms 99.612 ms
7 ge--0-1-0---0.car02.roch.ny.frontiernet.net (74.40.5.186) 37.537 ms 37.257 ms 37.678 ms
8 74.45.102.10 (74.45.102.10) 38.316 ms 37.943 ms 38.702 ms
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *

And so forth... Not sure what the issue is here yet. I doubted it will be fixed on the weekend and it certainly isn't going to be fixed today (Memorial Day).

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

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:25:50 EDT

Smith6612 posted : No need for the 800ms screenshot. I believe you.

Looks like you're another one of those individuals seeing a slowdown in the old Epix network. Distance from town shouldn't make a difference as to how well or how poorly your service performs if you have it, or should the copper matter as long as it's in good shape and up to typical telco specs. What does make a difference is the kind of backhaul going from the DSLAM to the rest of the network. If what is in your area happens to be bonded T1s, maybe a T3/DS3 or an OC3 and it's being overloaded when everyone arrives home from school and work, it is a matter of the ISP bringing additional capacity to the equipment to ease up on the issue. Getting 1ms latency on DSL is pretty hard to achieve due to ATM and Error Checking, but I know with DSL you can certainly get down to 4-5ms to the first ISP hop!

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

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:13:25 EDT

Harleysatt posted : --- Trace Route Test Results ---
1 clsm-207-7-187-1-pppoe.dsl.clsm.epix.net (207.7.187.1) 405.481 ms 219.919 ms 234.407 ms
2 g8-1-rtr01-lkst.epix.net (216.37.197.113) 284.091 ms 332.316 ms 379.445 ms
3 184.10.116.13 (184.10.116.13) 361.333 ms 326.310 ms 382.016 ms
4 ge--0-1-0---0.car01.dlls.pa.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.81) 373.845 ms 271.819 ms 178.407 ms
5 xe--0-0-0---0.cor01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net (74.40.3.25) 120.829 ms 104.813 ms 91.748 ms
6 ae1---0.cbr01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net (74.40.2.174) 45.477 ms 88.087 ms 54.272 ms
7 72.14.213.133 (72.14.213.133) 67.791 ms 67.944 ms 98.113 ms
8 72.14.238.212 (72.14.238.212) 138.869 ms 147.061 ms 271.868 ms
9 66.249.94.46 (66.249.94.46) 260.024 ms 66.249.94.54 (66.249.94.54) 258.450 ms 66.249.94.46 (66.249.94.46) 280.991 ms
10 iad04s01-in-f101.1e100.net (72.14.204.101) 235.722 ms 282.109 ms 318.171 ms

Line Stats

DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec) 1536 384
Margin (dB) 30.3 31.0
Line Attenuation (dB) 21.5 13.5
Transmit Power (dBm) 16.7 10.8

What would cause this lag? Have had tech out 3 times. First time the new router helped a ton.. then started having issues. Now if I have problems they are very random, but if they happen they persist for awhile. Yeah probably due to use along the line, because I live down stream a while. I was wondering if since I live farther out from town.. about 5-10 minute car drive if that should affect my ping as much as it does, jitter wise.

On another note: If the service is good for me the lowest ping I get to the ISP backbone where my IP is handed out from is 26ms.

P.S.: Tested my dad's Frontier line (he is farther out from the town he is connected at.. say a 10-15 minute drive) but his setup constantly receives 1 ms to his ISP backbone. Could this be because of my grandma's possibly 1970's phone lines? or do they normally make sure the dsl lines are ALL new? I cannot game when my ping is sometimes jittering between 700-900 when the kids down the road get home from school. :( I deleted my screenie of the 800 pings but, I can prove it later if people need it. :P

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

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:00:10 EDT

nl37tgt posted : yeah, old epix/commonwealth telco/jack flash customer. i never had any troubles with epix dsl until frontier came in and a bunch of new houses went up. :huh:

unfortunately, frontier is the only isp in the area, unless i go with 1-way cable from service electric catv which would require another phone line.

i probably will be pushing them to increase my up/down speeds when they get around to adding more bandwidth to the area. supposedly, these upgrades are scheduled, but no one can give me a timeline as to when they will go into effect.

the road techs that service my area (who know me pretty well by now lol) have told me i'm very close to the DSLAM, have been over all of the wiring multiple times, and have probably given me a dozen new modems over the years. the last one that was here finally said that they oversold the area. i've been telling them that the whole time.

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

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:04:05 EDT

Smith6612 posted : I was about to say. Based on your sync rates you must have been in one of the older Epix Service areas. Guess the traceroute confirmed that!

When Frontier does perform upgrades, if they even do hassle them for a speed upgrade as well. You're nice and close to the DSLAM :)

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

Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:55:40 EDT

nl37tgt posted : eastern pennsylvania has the same issues with frontier.

Sunday afternoon stats:

[att=1]

no load first hop ping test

C:\>ping 207.7.166.1 -n 50

Pinging 207.7.166.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=386ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=439ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=320ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=274ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=211ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=276ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=305ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=380ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=385ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=420ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 207.7.166.1:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 60ms, Maximum = 439ms, Average = 287ms

ping test under load

C:\>ping 207.7.166.1 -n 50

Pinging 207.7.166.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=383ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=363ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=388ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=347ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=353ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=422ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=349ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=320ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=408ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=432ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=353ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=368ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=240ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=375ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=254
Reply from 207.7.166.1: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 207.7.166.1:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 237ms, Maximum = 434ms, Average = 337ms

dlsreports test history: click me

they keep telling me that upgrades are coming soon™ been hearing that for 3 years.

tracert:

Tracing route to google.com [173.194.73.113]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 276 ms 280 ms 265 ms bngr-207-7-166-1-pppoe.dsl.bngr.epix.net [207.7.166.1]
3 314 ms 293 ms 334 ms lkst-c7613-216-37-197-233.epix.net [216.37.197.233]
4 281 ms 259 ms 315 ms 184.10.116.13
5 315 ms 296 ms 297 ms ge--0-1-0---0.car01.dlls.pa.frontiernet.net [74.40.3.81]
6 333 ms 350 ms 363 ms xe--0-0-0---0.cor01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.3.25]
7 315 ms 300 ms 353 ms ae1---0.cbr01.asbn.va.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.174]
8 324 ms 337 ms 315 ms 72.14.213.133
9 233 ms 248 ms 312 ms 216.239.46.248
10 370 ms 366 ms 320 ms 209.85.241.222
11 377 ms 387 ms 364 ms 209.85.251.228
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 395 ms 387 ms 444 ms vb-in-f113.1e100.net [173.194.73.113]

Trace complete.

edit: fixed my test history link

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

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:19:11 EDT

Smith6612 posted : You certainly have done it right, and you do have a ridiculous amount of latency on that line.

7.1Mbps lines are supposed to run at 768kbps, which typically max out at about 720kbps.

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

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:26:36 EDT

wagersjm posted : I hope I did this right and it helps, my connection lags and drops connection constantly have had two techs out and have been told frontier is changing lines over from verizon has been going on since dec but was much worse in jan-feb

C:\Users\Work>tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [72.14.204.102]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms dslrouter.westell.com
2 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms drr01.prtg.in.frontiernet.net [184.19.253.203]
3 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms static-184-17-0-129.drr01.ftwy.in.frontiernet.ne
t [184.17.0.129]
4 40 ms 34 ms 34 ms ae5---0.cor01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.2
05]
5 34 ms 34 ms 33 ms ae0---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.1
38]
6 35 ms 34 ms 34 ms 72.14.214.187
7 34 ms 43 ms 34 ms 209.85.254.128
8 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms 209.85.248.222
9 52 ms 51 ms 53 ms 66.249.94.46
10 93 ms 93 ms 95 ms iad04s01-in-f102.1e100.net [72.14.204.102]

Trace complete.

While idle C:\Users\Work>ping 184.19.253.203 -n 10

Pinging 184.19.253.203 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 184.19.253.203:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 133ms, Average = 75ms

while downloading

C:\Users\Work>ping 184.19.253.203 -n 30

Pinging 184.19.253.203 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=322ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=427ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=126
Reply from 184.19.253.203: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 184.19.253.203:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 427ms, Average = 103ms

I work from home using some resource hogging applications and behind a secure desktop these were the ping results while I am working.

Friday 03/02 12:30am

Pinging employee.alpineaccess.com [64.78.157.92] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=141ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=110ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=173ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=123ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=140ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=139ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=169ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=173ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=249ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=157ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=203ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=138ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=123ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=91ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=152ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=156ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=141ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=122ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=233ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=155ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=106ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=155ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=87ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=181ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=318ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=289ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=282ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=324ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=179ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=185ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=228ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=214ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=202ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=280ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=191ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=245ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=373ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=337ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=294ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=184ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=479ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=193ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=482ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=374ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=206ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=391ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=280ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=91ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=436ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=91ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=127ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=172ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=313ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=157ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=154ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=123ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=126ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=319ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=420ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=484ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=229ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=280ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=265ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=246ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=183ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=176ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=90ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=277ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=96ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=214ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=252ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=89ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=183ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=258ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=232ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=197ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=200ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=95ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=299ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=189ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=255ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=279ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=300ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=358ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=214ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=190ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=239ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=395ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=201ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=95ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=281ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=183ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=293ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=209ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=95ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=206ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=303ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=112ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=213ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=424ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=202ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=93ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=210ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=304ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=213ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=283ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=301ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=216ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=491ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=247ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=212ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=278ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=189ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=281ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=212ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=346ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=189ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=304ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=272ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=311ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=388ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=212ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=289ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=377ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=190ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=92ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=387ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=93ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=254ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=313ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=245ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=205ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=184ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=319ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=274ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=232ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=246ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=93ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=320ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=185ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=484ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=395ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=209ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=341ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=296ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=316ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=406ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=385ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=457ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=486ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=216ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=396ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=317ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=214ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=390ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=202ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=108ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=95ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=93ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=337ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=92ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=251ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=302ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=484ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=279ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=260ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=444ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=214ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=295ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=187ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=487ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=387ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=295ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=295ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=132ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=118ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=176ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=92ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=188ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=92ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=476ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=93ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=105ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=297ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=107ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=275ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=171ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=319ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=177ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=189ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=300ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=206ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=199ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=201ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=372ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=103ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=157ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=156ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=94ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=90ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=155ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=157ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=159ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=130ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=90ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=123ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=200ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=212ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=407ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=157ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=171ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=186ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=279ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=189ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=391ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=125ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=124ms
Reply from 64.78.157.92: bytes=32 time=172ms
(These are not as bad wed it was going over 1000ms)

Ping completed
and smoke ping for last 18 hours or so »/r3/smokeping.···3c83e.NY

settings have been adjusted over phone, by techs and , now working with a rep from disctrict office and am not getting anywhere, they have replaced my modem Westell 7500 gone back to the previous westell and back to the new
I pay for HSI Dynamic 7M Res
HSI Dynamic Loop 7.1Mb - 15.0Mb - Res
HSI Port 7.1Mb - Res pack and on a really dood day my peak is about 640s download and cannot reach 1mbps in upload

I am so frustrated, everytime it drops even for a few seconds I am losing time from work as I lose all my remote network and have to relogin. The only other dsl/cable high speed internet provider in area is comcast. Which I may have to bite the bullet and eat the extra cost.

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

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:51:09 EDT

anon posted : I am in the Carbondale, IL area.

--------------

Tracing route to google.com [74.125.225.72]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 10.0.0.1
2 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms dslrouter.westell.com [192.168.1.1]
3 29 ms 28 ms 30 ms 10.50.1.1
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * 186 ms 36 ms 74.42.149.157
6 72 ms * 68 ms xe--10-3-0---0.cor01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74
.40.1.93]
7 70 ms 70 ms 69 ms ae0---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.1
38]
8 50 ms 34 ms 34 ms 72.14.214.187
9 57 ms 47 ms 44 ms 209.85.254.128
10 67 ms 71 ms 71 ms 209.85.250.30
11 57 ms 58 ms 59 ms ord08s07-in-f8.1e100.net [74.125.225.72]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Chris>ping 10.50.1.1 -t

Pinging 10.50.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125

-- here is where I started the download --

Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=1629ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=125
Request timed out.
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=125
Reply from 10.50.1.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=125
Ping statistics for 10.50.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 79, Received = 67, Lost = 12 (15% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 1629ms, Average = 70ms

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

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:53:39 EDT

markon101 posted : My pings

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\DarkDestroyer>tracert www.google.com

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [74.125.225.52]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.254.254
3 10 ms 10 ms 24 ms 184-8-160-1.dr03.blfd.wv.frontiernet.net [184.8.
160.1]
4 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms ge--0-1-3---0.arr01.blfd.wv.frontiernet.net [74.
40.49.129]
5 26 ms 26 ms 25 ms ge--5-1-0---0.car02.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.
40.5.89]
6 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms xe--0-3-0---0.cor01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.
40.5.33]
7 25 ms 29 ms 37 ms ae0---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.1
38]
8 26 ms 26 ms 26 ms 72.14.214.187
9 26 ms 25 ms 25 ms 209.85.254.120
10 37 ms 27 ms 26 ms 209.85.250.28
11 26 ms 26 ms 25 ms ord08s06-in-f20.1e100.net [74.125.225.52]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\DarkDestroyer>-t ping 184-8-160-1.dr03.blfd.wv.frontiernet.net
'-t' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\Users\DarkDestroyer>ping -t 184.8.160.1

Pinging 184.8.160.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=849ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=500ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=412ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=472ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=253
********************************************
download starts
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=623ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=613ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=422ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=367ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=336ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=476ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=377ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=400ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=597ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=539ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=559ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=573ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=488ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=451ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=674ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=610ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=476ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=496ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=508ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=434ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=278ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=392ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=347ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=349ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=300ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=406ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=371ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=384ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=320ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=324ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=290ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=392ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=398ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=229ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=393ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=115ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=241ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=221ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=253
Reply from 184.8.160.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=253

doesn't look good

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

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:35:12 EDT

stephen62 posted : Just a followup to my previous post: On Dec. 5 my regional Frontier representive said upgrades would be made that evening. This appears to have been the case, because, since Dec. 6, 2011, I have no longer had full loss of service between 7pm and 11pm. Occasional speedtests around 8pm can be as slow as 2000K (less than half my full potential of 7645K), but this has been adequate for my needs thus far: I have not been booted from Xbox Live games and I have been able to watch short HD streaming videos (haven't resubscribed to Netflix streaming as yet). My tracerts still mostly read "Request timed out," but that seems to be a quirk of my area. If uninterrupted primetime Internet access continues when my contract expires, I will likely renew with Frontier.

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

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:25:50 EDT

stephen62 posted : For what it's worth, I'll post a couple attempted traceroutes. I'm in Chesterton, Indiana (near Chicago) and have posted before. Since Oct. 10, 2011, my highspeed 7645K capable Internet has been dropping out completely due to (confirmed) congestion issues every night mostly from 7pm to 11pm with rare evenings where it "hangs on" just barely until maybe 8:45pm. For nearly a month I've sent a courteous email, usually by cell phone, to my local Frontier general manager general manager every time I lose the connection or if it gets painfully slow (under 1000K). I have been informed of "conference calls" with engineers and been told that this is being worked on "night and day." Occasionally I am emailed that the connection should improve "this week." This may result in one evening of unacceptable access (under 2000K combined with brief dropouts) and only 2 hours of full drop-out, but it is usually followed the next day by the usual 7-11 outage. Speed is usually fine during weekend afternoons, but today at 2:00pm I was almost kicked out of an XBox Live multiplayer session due to speed problems. If I wasn't locked into a bundling contract until March 2012 ($200 penalty to cancel) with phone, High Speed Internet, and Dish (I have zero complaints about Dish, BTW), I would have "bailed" by now. As it is, my personal plan is to bail once the contract runs out unless I have one full month of uninterrupted acceptable speed (6000K download plus) prior to that date. I am very frustrated Frontier Communications.

Test done at 3:15pm. Speedtest prior to test 6489K download and 730K upload (Chicago.speedtest.frontier.com). Speed at 2:15 pm was generally below 2000K, with some dropouts, but seems to have picked up again an hour later.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\ >ping google.com

Pinging google.com [74.125.225.50] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 74.125.225.50: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.225.50: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.225.50: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=56
Reply from 74.125.225.50: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 74.125.225.50:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 33ms

C:\ >ping chicago.speedtest.frontier.com

Pinging resolve01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.37.242] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 74.40.37.242: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 74.40.37.242: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 74.40.37.242: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 74.40.37.242: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 74.40.37.242:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 55ms, Average = 40ms

C >tracert google.com

Tracing route to google.com [74.125.225.50]
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 34 ms 33 ms 38 ms ord08s06-in-f18.1e100.net [74.125.225.50]

Trace complete.

C:\Documents and Settings\Steve>tracert chicago.speedtest.frontier.com

Tracing route to resolve01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.37.242]
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 36 ms 37 ms 44 ms resolve01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.37.242]

Trace complete.

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

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 14:08:01 EDT

anon posted : Frontier Communications 2011 Proxy Report: Are these guys worth the
kind of money they are being paid if they can't keep your DSL working

»phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fi···PTM=&t=1

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

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 13:02:52 EDT

anon posted : Day 21 of my DSL disaster here in Weaverville. Yesterday was actually good but today it is back into sort of a start/stop mode

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

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:33:37 EDT

fwmike posted : My slow download speeds were fixed. It was an incorrect cross-connect on their end. It was built to give me 2.5 Mbps instead of 25 Mbps. I can see one person accidentally overlooking this. But I called and talked to 5 different people. How could they all have missed this? Absolutely ridiculous.

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

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:43:06 EDT

anon posted : Having Frontier DSL problems? You've got to let people know; elected reps, media, state regulators, neighbors, FCC, social media etc. Probably not going to get much done posting here.

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

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:20:26 EDT

fwmike posted : I've been experiencing slow FIOS download speeds here in Fort Wayne, IN for the past week. I'm paying for 25/25, and while upload speeds are ok, download speeds are consistently around 1.5 ~ 2.5 Mbps. Time of day does not matter, nor does day of the week. It is consistent on 3 different PCs. I've reset the router, reset the ONT, and have gone to every speedtest site known to mankind.

They are sending a new router out this week, but I do not think that is the issue at all. Unfortunately, I have a MoCA connection, so I am not able to bypass the router to test a direct connection. Frustration does not even begin to explain my feelings at this moment.

[att=1]

[att=2]

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

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:44:50 EDT

anon posted : Big problems here in Weaverviile NC. Started to get bad in October
and got worse again this past week. So this is a Frontier-wide congestion problem rather than a local problem?

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

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:03:22 EDT

Hyway posted : I just got off the phone with tech support- they keep saying it's a line attenuation problem- but we all know its a congestion issue-all the service guys that have come out to the house say this-so i am going to keep calling 2-3 times a week-thinking about making a video and sending to my tv station with hopes that someday they will get the congestion fixed--Doubt it will be before i get a new isp.
Download Speed: 227 kbps (28.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 265 kbps (33.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:34:36 AM

Download Speed: 501 kbps (62.6 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 275 kbps (34.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:38:00 AM

Download Speed: 723 kbps (90.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 311 kbps (38.9 KB/sec transfer rate)
Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:45:43 AM

Download Speed: 328 kbps (41 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 259 kbps (32.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:47:34 AM

Connection Rate (Down/Up): 1790 Kbps / 447 Kbps

Yeah right.

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

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:56:31 EDT

koritina posted : Paying for 1.5Meg up

Constant lag between 6-7pm until Midnight every night. Been going this way for quite awhile now... All we've been told is "The district manager is on the same connection, it'll get fixed soon."

Area is SW Ohio.

Morning Ping:
Pinging 10.33.3.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=177ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=126
....
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=443ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 10.33.3.3:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 443ms, Average = 208ms

Morning Tracert:
Tracing route to yahoo.com [98.139.180.149]
over a maximum of 5 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 56 ms 35 ms 35 ms 10.33.3.3
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 83 ms 99 ms 174 ms 74.40.1.125
5 312 ms 356 ms 415 ms 74.40.1.93

Trace complete.

Evening Ping:
Pinging 10.33.3.3 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=426ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=255ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=249ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=306ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=306ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=263ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=528ms TTL=12
....
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=126
Reply from 10.33.3.3: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=126

Ping statistics for 10.33.3.3:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 78ms, Maximum = 528ms, Average = 262ms

Evening Tracert:
Tracing route to yahoo.com [98.139.180.149]
over a maximum of 5 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 175 ms 246 ms 165 ms 10.33.3.3
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 240 ms 205 ms 242 ms 74.40.1.125
5 285 ms 227 ms 241 ms 74.40.1.93

Trace complete.

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

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:45:34 EDT

stephen62 posted : This sounds a lot like my "down 6 or 7pm-12am" problem in Chesterton, IN which has been going on every day since Oct. 10. I have been told by a local manager that it is "an engineering problem" (no more details than that), that it is being worked on, and that I will be informed regarding any updates. The same manager contacted me over the weekend asking if things had improved. I replied Sunday that things had not. This manager promised to contact the next manager above. Last night I didn't lose service until 7:45pm, which is a slight improvement, but not exactly acceptable.

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

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:12:36 EDT

Smith6612 posted : Packet loss typically indicates congestion or a faulty link. Has Frontier attempted to fix both of the above issues by adding more capacity, for example?

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

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:55:54 EDT

delta772lr posted : Same here, in southwest lower Michigan on the MI/IN border. This has been going on for the better part of 2 weeks now and is the second time this year it has happened. Paying for 7.1 mb down but we are lucky to see .40~.50. I've been on the phone with Frontier twice and finally got a tech from the local office today to admit they had screwed something up during a changeover from Verizon to Frontier and that 'hundreds' of other people were having the same problem.

My only concerns with this is that it shouldn't take two weeks to resolve and this was also the excuse used when we had problems last Spring as well. I work from home and this is becoming a huge issue. We switched from Charter 7 or 8 years ago due to frequent drops and never had ANY issues with Verizon. I don't even remember ever power cycling the modem.

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

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:01:07 EDT

bd4 posted : Need some help, at night around 8-10 pm eastern time getting horrible packet loss and high latency.

C:\Users\Brian>tracert dslreports.com

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 57 ms * * 184-17-64-1.lfyt.in.frontiernet.net [184.17.64.1
]
3 61 ms 90 ms * 184.17.0.69
4 * 61 ms * so-6-0-2--0.car01.atln.ga.frontiernet.net [74.40
.2.205]
5 54 ms 58 ms 61 ms ae0---0.cbr01.chcg.il.frontiernet.net [74.40.4.1
38]
6 65 ms 68 ms 68 ms equinix.xe-1-3-0.cr2.ord1.us.nlayer.net [206.223
.119.61]
7 51 ms 54 ms 57 ms ae3-40g.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.111.153]
8 54 ms 61 ms 65 ms xe-9-2-0.cr1.ewr1.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.75]
9 92 ms 90 ms 83 ms ae1-70g.ar2.ewr1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.94.118]
10 * * 77 ms as8001.xe-3-0-6.ar2.ewr1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.95
.130]
11 90 ms 82 ms 81 ms 0.e1-4.tbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.122]
12 * * 88 ms vlan804.esd1.oct.nac.net [209.123.10.2]
13 * * 53 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Brian>ping -n 10 www.google.com

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.225.51] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=57
Request timed out.
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=57
Reply from 74.125.225.51: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=57

Ping statistics for 74.125.225.51:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 7, Lost = 3 (30% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 68ms, Average = 54ms

C:\Users\Brian>ping 184.17.64.1 -t

Pinging 184.17.64.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=127
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=127
Reply from 184.17.64.1: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=127
Request timed out.

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

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:16:28 EDT

Smith6612 posted : Your trace route suggests a Firewall at play messing it up, though the latency is obviously bad. It's the same issue everyone else seems to be getting with Frontier's DSL service. I'm downloading the podcast right now from the blog post you linked above. I'll interested to hear it :). Anyhow, Frontier will need to bring in more bandwidth into your area, obviously. If you can get a hold of a local tech for your area, bring them up on the issue.

In case you haven't come across any of my previous threads here regarding the slow-downs that used to occur in my area, I'll tell you what I did to go about getting the issue solved. First time a slow-down took place, I gave Frontier a call during prime time. They checked out my modem, which I knew wasn't at fault, as well as my DSL Statistics, which were as expected, fine. Rep didn't even question the line or the modem. He then asked me to run a Speedtest from their Speed testing site. Came back with half of my normal speed the first try, and then 240kbps the next result for the download. The tech put in a ticket for me regarding slow speeds, which resulted in a tech from the local CO (Who I have become buddies with) to come out and double check things. Of course, the speeds were fine, but he told me that there were tons of tickets open regarding slow speeds (couple hundred at least) for my area alone. He gave me his cell phone number, and two weeks later, speeds returned to normal during the night time hours.

We had another slow-down during the Fall months in my area again. This time, I simply gave my contact at the local CO a call and asked him what was going on. He told me that they had installed some new Load Balancing equipment that was supposed to help increase telephone calling capacity and reliability in the area. I guess indirectly, it also included the Internet service with it as I noticed shortly after Frontier put the upgrades in, my speeds once again, began to dip towards the evening hours. Line Quality Tests tended to show the problem was in Rochester some nights, whereas other nights it would show up in the typical hops where the CO is. Asked my contact two weeks later if he's heard of anything regarding slow-downs, and he mentioned that they were having some trouble with their load balancing system. Fast forward a few weeks later, no more slow-downs. Haven't seen a slow-down since the fall.

@Backatcha: Your issue isn't from the issues people are seeing with the Chicago network directly, but it does look to be a local bandwidth issue. They simply need to bring in more bandwidth to your Central Office.

@Festivus: Feel free to keep us updated on anything being developed. Glad to hear your speed has been returning.

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

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:44:03 EDT

Festivus posted : I've been told that issues might be resolved in north central Ohio. I've been consistently getting anywhere from 2.75Mbps to 3.12Mbps down on the 3Mbps plan the past 3 days.

My speedtest now connects through Columbus, not Chicago.

Here's an excerpt from the email that Frontier sent to me this morning:

"Thanks again for your patience and for reaching out to me regarding your internet speed. As of today I was able to get you migrated to a new pathway and you should see an increase in your connection speed. This is just one step in the process and as other projects are completed you will continue to see an increase in performance. I apologize for the delay and again thank you for giving us the opportunity to upgrade our network."

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

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:52:16 EDT

anon posted : These are the results of a trace route to Frontiernet.net. As you can see, the results are pitiful.

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.254.254

2 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms 170-215-105-1.br1.frt.ga.frontiernet.net [170.215.105.1]

3 77 ms 76 ms 73 ms 74.40.30.25

4 74 ms * 80 ms xe-0-2-0--0.cor02.atln.ga.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.237]

5 * * 76 ms ae0---0.cbr01.atln.ga.frontiernet.net [74.40.2.82]

6 14 ms 15 ms 16 ms te-9-2.car1.Atlanta4.Level3.net [4.53.233.133]

7 14 ms 15 ms 16 ms vlan51.csw1.Atlanta2.Level3.net [4.69.150.62]

8 72 ms 48 ms 63 ms ae-63-63.ebr3.Atlanta2.Level3.net [4.69.148.241]

9 28 ms 27 ms 30 ms ae-2-2.ebr1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.86]

10 30 ms 31 ms 29 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.134]

11 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms ae-24-70.car4.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.149.70]

12 30 ms 31 ms 30 ms CO-LOCATION.car4.Washington1.Level3.net [4.79.170.254]

13 * * * Request timed out.

14 * * * Request timed out.

15

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

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 15:53:54 EDT

anon posted : Hey Smith6612, been seeing issues for about 5 months now, thought I'd toss this up here for you to take a look at and see if you have any ideas.

Traceroute
----------
tracert www.google.com

Tracing route to www.google.com [170.215.255.115]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.254.254
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 230 ms 273 ms * ple01.mdtw.ny.frontiernet.net [170.215.255.115]

6 243 ms 242 ms 227 ms ple01.mdtw.ny.frontiernet.net [170.215.255.115]

Trace complete.

Pingtest
--------
ping 170.215.255.115 -t

Pinging 170.215.255.115 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=344ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=330ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=305ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=311ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=345ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=194ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=231ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=244ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=291ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=386ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=264ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=305ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=313ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=249ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=382ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=317ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=356ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=226ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=326ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=316ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=266ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=286ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=310ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=282ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=230ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=284ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=343ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=367ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=283ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=227ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=376ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=395ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=333ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=346ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=295ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=391ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=385ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=297ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=387ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=356ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=413ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=262ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=349ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=269ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=383ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=270ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=60
Reply from 170.215.255.115: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 170.215.255.115:
Packets: Sent = 121, Received = 116, Lost = 5 (4% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 415ms, Average = 299ms

Notes
-----
The second and fourth lost pings are where the download started and stopped, respectively. Download speeds remained around 25kBps, and I'm on the 3Mbps/384kbps package. I've documented more of my trouble with Frontier here - »bit.ly/hHk41Q - if you'd like to take a look.

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

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:20:53 EDT

Festivus posted : Same issues with me in central ohio. I connect through somewhere near Chicago though, as you noted many people are. Getting .43Mbps as of a few minutes ago, sometimes as slow as .14. At 5:00AM when I get up for work it's 3Mbps like I'm supposed to be getting of course.

Mid-may? I can't wait that long. But I'm the same boat as you are. I left time warner due to connection drops every 30 min. It would disconnect my work vpn if I was working from home. If that happened too often I would get locked out of my account. So I left them for Verizon. All was fine until a couple of months ago.

This is BS.

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

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:29:14 EDT

tmarsh151 posted : I have noticed widely fluctuating download speeds for the past few months which coincided with the switch from verizion to frontier. I live in north central Indiana and have the 7.1/768 plan. I've seen speeds as low as 170 Kbps some evenings. Last Wednesday evening the service was having problems connecting to some websites and tracert showed an issue at certain hops. Service was out or unreliable for about 18 hours. On Friday I also lost connectivity briefly in the afternoon. I didn't want to go through the hassle of changing ISPs but I've had enough of Frontier. I am having cable broadband installed next weekend.

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

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:29:03 EDT

Toecutter posted : Tracing route to www.l.google.com [74.125.225.20]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.2.1
2 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms dslrouter [192.168.1.1]
3 29 ms 29 ms 29 ms 10.34.54.1
4 179 ms 184 ms 184 ms so-1-2-2-0.CHI01-CORE-RTR3.verizon-gni.net [108.
57.128.8]
5 153 ms 141 ms 149 ms as0-0.chi01-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net [130.81.20.5
6]
6 246 ms 287 ms 245 ms 0.so-7-2-0.xl3.chi13.alter.net [152.63.64.169]
7 193 ms 159 ms 192 ms tengige0-4-2-0.gw2.chi13.alter.net [152.63.67.10
2]
8 213 ms 209 ms 196 ms google-gw.customer.alter.net [65.195.243.218]
9 269 ms 238 ms 300 ms 209.85.254.122
10 36 ms 31 ms 31 ms 64.233.174.173
11 189 ms 189 ms 194 ms 74.125.225.20

Trace complete.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Pinging 108.57.128.8 with 64 bytes of data:

Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=64 time=186ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=64 time=185ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=64 time=214ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=64 time=280ms TTL=62

Ping statistics for 108.57.128.8:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 185ms, Maximum = 280ms, Average = 216ms

---------------------------------------------------------------

Pinging 108.57.128.8 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=287ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=205ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=218ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=261ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=400ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=62
Reply from 108.57.128.8: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=62

--------------------------------------------------------------

I am a former Verizon customer in SE Wisconsin. I had no problems with my DSL when it was being run by Verizon. I guess Frontier took over in about July, and things were fine up until late December. Since then I have been experiencing high latency issues. I finally got tired of not being able to watch anything on Netflix in the evening so I finally contacted Frontier tech support.

The woman the I spoke with was quite friendly, and gave me a very straightforward answer as to what is going on. I told her that I was experiencing high latency issues at 108.57.128.8. She then ran the usual battery of line tests, had me run a speed test (2714 kbps up / 695 kbps down), and all of the test indicated that there was nothing wrong on my end, or with the line. She then admitted that Frontier is routing something like five states worth of traffic through just a few servers in Chicago. She said that they are adding more capacity, but it probably won't be done until mid-May. Unfortunately, she said that there was nothing that she could do for me, and to please bear with them for another month or two.

I really appreciate her candor, but I have about had it with Frontier due to their congestion, and I don't have a warm fuzzy that this issue is going to be fixed by mid-May. Unfortunately, the only other player in my area is Charter, who I previously fired for dropping my connection about twice a day. Given the alternative, I guess I could wait until mid-May and see how things progress before I pull the plug.

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

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:16:50 EDT

anon posted : southwest mich is have the same problems. I know 6 others in the area having the same problems. I was told to call the billing dept and ask for a credit and was told all they could do was drop my plan to a lower speed. If I need slower internet I wouldn't be a unhappy customer calling them. They couldn't tell me how long it was going to be like this in my area. I'm just go to keep calling every few day and maybe someone will have a answer

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

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:08:41 EDT

Smith6612 posted : Earthlink I know does resell Cable and DSL service, however.

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

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:42:21 EDT

COjosh posted : NetZero and Earthlink are DIAL-UP PROVIDERS!

You would be getting even slower service from them.

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

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:14:29 EDT

anon posted : Central Ohio here. Been having issues for a about a month. Just did a speed test, got 105kb/sec. I'm on the 3mb plan.

I too get the same response, "We're working on it." Unfortunately I think my only other choice is RR. I left them 2 years ago due to horrible drops. Every 30 min or so the connection would drop. Gave them 3 tech visits and 2 months to fix.

Now I'm going through this crap with Frontier. ISP's suck.

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

Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:07:09 EDT

anon posted : Been having problems here in south central Ohio as well. This has been ongoing since the first of November. I'm on a 3mbps down 764kb up but usually only get around .30 down during the day. I was told back in January that this issue would be resolved 3/1/2011. As of today I am still pretty much unable to watch clips or download small content. I'm beginning to get fed up with this as we are closing in on 6 months since these "upgrades" began and yet I see little difference in my connection quality. Hope it gets fixed soon as I don't want to switch ISP's but I'm beginning to see I may have no choice.

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

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:15:34 EDT

StrandedBrit posted : Update: After finally getting to a boss in Michigan I was contacted by a manager in my area. Basically said that the Chigaco area upgrade was live but they were still having issues in Ovid and surrounding area which was being worked on and that the eta was end of next week, so by 3/13 I guess.

Wierd thing was when I got home and did a speedtest, it said my location was in Kansas somwhere. Speeds fluctuate depending on where the test server is located by generally checked out between 2-3mbps so that's much better, although latency seems to have crept up (used to have <50ms, now 100-200). Tracert says I'm now going thru West Virginia instead of Chigaco like I used to be.

So end result is not sure what's happening, but I have most of my internet back. :)

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

Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:05:48 EDT

Smith6612 posted : It's possible the resellers in your area are running off their own networks from the Frontier COs, but there would still be issues if Frontier's core network or the DSLAMs/remotes are still oversold.

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

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:09:59 EDT

StrandedBrit posted : I'm on 3m/768k service in Ovid, Michigan.

Have had the speed issues for several weeks now. Here's a quick download speed chart based on time of day:- 7am 2.8mb, 10am 2mb, 12pm 1.5mb, 3pm 1mb, 6pm 0.5mb, 10pm 0.4mb. Funnily enough my upload speed is always the same at 0.6mb.

Feel like I've been getting the runaround by CS too. I've called multiple times, troubleshooted my equipment etc. One tech finally told me that they were upgrading equipment and that there was no ETA on when it would be complete and to talk to Billing to get some type of credit. :(

I've also emailed various people at the organization, to which I have one reply saying we are looking into it.

So, my real question here is I have 2 other DSL options for my area. Netzero and Eathlink. Are these companies running their service thru the same hardware as Frontier? Would I just be getting the same slow service from them? I heard someone say that basically these lower level companies just rent lines from the likes of Frontier/Verizon.

Any input would be great.