dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15060
share rss forum feed

drive92

join:2008-11-03
Quebec, QC
reply to zorxd

Re: Changement important Bell Fibe Internet

Effectivement , disont que j'ai été chanceux .

Seb851
Future Shop Staff

join:2010-07-12
Sainte-Marthe-Sur-Le-Lac, QC
reply to Martin
C'est donc rendu la merde les bloc de consormation chez bell

Avant 40 go pour 5$, 80go pour 10$, 120 pour 15 $

Maintenent



baby_tux
Premium
join:2003-08-23
Quebec, QC
reply to Martin
Le changement automatique de 50/10 vers 50/50 vient tout juste de se faire (enfin) ici...


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Martin
While I haven't specifically checked for a few days, I believe I still have not seen the 25/7 to 25/10 upgrade.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Helios82

@bell.ca
Changed my plan from Fibe 16+ (fibe tv package) which gave me 25d/7u when the tv was off, to the new 15/10.
Speedtest.net tested my new service at 15d/7.8u

So I lost 10Mbps of download with no increase in upload, not happy about that.

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

said by Martin:

T'inquiet maxmai, Bell attends juste que Vidoétron sorte leur petit 200mbit/s pour riposter avec une vitesse que Pédalo est incapable d'offrir! Déjà que VL est incapable de fournir une vitesse d'upload égale à celle du download, j'vois mal comment il pourrait rivaliser avec son petit réseau de coax dépassé...

Shaw out west is already selling 250Mbps over cable, so theoretically Videotron can do the same (although they'd have to eliminate analog cable TV to make room like Shaw did). Bell's FTTH deployments are currently very limited, they'll need to be a lot more widespread before they can compare to a good DOCSIS 3.0 deployment.

Besides, Bell is deploying GPON, which when you think about it is pretty similar to a cable deployment, since you have a large fixed amount of bandwidth (2.488 Gbps down, 1.244 Gbps up) that is shared among a bunch of users (up to 128 subscribers per GPON node, typically 32). DOCSIS 3.0 deployments with higher degrees of channel-bonding and/or multiple bonding sets can do the same.

10G-PON, on the other hand... by that point, cable will have to migrate to FTTH. But the upgrade path for DSL and cable to fibre is pretty much the same... They're both pushing their nodes closer and closer to copper served customers, and eventually they swap out the last mile with fibre... Cable carriers can even use RFoG to deliver existing cable-based services over fibre-to-the-home, even analog cable, digital cable, or cable internet. Although cable internet over RFoG seems a bit silly to me.

Does shaw do symmetrical speed?


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Martin
No, but do they really need to? We techies might care about upstream speeds, but the typical user doesn't. Heck, people like my parents barely notice the difference between dialup and 7 meg DSL. The 250 Mbps Shaw plan has 15 Mbps of upstream, and includes 1TB of bandwidth with an option to pay $20 more for unlimited.

Besides that, Bell's fiber offering is mostly a marketing gimmick at the moment; some people can get it, but the two largest cities in their territory don't have any real coverage, and it has a tiny cap with an $80 option for unlimited... If Bell covered Montreal with fibre, and had more reasonable prices, and had more reasonable caps, it might be worth considering...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
said by Guspaz:

No, but do they really need to? We techies might care about upstream speeds, but the typical user doesn't. Heck, people like my parents barely notice the difference between dialup and 7 meg DSL. The 250 Mbps Shaw plan has 15 Mbps of upstream, and includes 1TB of bandwidth with an option to pay $20 more for unlimited.

Besides that, Bell's fiber offering is mostly a marketing gimmick at the moment; some people can get it, but the two largest cities in their territory don't have any real coverage, and it has a tiny cap with an $80 option for unlimited... If Bell covered Montreal with fibre, and had more reasonable prices, and had more reasonable caps, it might be worth considering...

It was just a question...couldnt see the plans until I changed to location. If I had the chance to chose between 250/15mbps and 175/175 in terms of speed I'd get the later one. CAP wise, I would need to look at my average usage, not sure I'd go over 300GB, but shaw plans those beat it by a mile.

I'm pretty sure typical user wouldn't even pick those packages either, so maybe those package are for the freaks of speed.

I don't think we were talking about CAPs or prices... but purely about speed. We all know Bell Canada haven't been competing on those fronts for big downloader. And their main competitor is Videotron and Rogers... not Shaw.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
Purely speed, sure, I'd take 175/175 over 250/15... But there's more to the story than that.

The more useful comparison needs to include the caps:

175/175 with a 300GB cap for $134/mth
175/175 with unlimited cap for $214/mth
250/15 with a 1000GB cap for $110/mth
250/15 with unlimited cap for $130/mth

I'm not sure which of those I would take except to say it is definitely NOT the first two... To put this in context, I'm currently theoretically paying roughly $136/mth for 50/20 with a 600GB cap... Although that's expensive so I'll probably downgrade at some point.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
said by Guspaz:

Purely speed, sure, I'd take 175/175 over 250/15... But there's more to the story than that.

The more useful comparison needs to include the caps:

175/175 with a 300GB cap for $134/mth
175/175 with unlimited cap for $214/mth
250/15 with a 1000GB cap for $110/mth
250/15 with unlimited cap for $130/mth

I'm not sure which of those I would take except to say it is definitely NOT the first two... To put this in context, I'm currently theoretically paying roughly $136/mth for 50/20 with a 600GB cap... Although that's expensive so I'll probably downgrade at some point.

Well at that price I wouldn't take any of them lol.


BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
reply to Guspaz
Does anyone know why Bell still doesn't peer at TorIX? Local routing and speed SUCKS. If I send a file to someone on Rogers in Toronto it goes around the moon and back with half the speed. How is that cheaper than being directly peered with Rogers at 151 Front? And then Bell complain about bandwidth costs. Makes no sense to me.


BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
# ADDRESS                                                                 RT1   RT2   RT3
1 basx-toronto01_lo0_symp.net.bell.ca (64.230.x.x) 5ms 4ms 4ms
2 dis9-toronto01_7-1-0_100.net.bell.ca (64.230.97.228) 4ms 4ms 4ms
3 bx4-toronto12_so-2-0-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.138.126 5ms 5ms 5ms
4 ix-5-0-1-0.tcore1.ttt-scarborough.as6453.net (206.82.131.9) 5ms 5ms 5ms
5 if-15-0-0.mcore3.ttt-scarborough.as6453.net (64.86.32.6) 5ms 6ms 6ms
6 if-8-3-0-0.tcore1.njy-newark.as6453.net (216.6.98.2) 28ms 24ms 24ms
7 if-2-2.tcore2.njy-newark.as6453.net (66.198.70.2) 23ms 23ms 24ms
8 vlan83.icore2.nto-newyork.as6453.net (66.198.111.98) 24ms 34ms 36ms
9 ix-9-0.icore2.nto-newyork.as6453.net (216.6.81.2) 24ms 24ms 24ms
10 69.63.248.197 32ms 35ms 36ms
11 69.63.250.221 27ms 41ms 39ms
12 69.63.249.130 28ms 27ms 28ms
13 66.185.89.242 26ms 25ms 26ms
14 cpexxxxxxxxxxxx-cmxxxxxxxxxxxx.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (99.234.x.x) 34ms 34ms 34ms

This is nonsense, in addition to the terrible latency you unconditionally get a significant throughput performance hit on Fibe 50/50 and above

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
what's the IP, I want to compare.

Cause I don't see how local routing and speed suck...


BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON

4 edits
You can use the hop before, 66.185.89.242 it's basically the same thing minus the customer IP

Edit wait you're right. The last IP matters too. Bell has a looking glass btw: »www.as577.net/en/page/lg.html

Toronto:
traceroute to 99.234.x.x (99.234.x.x), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 206.47.244.34 (206.47.244.34) 0.343 ms 0.231 ms 0.202 ms
2 core3-toronto63_GE11-0-2.net.bell.ca (206.108.107.169) 0.137 ms 0.135 ms 0.129 ms
3 bx4-toronto63_S0-6-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.152.190) 0.319 ms 0.298 ms 0.470 ms
4 if-0-0-0.mcore3.TTT-Scarborough.as6453.net (216.6.98.57) 0.670 ms 0.670 ms 0.690 ms
5 if-3-1-0-0.tcore1.NJY-Newark.as6453.net (216.6.98.34) 34.875 ms 25.440 ms 19.332 ms
MPLS Label=316288 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0
6 if-2-2.tcore2.NJY-Newark.as6453.net (66.198.70.2) 19.121 ms 19.139 ms 19.153 ms
7 Vlan83.icore2.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (66.198.111.98) 21.929 ms 27.861 ms 20.443 ms
8 ix-9-0.icore2.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.81.2) 19.346 ms 19.403 ms 19.352 ms
9 69.63.248.94 (69.63.248.94) 23.672 ms 27.958 ms 24.017 ms
10 69.63.249.110 (69.63.249.110) 22.352 ms 23.383 ms 23.714 ms
11 69.63.249.126 (69.63.249.126) 25.816 ms 22.418 ms 23.847 ms
12 24.156.158.14 (24.156.158.14) 21.485 ms 21.412 ms 21.419 ms
13 CPEXXXXXXXXXXXX-CMXXXXXXXXXXXX.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (99.234.x.x) 29.381 ms 37.816 ms 30.011 ms


Montreal
traceroute to 99.234.x.x (99.234.x.x), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 206.47.244.66 (206.47.244.66) 0.428 ms 0.228 ms 0.206 ms
2 core3-montreal02_GE5-0-0.net.bell.ca (206.108.107.89) 0.187 ms 0.222 ms 0.128 ms
3 Ncore3-montreal02_POS0-0-1-0_core.net.bell.ca (64.230.168.225) 1.493 ms 1.374 ms 0. 809 ms
MPLS Label=16113 CoS=5 TTL=255 S=0
4 bx4-montreal02_pos3-1-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.169.190) 0.339 ms 0.336 ms 0.348 ms
5 ix-0-1-2-0.tcore1.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net (216.6.115.29) 0.394 ms 0.400 ms 0.378 ms
6 if-9-0-0.mcore3.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net (64.86.31.50) 1.139 ms
if-11-0-0.mcore3.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net (216.6.114.97) 0.652 ms
if-9-0-0.mcore3.MTT-Montreal.as6453.net (64.86.31.50) 1.066 ms
MPLS Label=2380 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0
7 if-10-3-0-0.tcore2.NYY-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.114.30) 7.913 ms 7.858 ms 67.515 m s
MPLS Label=318192 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0
8 if-11-2.tcore1.NYY-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.99.2) 7.767 ms 7.686 ms 7.687 ms
9 Vlan25.icore1.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (216.6.90.62) 17.361 ms 25.238 ms *
10 ix-3-0.icore1.NTO-NewYork.as6453.net (209.58.26.46) 16.825 ms 16.748 ms 17.131 ms
11 24.153.5.69 (24.153.5.69) 22.225 ms 27.636 ms 23.928 ms
12 69.63.250.221 (69.63.250.221) 20.171 ms 20.754 ms 19.842 ms
13 69.63.249.130 (69.63.249.130) 24.190 ms 21.933 ms 30.683 ms
14 24.156.149.86 (24.156.149.86) 18.480 ms 18.015 ms 18.258 ms
15 CPEXXXXXXXXXXXX-CMXXXXXXXXXXXX.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (99.234.x.x) 25.539 ms 27.439 ms 26.553 ms

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
Can't ping, that's for sure.

Tracing route to 66.185.89.242 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms GATEWAY [192.168.2.1]
2 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms acs1-con-to.nexicom.net [76.75.100.36]
3 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms ge5-1-6.core1.toronto1.nexicom.net [76.75.120.24
9]
4 27 ms 27 ms 27 ms xe0-0-3.core1.toronto2.nexicom.net [98.124.50.24
2]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * ^C