Topic '[IL] Latency issues.' in forum 'Mediacom' - dslreports.com

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:19:14 EDT

bulletsam posted : It's everywhere Mediacom operates. Makes one wish this »fiber.google.com/about/ had started long ago.

Though I'm sure they'll have issues too, but Mediacom seems to have just given up on any sort of system quality. Even when they do know about a problem, the head office seems to limit what they'll allow local areas to repair correctly, in a timely manner.

They prefer them to delay, deny, and outright lie to their customers while they push sales to the max, and run laughable commercials about how "Fast and reliable" they are. :uhh:

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:26:24 EDT

kb0nly posted : Its the same here in 30mb land... High latency, speed is up and down never stable. Lately i have been lucky to average around 10mb, if i see a 30mb burst on a speedtest thats lucky.

I have pretty much given up on getting what i am paying for, weighing my options.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:59:03 EDT

bulletsam posted : Been a great weekend here in Ultra 50 land! Oh, and latency is just as good... still.

Does anyone at the top even give a damn about the company anymore, or is "Charge more, fix less" the business model now?

Atlanta, GA
Dallas, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA.
Washington, DC

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:14:42 EDT

bulletsam posted : Routers, yes. Thanks for the correction, NormanS.

Well all I know is they're slow, and ticking me off lol. I've really never had this trouble with them before, just the last couple months they've gotten really slow.

And!

I get this crap every 2 to 3 days... DHCP RENEW WARNING - Field invalid in response v4 option;CM-MAC=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX;CMTS-MAC=50:3d:e5:0b:ba:c6;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;

Tech here the other day said... "We're all about subs now." so how about fixing your stuff to support all those subs you're pushing for, Rocco.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:37:49 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by bulletsam:

Oh my d/l and u/l speeds are great, 45+d/l and 5.40+u/l at a 500 mile range, it just takes awhile to get anywhere. These DNS servers that are at hop 3, 4, and 5 seem to be my trouble...

DNS servers do not route packets. Those IP addresses are routers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:14:11 EDT

bulletsam posted : Oh my d/l and u/l speeds are great, 45+d/l and 5.40+u/l at a 500 mile range, it just takes awhile to get anywhere. These are at hop 3, 4, and 5... and seem to be my problem.

172.30.90.97 MC
172.30.35.65 MC
172.30.88.97 MC

12.250.218.41 AT&T
12.250.28.6 AT&T

The Mediacom owned ones had always ran at 9ms - 13ms response time. They now run from 21ms - 37ms response time. The AT&T owned constantly time out.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:33:40 EDT

MediacomChad posted : What speeds are you currently getting?

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:15:42 EDT

bulletsam posted : Takes from 6 to 15 seconds for pages to load now... with errors. This is getting old real damn fast.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:53:50 EDT

bulletsam posted : Thanks for clearing that up for me, I appreciate it.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:12:51 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by bulletsam:

Who, or what is this? I mean, I understand it's for 'IANA Special Use' but why? from what I can gather it's not my ISP, could be spoofed, or from my local environment.

It is Mediacom, just not their IP addresses. Many ISPs are using RFC 1918 addresses on their internal networks for lack of available IPv4 IP addresses. Some of the larger ones, including AT&T, are using 10.0.0.0/8.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:15:51 EDT

GLIMMER posted :

said by bulletsam:

"Are you absolutely certain? The trace route is showing RFC 1918 reserved IP addresses:"

172.30.9.189
172.30.9.165

NormanS,

Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to trace it also after the tracert, but found nothing but one site saying it seems to be a router.

Who, or what is this? I mean, I understand it's for 'IANA Special Use' but why? from what I can gather it's not my ISP, could be spoofed, or from my local environment.

it has to be mediacom because the first 12. is the transfer to att network. Im intregued that it might be the node then the headend.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:11:30 EDT

GLIMMER posted :

said by NormanS:

said by GLIMMER:

nope the 173 ips belong to mediacom. its there problem either at the node or the headend make them fix it.

Are you absolutely certain? The trace route is showing RFC 1918 reserved IP addresses:

172.30.9.189
172.30.9.165

NetRange:       172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255CIDR:           172.16.0.0/12OriginAS:       NetName:        PRIVATE-ADDRESS-BBLK-RFC1918-IANA-RESERVEDNetHandle:      NET-172-16-0-0-1Parent:         NET-172-0-0-0-0NetType:        IANA Special Use

Also, I have a "173" IP address.

NetRange:       173.228.0.0 - 173.228.127.255CIDR:           173.228.0.0/17OriginAS:       AS7065NetName:        SONIC-BLKNetHandle:      NET-173-228-0-0-1Parent:         NET-173-0-0-0-0NetType:        Direct AllocationRegDate:        2010-02-17Updated:        2012-03-02Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-173-228-0-0-1 OrgName:        SONIC.NET, INC.OrgId:          SNICAddress:        2260 Apollo WayCity:           Santa RosaStateProv:      CAPostalCode:     95407Country:        USRegDate:        1996-09-12Updated:        2010-02-11

good catch i for some reason thought it said 173 when i pluged it in.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:10:32 EDT

GLIMMER posted :

said by Anonymous:

You guys can't 'make' someone fix something if that person/company believes there are no issues. His speed was too low for 50/5 tier I agree with that. FYI that speed is advertised as up to 50/5 in case you missed that part and I personally consider anything above 35 Mbit not an issue (this is hardwired to the modem/gateway). His latency while not the best was not 'bad'. Just because you get accustomed to really low latency and now it changed it does not mean there is an issue. I am also a gamer and I know I have no problems with latency below 150ms at all.

Mediacom is a much smaller company with not enough redundancy and scattered plant. Depending on the area you may see more outages than some other areas.

i dont care if mediacom is a small company if your a service provider then spend money on upgrades. and they could add redundancy there just to cheap to do it.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:54:00 EDT

bulletsam posted : "Are you absolutely certain? The trace route is showing RFC 1918 reserved IP addresses:"

172.30.9.189
172.30.9.165

NormanS,

Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to trace it also after the tracert, but found nothing but one site saying it seems to be a router.

Who, or what is this? I mean, I understand it's for 'IANA Special Use' but why? from what I can gather it's not my ISP, could be spoofed, or from my local environment.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:42:25 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by GLIMMER:

nope the 173 ips belong to mediacom. its there problem either at the node or the headend make them fix it.

Are you absolutely certain? The trace route is showing RFC 1918 reserved IP addresses:

172.30.9.189
172.30.9.165

NetRange:       172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255CIDR:           172.16.0.0/12OriginAS:       NetName:        PRIVATE-ADDRESS-BBLK-RFC1918-IANA-RESERVEDNetHandle:      NET-172-16-0-0-1Parent:         NET-172-0-0-0-0NetType:        IANA Special Use

Also, I have a "173" IP address.

NetRange:       173.228.0.0 - 173.228.127.255CIDR:           173.228.0.0/17OriginAS:       AS7065NetName:        SONIC-BLKNetHandle:      NET-173-228-0-0-1Parent:         NET-173-0-0-0-0NetType:        Direct AllocationRegDate:        2010-02-17Updated:        2012-03-02Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-173-228-0-0-1 OrgName:        SONIC.NET, INC.OrgId:          SNICAddress:        2260 Apollo WayCity:           Santa RosaStateProv:      CAPostalCode:     95407Country:        USRegDate:        1996-09-12Updated:        2010-02-11

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:29:03 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by Anonymous:

I still stand by my opinion. You obviously can disagree. Below 100ms to Google is OK in my book.

For HSI connections (DOCSIS or DSL), Google should never be more than 35 ms away in most cases:

Tracing route to www.google.com [74.125.224.116]over a maximum of 30 hops:   1    <1 ms    <1 ms     1 ms  192.168.42.1  2    26 ms    26 ms    26 ms  173-228-7-1.dsl.static.sonic.net [173.228.7.1]  3    25 ms    24 ms    25 ms  gig1-4.cr1.lsatca11.sonic.net [70.36.243.13]  4    24 ms    24 ms    24 ms  0.xe-5-1-0.gw.pao1.sonic.net [69.12.211.1]  5    26 ms    24 ms    32 ms  0.xe-6-0-0.gw3.equinix-sj.sonic.net [64.142.0.185]  6    25 ms    25 ms    26 ms  eqixsj-google-gige.google.com [206.223.116.21]  7    26 ms    26 ms    25 ms  216.239.49.168  8    27 ms    27 ms    27 ms  64.233.174.109  9    27 ms    26 ms    26 ms  nuq04s08-in-f20.1e100.net [74.125.224.116] Trace complete.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:42:24 EDT

bulletsam posted : When I can see my car, tank, solider, move forward and then lurch back to the start point constantly, yes, it is a problem.

I had a tech here Tuesday witness the lag/latency and timeouts I'm having. He acknowledged they do have a issue.

[att=1]
That's from tonight. Look good to you?

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:51:07 EDT

Anonymous posted : You guys can't 'make' someone fix something if that person/company believes there are no issues. His speed was too low for 50/5 tier I agree with that. FYI that speed is advertised as up to 50/5 in case you missed that part and I personally consider anything above 35 Mbit not an issue (this is hardwired to the modem/gateway). His latency while not the best was not 'bad'. Just because you get accustomed to really low latency and now it changed it does not mean there is an issue. I am also a gamer and I know I have no problems with latency below 150ms at all.

Mediacom is a much smaller company with not enough redundancy and scattered plant. Depending on the area you may see more outages than some other areas.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:28:17 EDT

k9iua6 posted : Latency obviously affects some applications more than others. I personally am more worried about lost packets than I am about latency, although I also don't use the applications most affected by higher latency values (such as VoIP, gaming, or maybe video, all of which are also higher bandwidth applications and more time dependent). To say there is an absolute value of latency below which you must have is also a misnomer, especially with web browsing, which is what Anonymous was pointing out. It is all application driven.

Latency is also something that will constantly fluctuate across a range of values, depending on time of day and network conditions. It also makes a huge difference whether you are hitting sites that are dispersed across the network (such as CDN) or a centrally located (and potentially overworked) server. [There is a classic example from the differences of measuring latency to yahoo.com versus www.yahoo.com, where the latter will resolve to closer CDN with lower latency, whereas the former will not, with latency being very high.]

ADDED: I got the Yahoo examples reversed. yahoo.com will be the quicker ping, with www.yahoo.com being a very long ping. At least when I just now tested it. I also just found similar between google.com and www.google.com.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:54:50 EDT

GLIMMER posted :

said by Anonymous:

What if they agree with me and tell you they can't find any issues? How do you make them 'fix' something that's not broken?

Thats because your NOC is full of people who shouldn't have that job. If there is a network issue they should find it. I had comcast they have 30 mil subs and mediacom has what? In the area I was in we never had a outage. I've had mediacraps service for almost 2 years and we have had 8 outages in the last 9 months. Thats a good track record.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:03:06 EDT

bulletsam posted : Tech was here and found a connection issue at the drop, TV looks much better now. Also said they seem to be having a problem with a C10K? server at the head-end when the frequency switches.

I guess others near me with Ultra50 are experiencing the same problems.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:19:11 EDT

Anonymous posted : What if they agree with me and tell you they can't find any issues? How do you make them 'fix' something that's not broken?
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:19:32 EDT

GLIMMER posted :

said by bulletsam:

Thanks for the input, all. Yeah, it's very easy to notice the change if you stream or do any sort of gaming.

Saying Google thinks under 100ms is ok, is like saying "speeds up to 50Mbps" is ok. If a company is going to run ads hyping your "amazing performance and support" you should be held accountable, imo.

I will say it's the AT&T servers where most of my latency comes from when it happens.

nope the 173 ips belong to mediacom. its there problem either at the node or the headend make them fix it.

IP Information for 173.30.9.189
IP Location: United States United States Iowa City Mediacom Communications Corp
ASN: AS30036
Resolve Host: 173-30-9-189.client.mchsi.com
IP Address: 173.30.9.189 [Whois] [Reverse-Ip] [Ping] [DNS Lookup] [Traceroute]

NetRange: 173.16.0.0 - 173.31.255.255
CIDR: 173.16.0.0/12
OriginAS:
NetName: MEDIACOM-RESIDENTIAL-CUST
NetHandle: NET-173-16-0-0-1
Parent: NET-173-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2008-05-19
Updated: 2012-02-24
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-173-16-0-0-1

OrgName: Mediacom Communications Corp
OrgId: MCC-244
Address: 100 Crystal Run Rd.
City: Middletown
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10941
Country: US
RegDate: 2008-02-05
Updated: 2012-02-27
Comment: For abuse issues contact
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/org/MCC-244

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:39:21 EDT

bulletsam posted : Thanks for the input, all. Yeah, it's very easy to notice the change if you stream or do any sort of gaming.

Saying Google thinks under 100ms is ok, is like saying "speeds up to 50Mbps" is ok. If a company is going to run ads hyping your "amazing performance and support" you should be held accountable, imo.

I will say it's the AT&T servers where most of my latency comes from when it happens.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:41:18 EDT

Tehrasha posted :

said by Anonymous:

Below 100ms to Google is OK in m book.

I guess it all depends on what you are accustomed to seeing.
If my ping to google (8.8.8.8) suddenly jumped to being over 50ms consistently, I would raise an eyebrow at least.

»i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu41···ping.png

Interesting that my ping to a sever in Des Moines is nearly double that to Google...

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:36:58 EDT

Anonymous posted : I still stand by my opinion. You obviously can disagree. Below 100ms to Google is OK in my book.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:22:02 EDT

Boss302_1970 posted : my 50/5 latency is usually 10 ms so id say that's too high

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:18:10 EDT

wth posted :

said by Anonymous:

Your latency is not bad but your speed is too low if you have 50/5 service.

64ms to Mediacoms hop #3 (172.30.9.189) is way to high. Should be under 30/35ms.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:52:55 EDT

jhamps10 posted : heh so do I, hate being bewiltered on the phone by some dummy who thinks I don't know what I'm doing... that's why the first place I go is @mediacomsupport on twitter or their website forums and post there

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 01:04:13 EDT

bulletsam posted : Well, it worked. I hate calling support, but I took a chance.

[att=1]

Thanks for the info. :)

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:56:50 EDT

jhamps10 posted : you may want to PM mediacom chad or tweet mediacom support, I went to them to see if anyone else had complained of slow sppeds and latency, they sent a reset to the modem and now I'm getting speeds back to normal now

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:56:53 EDT

jhamps10 posted : yeah mine has been horrible all day here in Charleston, I can't even get speedtest to load now to see just how slow it is

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:49:36 EDT

bulletsam posted : Latency is not bad? lol, ok. Sure acts bad considering the norm is 25ms. Yes, I have 50/5 service.

[att=1]

I'd say the weather isn't helping, we've had ice precipitation in Illinois and Indiana all day.

Re: [IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:30:48 EDT

Anonymous posted : Your latency is not bad but your speed is too low if you have 50/5 service.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

[IL] Latency issues.

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:34:56 EDT

bulletsam posted : Any idea when this might get repaired? been like this a few days now off and on.

[att=1]
[att=2]