dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5563
share rss forum feed

A A

join:2013-02-14
reply to Webslingerac

Re: Time for a stop sell on McNicoll POI?

4:15pm
on 18/0.5


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada




Still pretty good at 6:47 p.m. EST.

We'll see what happens around 9:30 p.m. EST, when congestion is typically bad.


SimGuy

join:2002-01-06
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Webslingerac

Yay - Salem POI :X

28/1 Cable.




Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

1 edit
reply to Webslingerac




9:30 p.m. EST

Yeah, Marc this isn't good. Honestly, if you were a 28/1 customer, I don't think you'd be happy with this either.

If you believe this is node congestion, please ask Rogers to do something. Thank you

koreyb
Open the Canadian Market NOW

join:2005-01-08
East York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by Webslingerac:

[att=1]

9:30 p.m. EST

Yeah, Marc this isn't good. Honestly, if you were a 28/1 customer, I don't think you'd be happy with this either.

If you believe this is node congestion, please ask Rogers to do something. Thank you

IF you have a D3 modem, TSI can ask, but node congestion will effect both rogers and TSI customers, but it's doubtful they will do anything with it at 15mb for any speed level, for node congestion as it involves a bit of major network splitting. I would almost try a factory reset on your modem, to try and get different channels.

Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

2 edits

Well, granted, it's about an hour later, but I seem to be getting far better results from the St. Catherines speedtest server right now than Teksavvy's.




I'll try downloading a large game from Steam and see what happens. But really, it's better for me to test at 9:30 p.m.

And by the way, I did reset my modem.

I'm getting about 3.0-3.1 MB/s, which isn't bad, but it's not 9:30 p.m. anymore. It's 11:00 p.m.

I suppose if I'm inconvenienced for 1.5 hrs every night that's not too bad, I guess, but with more and more subscribers from Rogers and Teksavvy, I can't see this situation improving.

A A

join:2013-02-14
reply to Webslingerac

6:30pm on 18/.5



Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

4 edits

said by A A:

6:30pm on 18/.5

Yeah, the problem doesn't start happening until around 9:30 p.m.

6:30 is always fine; testing at 6:30 is meaningless.

Try testing between 9:30p.m. and 10:30 p.m.

This is like clockwork here every night after 9:15 p.m. (until about 11 p.m. - 12 a.m. when the congestion slowly dissipates):

Teksavvy:


Nexicom:


Beanfield:




I'm not sure where the problem is occurring, but this is congestion. And I just started downloading files from other servers, and I'm seeing poor download speeds as well right now. So with 28/1 service (SB6120 D3 modem), I'm getting pretty frustrated.

If Teksavvy doesn't want to go to bat over this, then, as much as I hate doing it, I'll start looking elsewhere. My neighbour (Rogers customer) claims he isn't having problems (but I haven't invited myself in to double check at 9:30 p.m. either).

Marc says there's a ton of extra capacity on McNicoll, but something is clearly wrong here after 9:15 p.m. until about 11 p.m. at least on weekdays.

I have no doubts that my problem (an hour or two of inconvenience) each night is minor compared to other people's connection issues, but it's beginning to get frustrating.

bdoyledimou

join:2002-08-20
Markham, ON

hey man, i am right there with you -- after 1.5 years of paying full price for half speeds, then finally getting the upgrade in October, to be whacked like this again, only 4 months later is pretty frustrating -- especially with all the other (non speed related)issues Teksavvy is experiencing lately this isn't good for me -- this is supposed to be 28/1




Cable Signal Details

Forward Path:
Channel Frequency Power SNR BER Modulation
1 663.0 MHz -0.6 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
2 615.0 MHz -0.9 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
3 621.0 MHz -0.6 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
4 633.0 MHz -0.2 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
5 639.0 MHz -0.1 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
6 645.0 MHz -0.1 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
7 651.0 MHz -0.4 dBmV 38.2 dB 0.000 % 256 QAM
8 657.0 MHz -0.6 dBmV 37.9 dB 0.001 % 256 QAM

Return Path:
Channel ID Frequency Power Modulation
7 22.1 MHz 46.0 dBmV 16 QAM
3 31.3 MHz 46.0 dBmV 16 QAM
4 25.3 MHz 46.0 dBmV 16 QAM
8 38.6 MHz 46.5 dBmV 16 QAM

Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

At 9:46 p.m. on a Sunday

Teksavvy:


Nexicom:


Beanfield:


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

1 edit

Actually started sucking a couple of hours earlier today (on a Sunday).

mcnicoll3.cable.teksavvy.com (69.165.168.146) is dropping packets (occasionally).

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|

| 10.126.167.1 - 0 | 102 | 102 | 7 | 11 | 22 | 13 |
| 24.156.149.57 - 0 | 102 | 102 | 9 | 15 | 40 | 11 |
| mcnicoll3.cable.teksavvy.com - 2 | 98 | 97 | 9 | 14 | 91 | 10 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

Getting packet loss here:

Pinging yahoo.ca [98.139.102.145] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=5
Request timed out.
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Request timed out.
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Request timed out.
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Request timed out.
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=5
Reply from 98.139.102.145: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=5

Ping statistics for 98.139.102.145:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 46, Lost = 4 (8%
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 40ms, Maximum = 65ms, Average = 43ms

Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

Getting some packet loss from 24.156.149.57 as well as from mcnicoll3 tonight:

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|
| 10.126.167.1 - 0 | 55 | 55 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 14 |
| 24.156.149.57 - 2 | 52 | 51 | 12 | 16 | 36 | 21 |
| mcnicoll3.cable.teksavvy.com - 2 | 51 | 50 | 11 | 18 | 118 | 13 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

byebye_cable

join:2010-01-14
Scarborough, ON

I'm a geek - but not a network geek - so the discourse here is over my head.

Is it fair to say that TSI has problems on McNicoll (and possibly Comstock?), and that a consumer move to Start communications might be a faster option to fix the problem?

I'm not throwing stones, I just want reliable service.


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

1 edit

said by byebye_cable :
Is it fair to say that TSI has problems on McNicoll (and possibly Comstock?)
They may.

However, the problem might also be node congestion, in which case, the problem is Rogers.

quote:
and that a consumer move to Start communications might be a faster option to fix the problem?

Not if the problem is node congestion (if you have a neighbour on Rogers, is he/she also having problems? If so, moving to Start won't help)

Marc claims there's plenty of capacity on McNicoll. Regardless, I'm certainly experiencing congestion after 9 p.m. My neighbour (on Rogers) says he isn't having problems, so I'm not sure.

In the end, I'm not receiving the speeds I'm paying for after 9p.m.

kennyluo

join:2012-11-22
Scarborough, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Webslingerac

At 9:52pm, on 18/0.5 connection



Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

Yeah, not much fun on McNicoll POI between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. lately (28/1)

Teksavvy:




Nexicom:



Beanfield:


captainpc

join:2013-02-25
reply to Webslingerac

Click for full size
SlowSavvy
I am on the same POI.. look at my speed during peak hours..

Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

1 edit

said by captainpc:

I am on the same POI.. look at my speed during peak hours..

If you're on the same POI, don't test from Oakville. Try closer servers from Toronto.

Not sure why you're posting shopped images. Click "share this result" after testing, select "forum", and click "copy". Then just paste when you reply.


Robleh

join:2009-07-14
canada



on 28/1 scarlett poi.. diconnections during the day also..


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

said by Robleh:

on 28/1 scarlett poi.. diconnections during the day also..

That's unfortunate. Yeah, the problem for me occurs during very specific times (usually between 9:30 p.m. and 11 p.m.--but lately, the problem starts earlier around 9 p.m.). After 11 p.m. the congestion improves--and after midnight the congestion seems to go away. But we're on different POIs.

lucidt

join:2010-12-05
reply to Webslingerac




something has to be done about this, this is getting ridiculous. I am paying for a 28/1 and this is what i am getting.

A A

join:2013-02-14

3 edits
reply to Webslingerac

Wed 27

7:00pm




730



800 - I was getting some wildly varied results from the TS server, anywhere from 7mb to 14 to 17. So I tested with Nexicom,



915


A A

join:2013-02-14
reply to Webslingerac

With above, please make sure to test different servers to ensure an accurate average of speeds.


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

4 edits

said by A A:

With above, please make sure to test different servers to ensure an accurate average of speeds.

Your results do indicate a problem, in particular, after 9 p.m., which coincides with what I'm seeing as well (and I always test on multiple servers).

10:06 p.m.
Teksavvy:



10:14 p.m.
Nexicom:



Beanfield:


Sweet sweet packet loss on the way to speedtest.teksavvy.com

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - Loss % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|
| 10.126.167.1 - 0 | 76 | 76 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 11 |
| 24.156.149.133 - 2 | 72 | 71 | 0 | 14 | 34 | 15 |
| mcnicoll1.cable.teksavvy.com - 3 | 68 | 66 | 0 | 17 | 87 | 16 |
| 24-52-255-41.cable.teksavvy.com - 5 | 64 | 61 | 0 | 16 | 70 | 12 |

| 2120.ae0.agg01.tor.packetflow.ca - 7 | 60 | 56 | 0 | 23 | 188 | 13 |
| speedtest.teksavvy.com - 5 | 64 | 61 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 12 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

2% packet loss on the second hop at 24.156.149.133.

Whois 24.156.149.133

NetRange: 24.156.128.0 - 24.156.159.255
CIDR: 24.156.128.0/19
OriginAS:
NetName: INUKSHUK-2
NetHandle: NET-24-156-128-0-1
Parent: NET-24-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2008-02-25
Updated: 2012-02-24
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-24-156-128-0-1

OrgName: Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
OrgId: RCC-105
Address: One Mount Pleasant
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M4Y-2Y5
Country: CA
RegDate: 2006-11-13
Updated: 2011-06-22
Ref: »whois.arin.net/rest/org/RCC-105

OrgTechHandle: IPMAN-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP MANAGE
OrgTechPhone: +1-416-935-4729
OrgTechEmail: ipmanage@rogers.wave.ca
OrgTechRef: »whois.arin.net/rest/poc/IPMAN-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: RHI9-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Rogers High-Speed Internet
OrgAbusePhone: +1-416-935-4729
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@rogers.com
OrgAbuseRef: »whois.arin.net/rest/poc/RHI9-ARIN


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Webslingerac

Wow sorry to see such crappy speeds. I lived in Toronto last year and was on the McNicoll POI as well. I'll need to perform some speedtests tonight to see if KW POI has similar issues or not.

Can someone from TSI respond because it certainly looks like speeds are not right.


Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

4 edits

Teksavvy:

9:47 p.m.



9:51 p.m.
Beanfield:




9:58 p.m.
Nexicom:



I'm seeing packet loss every night on mcnicoll3.cable.teksavvy.com

Tonight it's 9%

2% packet loss on mcnicoll1.cable.teksavvy.com


Ping/traceroute to us.download.nvidia.com

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|
| WinMTR statistics |
| Host - Loss % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|
| 10.126.167.1 - 0 | 77 | 77 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 14 |
| 24.156.149.133 - 0 | 77 | 77 | 10 | 16 | 36 | 15 |
| mcnicoll1.cable.teksavvy.com - 2 | 73 | 72 | 9 | 14 | 101 | 18 |
| mcnicoll3.cable.teksavvy.com - 9 | 58 | 53 | 11 | 18 | 70 | 15 |

| gw-akamai.torontointernetxchange.net - 3 | 69 | 67 | 11 | 18 | 85 | 13 |
|a72-247-244-250.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com - 3 | 69 | 67 | 11 | 17 | 29 | 14 |
|a184-84-239-8.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com - 3 | 69 | 67 | 13 | 19 | 34 | 25 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider

YangerD

join:2010-10-19
Scarborough, ON

Please get this fixed! I'm getting slow speeds all the time now! We ain't getting what were paying for.


HKPolice

join:2002-08-09
Scarborough, ON
reply to Webslingerac

I don't know why you guys are still complaining. NOTHING can be done about POI congestion until TSI switches everything to aggregated sometime late this year or early next.

Rogers is not offering any more link installs on the legacy POI system anymore AFAIK. Even if it was offered, it's a waste of money from TSI's standpoint since it'll all be switched over to aggregated within a year so either way, NO POIs will be upgraded until then.

The ONLY thing TSI can do to help is to put a stop sell, but it wouldn't help the congestion, only lock it in place. If you can't wait another year for upgrades, then switch to an aggregated ISP.

Those are the cold hard FACTS. Either live with it or switch.



creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

said by HKPolice:

I don't know why you guys are still complaining. NOTHING can be done about POI congestion until TSI switches everything to aggregated sometime late this year or early next.

Rogers is not offering any more link installs on the legacy POI system anymore AFAIK. Even if it was offered, it's a waste of money from TSI's standpoint since it'll all be switched over to aggregated within a year so either way, NO POIs will be upgraded until then.

The ONLY thing TSI can do to help is to put a stop sell, but it wouldn't help the congestion, only lock it in place. If you can't wait another year for upgrades, then switch to an aggregated ISP.

Those are the cold hard FACTS. Either live with it or switch.

TPIAs are still allowed to add capacity to dis-aggregated POIs but I do not know on which side of this TekSavvy lands. This ruling (Jan 31 2013) draws a line between those who have three year contracts with RCP and those who have a different contract:

99. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of its decision in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-703 to impose a transition period of two years from the date of that decision for the migration of certain end-users from disaggregated to aggregated POIs. The Commission therefore approves in part CNOCs request and decides that, for those cases where an independent service provider has signed a three-year contract for transport facilities for a specific disaggregated POI before 15 November 2011, the independent service provider is allowed an additional six months to complete its migration from that disaggregated POI, that is, on or before 15 May 2014. For all other situations, the two-year transition period is maintained. Independent service providers currently interconnecting at an existing disaggregated POI will continue to be allowed to add end-users and POI capacity at that POI during the extended transition period.

Source: »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-73.htm

Now TSI Marc has made it clear as of yesterday that the push to APOI hasn't stopped and it is direction that TSI is taking for cable on Rogers. The details are still murky but in the case of the McNicoll POI is likely means that the situation won't improve by leaps and bounds. My suggestion would be to power cycle your modem by leaving it off for 10 minutes and then powering it back up.

Webslingerac

join:2004-05-01
canada

1 edit
reply to HKPolice

said by HKPolice:

I don't know why you guys are still complaining. NOTHING can be done about POI congestion until TSI switches everything to aggregated sometime late this year or early next.

Well, actually, Marc indicated in this thread that the switch to aggregated, if the problem is node congestion, will not somehow make the problem go away. Secondly, Marc claims McNicoll has plenty of capacity, and, if that's true the problem is not POI capacity related (and, in turn, everything you just wrote is pointless). Thirdly, Teksavvy needs to know that a problem exists--and where it exists. 24.156.149.133 does drop packets and appears to be owned by Rogers, for example. And, lastly, Teksavvy, to its credit, has contacted me asking for this (type of) information. As such, I'm updating the thread.

Regardless, people who are receiving poor service (poor throughput/transfer rates) and paying for it have every right to complain. Otherwise, the situation will certainly never improve.