konowl
join:2011-04-04
Carleton Place, ON |
konowl
Member
2013-Feb-20 5:45 pm
How will my ping be affected moving from Bell to Teksavvy?After Bell introduced unlimited options for $10 a month in an effort to really screw the small guys... I'm thinking of moving to the small guys! I hate Bell. For about 3-4 years I had a shitty line until they FINALLY fixed them. that being said, moving from Bell to Teksavvy, how will my overall PING be affected, as that's incredibly important to me  |
|
| |
My move went from 250-290ms to 13ms on the same line. |
|
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON |
to konowl
Mine went from an average of 115 down to anywhere from 10 - 30 (depending on the time of day) consistently. |
|
| |
to konowl
Ping to where? |
|
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON |
MrMazda86 (banned)
Member
2013-Feb-20 7:26 pm
Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages. |
|
konowl
join:2011-04-04
Carleton Place, ON |
to Bugblndr
General pings. I know it's hard to really determine specific instances but my more general question is: has anyone experienced increased latency in game pings moving from bell to teksavvy |
|
 jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages.
please... Bell has less congestion than TSI. |
|
| |
to konowl
said by konowl:General pings. I know it's hard to really determine specific instances but my more general question is: has anyone experienced increased latency in game pings moving from bell to teksavvy
Teksavvy has far superior routing to Bell, and as a result, you will generally experience lower latency to most locations around the world. |
|
 eksterHi there
Premium Member
join:2010-07-16
Sainte-Anne-De-Bellevue, QC |
to jmck
Bell might have less congestion, but it has pretty poor routing. |
|
 ·TELUS
Actiontec T3200M
Arcadyan WE410443-TS
Sipura SPA-2102
|
to konowl
Ping to NJ | 
Ping to San Fran |
I play World of Tanks and my ping is consistently 35 to 45ms to their North American server in Washington DC. I rarely have any problems with lag, and I cannot ever remember losing a game because of lag. My ping to west coast servers is 84ms, which is about as good as you can get considering the speed at which signals cross the continent and the number of routing points in between. |
|
| |
to jmck
said by jmck:said by MrMazda86:Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages.
please... Bell has less congestion than TSI. I'm not sure if this is still the case but Bhell was also running data through DPI so even pings to google.ca would take over 250ms for me. |
|
| |
kovy7
Member
2013-Feb-21 11:57 am
said by JMJimmy:said by jmck:said by MrMazda86:Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages.
please... Bell has less congestion than TSI. I'm not sure if this is still the case but Bhell was also running data through DPI so even pings to google.ca would take over 250ms for me. What that makes no sense at all... lets compare ping if you want... but 250ms to google thats BS. |
|
| |
said by kovy7:What that makes no sense at all... lets compare ping if you want... but 250ms to google thats BS.
Agreed - that's why I moved to teksavvy. When I started getting 5-15ms ping times I was blown away at how crappy Bhell really was. And it does make sense, the simplified routing would be Modem->DSLAM->DPI server (takes time to determine what packets are what and how to influence them, it's one of the core technical arguments behind net neutrality)->Destination |
|
| |
kovy7
Member
2013-Feb-21 4:37 pm
said by JMJimmy:said by kovy7:What that makes no sense at all... lets compare ping if you want... but 250ms to google thats BS.
Agreed - that's why I moved to teksavvy. When I started getting 5-15ms ping times I was blown away at how crappy Bhell really was. And it does make sense, the simplified routing would be Modem->DSLAM->DPI server (takes time to determine what packets are what and how to influence them, it's one of the core technical arguments behind net neutrality)->Destination Is Bell really had pings of 250ms.... everybody would of left the ship... it makes absolutly no sense. My pings were the same before the DPI and after DPI wich was in the 30ms. |
|
| |
said by kovy7:said by JMJimmy:said by kovy7:What that makes no sense at all... lets compare ping if you want... but 250ms to google thats BS.
Agreed - that's why I moved to teksavvy. When I started getting 5-15ms ping times I was blown away at how crappy Bhell really was. And it does make sense, the simplified routing would be Modem->DSLAM->DPI server (takes time to determine what packets are what and how to influence them, it's one of the core technical arguments behind net neutrality)->Destination Is Bell really had pings of 250ms.... everybody would of left the ship... it makes absolutly no sense. My pings were the same before the DPI and after DPI wich was in the 30ms. Dunno, with all my various times with Bhell internet at various locations (4 different ones) I never saw a ping time lower than 150ms. It's horrible and I will never go back. |
|
 BliZZardX
Premium Member
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
4 edits |
to squircle
said by squircle:Teksavvy has far superior routing to Bell, and as a result, you will generally experience lower latency to most locations around the world. I don't agree with this. Bell's international routing is definitely better than TekSavvy since they have more direct peering arrangements than TekSavvy does. They offer free peering at all the North American Equinix DC's. Local routes are getting better too, as of a few months ago Rogers started peering with Bell and my friends ping dropped in half from 35ms to 15ms: Then: » pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Gq6ATWPnNow: » pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gdPALzxcI always complained about that, then one day they finally fixed it. Anyway this argument about routing is useless since TekSavvy still doesn't have a looking glass and it takes forever to make a comparison by asking users to post their own traceroute. I made my decision which ISP to use after going to these two websites: 1) » www.as577.net/en/page/lg.html 2) » supernoc.rogerstelecom.net/ops/ElectronicBox has one too » lg.electronicbox.net/ but for some reason right now it's not working. |
|
| |
Bell's international routing is better than Teksavvy's, yes. But for most things in North America (especially the east coast) I've found Teksavvy's routes to be far superior to Bell's, mostly because Teksavvy peers at TorIX and Bell refuses to do so. I'd post some concrete examples, but it appears as though I'm on an overloaded GAS link right now and my first-hop ping times are 300ms  |
|
| |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:Dunno, with all my various times with Bhell internet at various locations (4 different ones) I never saw a ping time lower than 150ms. It's horrible and I will never go back.
Were you trying to ping china ? Pinging google.com [74.125.226.193] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 74.125.226.193: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 27ms |
|
| |
said by kovy7:said by JMJimmy:Dunno, with all my various times with Bhell internet at various locations (4 different ones) I never saw a ping time lower than 150ms. It's horrible and I will never go back.
Were you trying to ping china ? Pinging google.com [74.125.226.193] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 74.125.226.193: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 27ms Always google.ca - either way, even at 27ms TSI is half that. |
|
|
jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
jmck
Member
2013-Feb-22 10:03 am
said by JMJimmy:said by kovy7:said by JMJimmy:Dunno, with all my various times with Bhell internet at various locations (4 different ones) I never saw a ping time lower than 150ms. It's horrible and I will never go back.
Were you trying to ping china ? Pinging google.com [74.125.226.193] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 74.125.226.193: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 27ms Always google.ca - either way, even at 27ms TSI is half that. meanwhile TSI users can't even watch a youtube video without constant buffering? there's more to network quality then a few milliseconds here and there. |
|
| |
to MacGyver
said by MacGyver:I play World of Tanks and my ping is consistently 35 to 45ms to their North American server in Washington DC. I rarely have any problems with lag, and I cannot ever remember losing a game because of lag.
My ping to west coast servers is 84ms, which is about as good as you can get considering the speed at which signals cross the continent and the number of routing points in between.
In my world of tanks I get about 400-600ms ping between 7pm and 9pm most nights. DSL sucks big time most nights. No cable available. |
|
1 edit |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:said by kovy7:said by JMJimmy:Dunno, with all my various times with Bhell internet at various locations (4 different ones) I never saw a ping time lower than 150ms. It's horrible and I will never go back.
Were you trying to ping china ? Pinging google.com [74.125.226.193] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Reply from 74.125.226.193: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 74.125.226.193: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 27ms, Average = 27ms Always google.ca - either way, even at 27ms TSI is half that. I'm on IPTV profile... which is like a interleaved DSL profile. Bring some testing if you wanna... I'm waiting... btw no where near 250ms though... |
|
| |
to jmck
said by jmck:meanwhile TSI users can't even watch a youtube video without constant buffering? there's more to network quality then a few milliseconds here and there.
Flash 11.3 = no buffering issues for me. |
|
jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
jmck
Member
2013-Feb-22 1:25 pm
said by JMJimmy:said by jmck:meanwhile TSI users can't even watch a youtube video without constant buffering? there's more to network quality then a few milliseconds here and there.
Flash 11.3 = no buffering issues for me. yes, lets keep pretending it's a flash issue. let's ignore that people still had issues with youtube even without using flash (mobile devices, iPads, etc). let's also ignore that there's a huge thread going on where people who just came from other ISPs aren't having the issue or that people who just left TSI and went to another provider aren't seeing the issue. |
|
| |
said by jmck:said by JMJimmy:said by jmck:meanwhile TSI users can't even watch a youtube video without constant buffering? there's more to network quality then a few milliseconds here and there.
Flash 11.3 = no buffering issues for me. yes, lets keep pretending it's a flash issue. let's ignore that people still had issues with youtube even without using flash (mobile devices, iPads, etc). let's also ignore that there's a huge thread going on where people who just came from other ISPs aren't having the issue or that people who just left TSI and went to another provider aren't seeing the issue. Did I say that was the only thing that could be causing it? Cable users/time of day issues I don't doubt it's congestion. All I know is that's what resolved it for me. I've had no issues since downgrading. |
|
jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON |
jmck
Member
2013-Feb-22 7:04 pm
well you probably don't want to run an outdated version of flash too btw, it's one of the biggest ways to get malware on your system these days along with older java plugin versions. |
|
| |
to konowl
Remember your asking about ping times in a teksavvy forum where you will generally get biased information from haters. Anything over 100ms ping is not normal especially to Google. On a fast path profile I generally ping to Google around 12-15 ms. |
|
| |
Meanwhile I'm pinging 600ms to 800ms to teksavvy.com
I dream of sub 100ms pings - any time of the day. |
|
| |
to konowl
I just got switched over from Bell to TSI.
My pings are similar, maybe about 5ms or so higher on TSI with brief testing. |
|
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON |
to jmck
said by jmck:said by MrMazda86:Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages.
please... Bell has less congestion than TSI. That actually is all dependant on where you are. If you're in Toronto or Ottawa, then yes... That very well may be the case, however if you're in a more remote area such as St. George, the results of what you'll get are quite different in reality. |
|
·
