konowl
join:2011-04-04
Carleton Place, ON | 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. |
|
| reply to konowl
Mine went from an average of 115 down to anywhere from 10 - 30 (depending on the time of day) consistently. |
|
|
|
| reply to konowl
Ping to where? |
|
| Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages. |
|
konowl
join:2011-04-04
Carleton Place, ON | reply 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
 ·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
| reply to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:Just about anywhere... Those are the general averages.
please... Bell has less congestion than TSI. |
|
Reviews:
 ·linode
| reply 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.
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:1 | reply to jmck
Bell might have less congestion, but it has pretty poor routing. |
|
 MacGyverDon't Waste Your EnergyPremium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:1
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to konowl
Ping to NJ | 
Ping to San Fran |
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. |
|
| reply 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. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | 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 kovy: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 |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | said by JMJimmy:said by kovy: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 kovy:said by JMJimmy:said by kovy: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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
·Bell Sympatico
4 edits | reply 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=Gq6ATWPn
Now: »pastebin.com/raw.php?i=gdPALzxc
I 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. |
|
Reviews:
·linode
| 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  |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | reply 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 kovy: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 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
| said by JMJimmy:said by kovy: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. |
|
