dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3864
share rss forum feed

jtmccoy

join:2004-03-25
Austin, TX
reply to iansltx

Re: FTTH now on 24/3?

said by iansltx:

Anyone mind posting a traceroute from AT&T FTTP in central TX? You're right; speeds should be higher and latency lower on AT&T FTTP than TWC or anything other than competing fiber.

Sure, to where?

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

4.2.2.4 and dev.cloudyhills.com

THanks!


i2Fuzzy

join:2009-02-25
Fort Worth, TX
reply to Bravedog

Did you have to pay for the upgrade? I'm assuming yes.
--
Ali
Check Point Certified Security Expert


Enlightener

join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
reply to Bravedog

I dumped my ATT FTTP in Cedar Park (Austin) 18 months ago for TWC's 30/5 package. Let me know when they can do gigabit. Until then, I'm done with this backwards company.


jtmccoy

join:2004-03-25
Austin, TX
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

4.2.2.4 and dev.cloudyhills.com

THanks!

No problem, here you go:
Tracing route to d.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.4]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     5 ms     3 ms     2 ms  99-58-60-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [99.58.60.2]
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  12.83.68.137
  5    10 ms    11 ms    11 ms  gar26.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.109]
  6    27 ms    27 ms    27 ms  4.68.62.229
  7    27 ms    27 ms    26 ms  d.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.4]
 
Trace complete.
 
Tracing route to dev.cloudyhills.com [173.193.159.170]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1     1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
  2     3 ms     3 ms     2 ms  99-58-60-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [99.58.60.2]
  3     3 ms     2 ms     2 ms  75.8.128.108
  4     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  12.83.68.137
  5    12 ms    11 ms    11 ms  gar27.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.77]
  6     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  ae-9.r01.dllstx04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.237]
  7     9 ms     8 ms     8 ms  ae2.bbr02.eq01.dal03.networklayer.com [157.238.224.230]
  8    10 ms     8 ms     8 ms  ae1.dar01.sr01.dal01.networklayer.com [173.192.18.255]
  9     9 ms     9 ms     9 ms  po1.fcr05.sr06.dal01.networklayer.com [66.228.118.221]
 10     9 ms     8 ms     8 ms  173.193.159.170-static.reverse.softlayer.com [173.193.159.170]
 
Trace complete.
 

UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
reply to Enlightener

Their FTTP speeds are an embarrassment, I would not even claim it to be fiber, my VZ Jetpack can get 20/20 in a good market, ATT you should be ashamed of the cheap infrastructure behind the FTTP product.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to jtmccoy

Nice. THe Level3 hairpinning is odd, but this goes to show that, if AT&T actually wanted to do widespread FTTH, they'd go from the bottom of the pack on latency to at...or at least near...the top.



DPain
Premium
join:2004-02-19

Hmm I've had no problems with FTTP, wether it's streaming/gaming no issues here. Should look into 24/3




brookeKrige

join:2012-11-05
San Jose, CA
kudos:3

Do new FTTP customers, and those negotiating for upgrade/retention, yet receive an RG with Gigabit WAN port (ala moto NVG589), i.e. so you won't need to replace your RG within "months" for the real-soon-now 75-100Mbps speed upgrades?