dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1770
share rss forum feed


Xferlimits

@96.44.145.x

Throttled at ~250kB a sec individual uploads

I have FileZilla on my home computer that I use to retrieve files remotely. In the past week or so, I noticed that my transfers wouldn't go much above 250kB a second. Curiously if I downloaded more than one file at a time, each was limited to 250kB a second until i hit my upload limits of 10mbit/sec

I use ftps mode and an alternate port so it's ssl encrypted and should be immune to any FTP traffic shaping scheme they may have.

Any suggestions on how to get around this?


CoxVegas

join:2011-07-25
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:10
Cox does not throttle traffic on individual streams like that.

Can you see if it is whomever you're sending to limiting speeds per connection, or FileZilla's internal throttlig (Edit > Settings > Transfers section, there's a speed limit there)


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to Xferlimits
This happens a lot. There are many reasons for that to happen : some of it is, indeed throttling, but not necessarily on Cox's end (Notice the "Individual Stream" statement). The best way to get around it, that I've found anyway, is to make sure you connect to the FTP server with encryption (Explicit FTP over TLS), if it is supported, and use a multipart FTP client, if supported, such as CuteFTP. You can also try FTP over SSH, which is great, or, also, SFTP.


CoxVegas

join:2011-07-25
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:10
said by mrancier:

(Notice the "Individual Stream" statement).

Allow me to clarify - Cox Communications does not throttle your connection. See »www.cox.com/aboutus/policies.cox, section 15: "Cox does not shape or throttle Internet traffic based on the particular online content, protocols or applications a customer uses."

Obviously there is rate limiting applied for the different service tiers (i.e. 50 meg down, 5 meg up or whatever), but that is just the aggregate circuit limiting.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Thanks for the clarification, although, I'm afraid that it does not explain some "oddities" that can only be experienced when routing through the cox network : Certain types of connections get rate limited to a not so random number. I am sure that this can and does happen at the endpoint, but it is odd that these limits don't exist when using a Tunnel through a third party provider, much in the way certain streaming services experience problems when going through cox, and magically have no issues when using the same cox service, but tunneling through a different provider. I am sure that your employer likes to use semantics to its advantage. Thanks for attempting to clarify, though. Most others would just have let it go.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to Xferlimits
Sorry, totally glossed over the FTPS part. Multipart should work better, if you can use it.


CoxVegas

join:2011-07-25
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:10
reply to mrancier
said by mrancier:

I am sure that this can and does happen at the endpoint, but it is odd that these limits don't exist when using a Tunnel through a third party provider

The tunnel sends your traffic through different links, different peering exchange points, different congestion points, etc.

If there is traffic that seems to be getting choked down somewhere, post some traceroutes and we will take a look.


Philmatic
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Santa Barbara, CA
reply to Xferlimits
I get similar results when downloading from newsgroups, it's not necessarily Cox's doing, but moving to multiple smaller threads is always better. I can easily max out my 100mbps connection using 30 small threads, versus trying to max out one or two threads. It's just a byproduct of TCP and the Internet.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to CoxVegas
Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

tronester3

join:2008-08-10
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
said by mrancier:

Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

I have the same problem too, I am using Crashplan to back up my computer, and I look and see that right now it is backing up at 836kbits a second.... I have their 50/10 mbit plan too! Whats really interesting is that when I first started running Crashplan a week ago it was uploading at over 3mbit/second, and now it is down to going this slow.

Cox has to be throttling somewhere.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
said by tronester3:

I am using Crashplan to back up my computer, and I look and see that right now it is backing up at 836kbits a second.... I have their 50/10 mbit plan too!

That's not Cox..it's Crashplan. I get the same results on FiOS


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to tronester3
said by tronester3:

said by mrancier:

Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

I have the same problem too, I am using Crashplan to back up my computer, and I look and see that right now it is backing up at 836kbits a second.... I have their 50/10 mbit plan too! Whats really interesting is that when I first started running Crashplan a week ago it was uploading at over 3mbit/second, and now it is down to going this slow.

Cox has to be throttling somewhere.

It is all in the semantics. The same bullet point the gentleman from cox points to has this nugget :
Cox may take any appropriate measures, whether or not they are described above, in response to extraordinary levels of usage, denial of service attacks, or other exigent circumstances that have a significant effect on our subscribers' ability to obtain service or Cox's ability to provide service.

Plus, the part he quoted is bit different in context :

Cox does not shape or throttle Internet traffic based on the particular online content, protocols or applications a customer uses. Cox uses other measures to ensure the best overall experience for our CHSI customers, including, without limitation: rate limiting of email (as set forth in our email policies), email storage limits (including deletion of dormant or unchecked email), rejection or removal of "spam" or otherwise unsolicited bulk email. Cox also employs other means to protect customers, children, and its network, including blocking access to child pornography (based upon lists of sites provided by a third party and an international police agency), and security measures (including identification and blocking of botnets, viruses, phishing sites, malware, and certain ports as set forth below).

So first they say they don't shape or throttle, but then they say that they, in fact, do shape and throttle.

There are many other things besides shaping and throttling that have the same net effect, but allows ISPs to deny they are doing it.
There is, simply, no way to justify why a VPN connection, with all of it's overhead, performs better than a "direct" connection.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by tronester3:

I am using Crashplan to back up my computer, and I look and see that right now it is backing up at 836kbits a second.... I have their 50/10 mbit plan too!

That's not Cox..it's Crashplan. I get the same results on FiOS

I don't have that problem over a VPN connection to a provider in NY. Using fiber or Cable through Cox yields the same result : Cox direct = inexplicably slow, Cox VPN = normal rate. Not sure about FIOS, but it would not seem out of the realm of possibilities that they are also using traffic control measures. There are quite a bit of complaints about inexplicable slowdown in the FIOS forums.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
said by mrancier:

Using fiber or Cable through Cox yields the same result : Cox direct = inexplicably slow, Cox VPN = normal rate.

I was specifically speaking to the behavior of the CrashPlan app which appears to slow down from time-to-time.

That said, both using an app like CrashPlan and/or VPN to definitively determine if Cox is "throttling" is not possible.

You can 'infer' that something is going on but it might be normal due to some other choke point either on or off Cox's network

you shouldn't presume they are out to get you


odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:17
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to mrancier
said by mrancier:

Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

Seriously.... once more with feeling. We don't shape or throttle your traffic.

Using a VPN changes a bunch of things, most importantly where your "source and destination" IP are. Thats conversely affects MANY things, peering points, routes taken etc etc etc.

You're not the only person using FTP on our network. We are not conspiring to limit your per connection speeds.

Have you tried these? »theitbros.com/speed-up-filezilla···ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013/how-to-···lezilla/


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
said by odog:

said by mrancier:

Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

Seriously.... once more with feeling. We don't shape or throttle your traffic.

Using a VPN changes a bunch of things, most importantly where your "source and destination" IP are. Thats conversely affects MANY things, peering points, routes taken etc etc etc.

You're not the only person using FTP on our network. We are not conspiring to limit your per connection speeds.

Have you tried these? »theitbros.com/speed-up-filezilla···ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013/how-to-···lezilla/

Are you seriously trying to justify using the same pipe with 2 different routes changes things so dramatically (seriously, dramatic), that you will get such performance disparity ? Are you seriously implying that Cox's routing is at fault ? Are you sure that is what you want to say ?


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to bbeesley
That is true, and it is also what I did. I am "implying" that there is a form of throttling going on, just not one that adheres to the definition of throttling. My bad.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to odog
said by odog:

said by mrancier:

Come now. This has been happening for a VERY LONG TIME. Nothing to do with routing. I have a 50Mbps Cox Fiber link at my workplace which does THE SAME THING. You guys are letting certain traffic links saturate on purpose, and are stealthily traffic shaping. It is fairly obvious. Same link different routes (meaning, anything outside cox). The traffic always slows down within Cox's network. Thanks for the offer, but you guys are just not being very honest. Choke points are ALWAYS on Cox nodes.

Seriously.... once more with feeling. We don't shape or throttle your traffic.

Using a VPN changes a bunch of things, most importantly where your "source and destination" IP are. Thats conversely affects MANY things, peering points, routes taken etc etc etc.

You're not the only person using FTP on our network. We are not conspiring to limit your per connection speeds.

Have you tried these? »theitbros.com/speed-up-filezilla···ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013/how-to-···lezilla/

So then Cox has no idea how to route traffic properly ? Again, none of that justifies the results I and thousands of others (millions ? including the clueless) are getting, unless you mean that Cox network engineers aren't doing things properly.

You really must think that we are trolling, and know nothing about networking.


odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:17
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Xferlimits
All I'm saying is the VPN changes a bunch of things outside of it simply being inside a tunnel. Also without knowing where the VPN terminates, where you VPN'd from and to etc etc it is hard to pin things down. When you "VPN" and get good speeds, where are you physically?

One thing I do know, we don't shape or throttle traffic.

Have you tried any other FTP server software. Taken the router you're using out and hooked the computer up directly to modem? Used a different FTP client/computer to pull the files off the server?

I make no claims about what your intent is, or your level of networking. I do however know the Cox network quite well, and am informed on how the network functions on a fairly intimate level.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
said by odog:

All I'm saying is the VPN changes a bunch of things outside of it simply being inside a tunnel. Also without know where the VPN terminates, where you VPN'd from and to etc etc. When you "VPN" and get good speeds, where are you physically?

One thing I do know, we don't shape or throttle traffic.

Have you tried any other FTP server software. Taken the router you're using out and hooked the computer up directly to modem? Used a different FTP client/computer to pull the files off the server?

I make no claims about what your intent is, or your level of networking. I do however know the Cox network quite well, and am informed on how the network functions on a fairly intimate level.

Fair enough. Sorry to escalate this conversation into an argument for no good reason, and, also, sorry to the OP for HJ'ing your thread.

I have no doubt you are well informed and educated about this topic. I've had some time in the IT world as well, and I like to think I am reasonably informed. I use a Core i7 PFsense Box with 8GB RAM as my router, with 3 PCIe Server Grade Gigabit Ethernet Cards and an SSD. Also, have 2 Cable Modems : 1 Cisco DPC3010 and 1 SB6141. I have run tests setting up VPN services on several services : Amazon AWS EC2, Digital Ocean, OVH (dedicated in the US, France and Ireland. Yes, tried a box in each location) and, also a dedicated box in the Netherlands. Even the boxes that are out of the US got better performance then Cox direct. Seriously, There have been times that I've needed to VPN to server in France to watch something as trivial as a Youtube video in HD without constant buffering. I don't care how saturated the routing is on Cox, that is just embarrassing (or on purpose). I can do multipart FTP'ing on cox and each connection, no matter where it is from, gets limited to 300KB/s or less. I VPN into Digital Ocean (NY Edge) and the Connections jump to 3MB/s to 6MB/s miraculously. BTW, I have done the testing with and without the PFSense Box (Direct Connect to the Modem).

I am paying 100/month for Ultimate. I am not paying to complaint. My employer sure ins't either, and they pay dozens of thousands. A LOT of folks have had to find ways to work around your networks nonexistent blocks. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence that something is not right. There has been evidence, albeit circumstantial, that this might be by design. You cannot always lay the blame on others.

AmericanLoco

join:2014-02-08
United State
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to Xferlimits
Cox doesn't shape traffic. I just did a quick test with a public FTP in Florida (I'm in Rhode Island) and I was able to sustain around 1MB/s throughput with one file. It's probably a connection problem between your FTP servers and some local peering point.

I really don't get how your YouTube comment fits in with any of this. Every ISP occasionally has their connection to YouTube get saturated. I've experienced this on Comcast, FiOS, Cox and many others.

In case you haven't noticed, Cox is among the Top 5 consistently fast ISPs to NetFlix (actually #2) providing further proof they don't shape traffic. Why would they restrict FTP data flow, but not Netflix, which uses several orders of magnitude more bandwidth?


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
said by AmericanLoco:

Cox doesn't shape traffic. I just did a quick test with a public FTP in Florida (I'm in Rhode Island) and I was able to sustain around 1MB/s throughput with one file. It's probably a connection problem between your FTP servers and some local peering point.

I really don't get how your YouTube comment fits in with any of this. Every ISP occasionally has their connection to YouTube get saturated. I've experienced this on Comcast, FiOS, Cox and many others.

In case you haven't noticed, Cox is among the Top 5 consistently fast ISPs to NetFlix (actually #2) providing further proof they don't shape traffic. Why would they restrict FTP data flow, but not Netflix, which uses several orders of magnitude more bandwidth?



I think your response was directed at me, not Xferlimits. This as a result of my hijacking. Again, sorry to the OP.

My youtube comment fits with discussions going on in these very forums for many years. There is no arbitrary reason for a connection that is advertised as 150Mbps / 20 Mbps up to not be able to sustain enough ]rate for something like youtube, let alone a simple FTP session across the country. There is most certainly no reason for it to happen on a fiber connection of 50Mbps and a backbone of 150Mbps (fiber) within the fiber ring. Don't you think it's odd that this only happens to certain major US IPS, even some with Tier 1 or Tier 2 networks ?

In case of Netflix, it is a very visible and controversial right now, and, lest we forget cox got into hot water a few years back when they were "testing" traffic shaping. Something tells me they don't want to be party in that fight. But, I will tell you this, I got one of the infamous Usage letters last month. My first ever, in fact. Went over by 55GB. I called into support, just to make sure everything was ok, and got a 20 minute dissertation from the agent about how streaming providers are abusing their network, and how they are getting a free ride and how I should curtail my streaming (amazon) to make sure I stay within my bucket.

As far as FTP is concerned, I have been working around that for a while with servers, both in the US and overseas.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to AmericanLoco
said by AmericanLoco:

Cox doesn't shape traffic. I just did a quick test with a public FTP in Florida (I'm in Rhode Island) and I was able to sustain around 1MB/s throughput with one file. It's probably a connection problem between your FTP servers and some local peering point.

I really don't get how your YouTube comment fits in with any of this. Every ISP occasionally has their connection to YouTube get saturated. I've experienced this on Comcast, FiOS, Cox and many others.

In case you haven't noticed, Cox is among the Top 5 consistently fast ISPs to NetFlix (actually #2) providing further proof they don't shape traffic. Why would they restrict FTP data flow, but not Netflix, which uses several orders of magnitude more bandwidth?

FYI, in the rankings, if you click on include smaller ISPs, you will that cox is number 11, google fiber is number one, by far, and cox is behind 2 tiny cable providers in Puerto Rico and RCN.

AmericanLoco

join:2014-02-08
United State
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to mrancier
quote:
There is no arbitrary reason for a connection that is advertised as 150Mbps / 20 Mbps up to not be able to sustain enough ]rate for something like youtube
Yes there is. If the peering point between Cox and YouTube is saturated, it doesn't matter how fast your internet is - YouTube is not going to work. I usually have no issue at all streaming YouTube at 1080p on my lowly 25mbit connection.

Your local peering point into YouTube's network gets saturated, and that's about all there is to it. Same thing with NetFlix, except that Verizon and others actively use shaping to limit bandwidth.

That saturation at peering points is why small ISPs can often out perform big ISPs like Cox in certain streaming applications, as they peer into the same big networks, but have far less users.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
said by AmericanLoco:

quote:
There is no arbitrary reason for a connection that is advertised as 150Mbps / 20 Mbps up to not be able to sustain enough ]rate for something like youtube
Yes there is. If the peering point between Cox and YouTube is saturated, it doesn't matter how fast your internet is - YouTube is not going to work. I usually have no issue at all streaming YouTube at 1080p on my lowly 25mbit connection.

Your local peering point into YouTube's network gets saturated, and that's about all there is to it. Same thing with NetFlix, except that Verizon and others actively use shaping to limit bandwidth.

That saturation at peering points is why small ISPs can often out perform big ISPs like Cox in certain streaming applications, as they peer into the same big networks, but have far less users.

There is no local youtube peering from Cox to Youtube or any other Content provider. If you run traceroutes you can easily see where all the edge points on cox are: ours are in Atlanta and Wichita. Youtube and Netflix, directly and through third parties such as level3 and cogent, have massive aggregate bandwidth. You may not be able to find many other companies that even come close. The peering congestions happen 99% on the ISP side, in this case, Cox. If you use the same tracesroutes you will find nothing that jumps. No high latency, no unresponsive hubs that aren't supposed to be, etc. Run netstat and you can see a bit more. Try it. So if nothing is in the way, what could possibly be happening ?

The peering saturation argument has been on the news for months now and everyone tries to explain away shaping and other forms of it with it. So sick of it, clearly true, and clearly dishonest. Its a great cover for less than honest practices. And with the service levels that are sold (Ultimate, FIOS, ETC), do you really see any excuse for saturation to happen ? Is it really sound business to upsell folks into a higher tier and then hook them up to a funnel ? Shouldn't you accommodate your capacity to the demands of the bigger pipe you are selling to the customer ? or are you assuming that I just want my e-mail and my websites to load a bit faster, so I pay cox 100 bucks a month so that gmail loads in 100ms instead of 120ms ? Come now, this is just absurd.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to bbeesley
all backup services throttle after the first gig or so.
free or pay doesn't matter.
--
Despises any post with strings.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
reply to mrancier
said by mrancier:

Are you seriously trying to justify using the same pipe with 2 different routes changes things so dramatically (seriously, dramatic), that you will get such performance disparity ? Are you seriously implying that Cox's routing is at fault ? Are you sure that is what you want to say ?

That's a bit of an unfair exaggeration of his comment.

What he said was the same thing I said, you can't use the fact that it is different with a VPN to definitively determine the issue lies with Cox or more important, your original claim that Cox was intentionally impacting your service.

You can infer it, sure..but you need more information to determine the root cause.

The problem "might" be with a Cox route, or it could exist on the other side of one of their peering points.

you will likely get much more assistance from them in troubleshooting it though if you start with trying to work with them rather than accusing them of improper behavior


Xferlimits

@96.44.145.x
reply to CoxVegas
said by CoxVegas:

said by mrancier:

(Notice the "Individual Stream" statement).

Allow me to clarify - Cox Communications does not throttle your connection. See »www.cox.com/aboutus/policies.cox, section 15: "Cox does not shape or throttle Internet traffic based on the particular online content, protocols or applications a customer uses."

Obviously there is rate limiting applied for the different service tiers (i.e. 50 meg down, 5 meg up or whatever), but that is just the aggregate circuit limiting.

Why would this slowdown only start happening after I exceeded my data cap for the month? 15 days ago this did not occur.

I'm using this for personal use, and was sending files from my computer to my brothers, who is also a cox customer, so there is no external peering involved.

I tried transferring files from home to my office (also a cox connection) as well and hit the same limits. I set up a fresh FileZilla server on a different computer in my house and am still having the same issues.


mrancier
Premium
join:2013-07-27
Roanoke, VA
kudos:1
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by mrancier:

Are you seriously trying to justify using the same pipe with 2 different routes changes things so dramatically (seriously, dramatic), that you will get such performance disparity ? Are you seriously implying that Cox's routing is at fault ? Are you sure that is what you want to say ?

That's a bit of an unfair exaggeration of his comment.

What he said was the same thing I said, you can't use the fact that it is different with a VPN to definitively determine the issue lies with Cox or more important, your original claim that Cox was intentionally impacting your service.

You can infer it, sure..but you need more information to determine the root cause.

The problem "might" be with a Cox route, or it could exist on the other side of one of their peering points.

you will likely get much more assistance from them in troubleshooting it though if you start with trying to work with them rather than accusing them of improper behavior

Buddy, I appreciate you trying to get some cohesive structure back into this conversation. I really do. However, I have been trying to work with Cox for 10 Years, both B2B and retail. I've mentioned that we have Cox fiber in our offices, as well as 6 CBI Cable modems (I didn't mention this), and 2 cable lines for my personal use. Now, I know we're not the biggest customers Cox has. Not by a long shot. But we are responsible for several hundred thousand dollars worth of revenue in our area. I think we are afforded the ability to point out problems with the service.
Now, My statement was neither exaggerated nor dramatic. It is a fact. You can read the hundreds of posts in this forum, and the thousands all over the internet, about the same issues we have discussed here. The problem IS in Cox's network. Although they might not see it as a problem, but a feature. It is improper to sell me a line that can accommodate certain capacity and then claim that the peering points are saturated or that the routing is faulty, when you have the ability to correct this problems internally with very little effort. Now there is the fact that Cox uses several partners for peering, and that the partners may be the ones doing the shaping and not Cox, which is a nice loophole. But it is still suspicious that such trivial types of traffic have such difficulty on their network, and when routed through a network thousands of miles a way, with even more hops, the connection works just fine. This is why I think the peering and routing arguments are total horseshit. Something is going on, whether they want to admit it or not. I am stuck with COX, since they are the only game in my area of the country, but that doesn't mean I am going to take my ass pounding without at least whimpering.


odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:17
Reviews:
·Comcast
We never claimed to be problem free. If you have a problem that we're somehow unaware of, let us know. I'm more than willing to help people on here, I may not be able to every time but that is ultimately why I come here. Cruising the forums isn't my "real" job, but I find it useful since issues don't always trickle up efficiently.

If you want to troubleshoot your home issue, the throughput of youtube or netflix I'm happy to do it. But it is hard to make productive use of the time when all I can do is try to defend us against accusations. Show me/us definitive information and I can act accordingly, heck even circumstantial might be able to get the ball rolling. Otherwise this just turns into a flame war, and you don't get any resolution at all.