dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
32

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

1 recommendation

mrancier to CoxVegas

Premium Member

to CoxVegas

Re: Throttled at ~250kB a sec individual uploads

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.

CoxVegas
join:2011-07-25
Las Vegas, NV

CoxVegas

Member

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.

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

1 edit

mrancier

Premium Member

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

tronester3

Member

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
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX

bbeesley

Member

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 Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier to tronester3

Premium Member

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

mrancier to bbeesley

Premium Member

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
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX

bbeesley

Member

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
Minister of internet doohickies
Premium Member
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
Nokia BGW320-505

odog to mrancier

Premium Member

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-f ··· ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013 ··· lezilla/

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

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-f ··· ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013 ··· 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

1 edit

mrancier to bbeesley

Premium Member

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

mrancier to odog

Premium Member

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-f ··· ansfers/
»virtualthoughts.org/2013 ··· 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.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to bbeesley

Premium Member

to bbeesley
all backup services throttle after the first gig or so.
free or pay doesn't matter.

bbeesley
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX

bbeesley to mrancier

Member

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

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

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
Minister of internet doohickies
Premium Member
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
Nokia BGW320-505

odog

Premium Member

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.

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

said by odog:

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.

I have to say that I can't imaging there is anyone on this forum that is not appreciative of folks like you that take the time out of their day to resolve issues for complete strangers in some internet forum. It takes a special kind of person to extend that sort of kindness, and I certainly recognize that you all (cox people) have done something very special here.
However, I am not the only person in this forum that has expressed frustration about issues that you and your coworkers (?) say don't exist. I have seen many a thread were you or other cox techs ask people to message you their MAC address to check if there is something wrong with their line. While it is great that you are willing to do this, you know better than everyone here that the peering issues and routing problems that may exist within Cox's network and it's partners cannot be resolved by resetting a cable modem or sending a new configuring file to said modem. If you are intimately familiar, as you claimed before, you know darn well that what you do with a persons cable modem isn't going to do damn bit of difference if the problem is routing or peering related. So why even ask ? Circumstantial evidence is all over the internet and in this forum. I am not familiar with cable modem technology, but I am familiar with general networking. I know when something isn't right. I know how make network shaping invisible. That is part of my job. I also can tell tell the difference between a 3Mbps DSL line, a 150Mbps Downlink on a cable modem and an OC-192. Do not try to make this personal or make me out top be troll. I have spend 10 years and thousands of dollars on Cox services. I am not a teenager downloading WAREZ from a Seedbox. Cox is accused (by me, anyway) of implementing traffic shaping and claiming that it does not. How exactly do you rate limit e-mail spammers ? I am not exactly sure, but that sounds like shaping to me. Maybe you have a different term. I may need a dictionary. How do you enforce Copyright violations ? I have many ideas of software and hardware combinations that are sold to businesses to monitor network traffic and make changes accordingly. Look, buddy, you are an amazing person, and clearly a better man than I am. You do a lot of good things in this forum, and you buy your company plenty of goodwill by doing so. This time around, though, you are on shaky ground. There is nothing you can say that will explain the behavior of your network on all the links that we manage as arbitrary. None. Thanks for your generosity and for suffering through my rant.

odog
Minister of internet doohickies
Premium Member
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA

odog

Premium Member

Do you want to troubleshoot the issue?

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

said by odog:

Do you want to troubleshoot the issue?

I've talked to Network techs out of Hampton Roads during our last contract negotiations for a circuit upgrade and MPLS about this issue and they haven't found any problems (according to them, anyway). I am unsure what more you can offer. Thanks anyway.

odog
Minister of internet doohickies
Premium Member
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA

odog

Premium Member

I may not be more, just different. If we're talking specifically about the FTP thing, that shouldn't be a hard nut to crack.

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

said by odog:

I may not be more, just different. If we're talking specifically about the FTP thing, that shouldn't be a hard nut to crack.

I think I've already gone way over the line here (apologies, nothing personal). I have ways around my issues. I've also vented my frustration. There are people here whom you can make a difference for and will benefit more from your attention. I appreciate the time and energy (and patience) you have spend throughout our interactions. I will move on, and keep my pseudo trolling under control. Thanks again.
AmericanLoco
join:2014-02-08
United State

AmericanLoco

Member

I really don't understand. You just went on a huge rant, about how you can't resolve your issue - now you have a Cox DOCSIS engineer who's trying to help resolve your issue and you refuse it!?

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

said by AmericanLoco:

I really don't understand. You just went on a huge rant, about how you can't resolve your issue - now you have a Cox DOCSIS engineer who's trying to help resolve your issue and you refuse it!?

I can see how that can be confusing. Here's the cliff notes : My issues are unrelated or limited to the Cable modem or it's standards. I am convinced, as many others, that the problem is inside the providers network. If you read my many rants you will also see that I have consulted with some of the highest level network techs cox has to offer. This is an issue that he may be unable to resolve. Frankly, after reading all my own responses, I felt foolish. These guys are here to help consumers on their own time. That is amazing. I can work around my issues and get back some of the value I've lost true Cox's shrewd business practices. There are other folks here that he can help : Bad consumer routers, bad cable modems, bad signal, sending new config files, etc. The shaping issues go beyond anything within the scope of these forums. he has no other choice but to defend his employer and what he knows about their practices. I might do the same thing. But in this, we will never look eye to eye. He does not seem to have access to the bits that could help this, and I am sure his employer is not going to be receptive to acknowledging they've been cutting corners and overcharging their customers to maximize profits. There is something wrong. Thousands of people complain every day. You might be fortunate. We are not. We have no choice.
Maltz
join:2011-01-08
Fayetteville, AR
Calix 844G
Netgate SG-2100
Ubiquiti U6-LR

Maltz

Member

It never hurts to have a new set of eyes look at a problem. Odog may be able to run it up a different flagpole than the previous techs you've worked with, and get better results. In any case, I can't imagine why you would blow off his assistance so quickly.

And seriously, lose the "Cox is out to screw me" attitude. You post no evidence that the problem is even in Cox's network, mush less evidence that it's intentional in the face of their adamant denials. It speaks volumes to odog's patience and character that he's even still reading this thread. Your repeated accusations of his towing the company line are unsubstantiated and uncalled for.

Anonguy33
@70.167.111.x

Anonguy33 to mrancier

Anon

to mrancier
No offense mrancier, but you're assuming a lot about the Cox network. I see posts from all over various markets that say they they are NOT experiencing slow-downs/throttling/evidence of rate-shaping.

If your accusations were true, it would be a company-wide (all markets) policy - and if you've seen how fast internal documentation or new announcements are posted here (and elsewhere) just after they were announced, you'd know we don't keep secrets very well.

The various "CoxTech#" and "odog" folks (and those guys should be thanked more often) aren't the only ones browsing here, and we "anonymous" folks have no problem looking in backbone router configs and logs to make sure things like this aren't happening. And they aren't...we try to keep it simple.

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier

Premium Member

said by Anonguy33 :

No offense mrancier, but you're assuming a lot about the Cox network. I see posts from all over various markets that say they they are NOT experiencing slow-downs/throttling/evidence of rate-shaping.

If your accusations were true, it would be a company-wide (all markets) policy - and if you've seen how fast internal documentation or new announcements are posted here (and elsewhere) just after they were announced, you'd know we don't keep secrets very well.

The various "CoxTech#" and "odog" folks (and those guys should be thanked more often) aren't the only ones browsing here, and we "anonymous" folks have no problem looking in backbone router configs and logs to make sure things like this aren't happening. And they aren't...we try to keep it simple.

These are true things you say. I did thank mr. Odog . I think some folks thought I was being condescending. I really do appreciate his help. And there really is no offense to be had. You make good, valid points. My observations are get a bit murky when I try to look at what scenario would cause your network to seemingly falter with fairly mundane traffic from major content providers, but using a tunnel, even one originating across the atlantic, gives me better sustained data rates, on and off fiber. There simply isn't anything : routing can be fixed way easily, peering is a matter of scaling your infrastructure to accommodate what you are selling. So what's left ? This is the problem. Many ask for evidence, but there is no evidence to be found, just the effect on the content being consumed. Believe, I've tried SO many things to figure it out. I am no Elite expert, but I can handle myself well, when it comes to networking.
mrancier

mrancier to Maltz

Premium Member

to Maltz
said by Maltz:

It never hurts to have a new set of eyes look at a problem. Odog may be able to run it up a different flagpole than the previous techs you've worked with, and get better results. In any case, I can't imagine why you would blow off his assistance so quickly.

And seriously, lose the "Cox is out to screw me" attitude. You post no evidence that the problem is even in Cox's network, mush less evidence that it's intentional in the face of their adamant denials. It speaks volumes to odog's patience and character that he's even still reading this thread. Your repeated accusations of his towing the company line are unsubstantiated and uncalled for.

Not entirely sure how to respond. I suppose the best thing I can say is that this is my opinion and my perception and I am entitled to them. I have discussed this with cox directly and haven't received a satisfactory answer.
You have your opinions and I have mine. Democracy at work. God Bless America.

Anonguy33
@72.208.122.x

Anonguy33 to mrancier

Anon

to mrancier
quote:
peering is a matter of scaling your infrastructure to accommodate what you are selling
Again, you're assuming it's Cox that doesn't have the infrastructure at the peering points...why aren't you allowing the possibility that it's the peering point that can't handle the bandwidth we're throwing at them?

CoxVegas
join:2011-07-25
Las Vegas, NV

CoxVegas to mrancier

Member

to mrancier
said by mrancier:

Not entirely sure how to respond. I suppose the best thing I can say is that this is my opinion and my perception and I am entitled to them. I have discussed this with cox directly and haven't received a satisfactory answer.
You have your opinions and I have mine. Democracy at work. God Bless America.

I apologize if you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, but we really need more information to troubleshoot your reported problem.

odog is more than capable of looking further than just the DOCSIS layer. Most of us Cox folks that help on these forums have our contacts everywhere (including backbone) that we engage for issues we see here.

FTP is not throttled on the Cox network - I have said this, as has odog, plus Cox has it in our published policies. odog and myself are both very, very familiar with the Cox network as a whole.

Congestion at a peering location is not likely, as you stated that multiple sessions get you to the full speed, but each session seems capped at 250kB a second. The end throughput going through the node doesn't appreciably change whether it's one session or many This sounds like either your client or the server on the other side are doing the rate limiting.

We are happy to look at things. Traceroutes are a good start - we can look at the various links and see what's going on. Feel free to either post them here, or PM myself or odog, and we can take a look.

mrancier
Premium Member
join:2013-07-27
Murfreesboro, TN

mrancier to Anonguy33

Premium Member

to Anonguy33
said by Anonguy33 :

quote:
peering is a matter of scaling your infrastructure to accommodate what you are selling
Again, you're assuming it's Cox that doesn't have the infrastructure at the peering points...why aren't you allowing the possibility that it's the peering point that can't handle the bandwidth we're throwing at them?

You're right. There is a fair amount of prejudice in my views. That is why I've chosen to not continue this conversation. I can get by the blocks ( what I perceive as blocks, to be clear ). I've inadvertently turned this into a flame war of sorts. It is a waste of every-ones time and energy. And I apologize to everyone involved.