dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2572
Wineclaw
join:2012-11-14
Richmond Hill, NY

Wineclaw to RolteC

Member

to RolteC

Re: [Networking] bad Verizon FIOS peering congestion in the northeast U.S.?

said by RolteC:

This slowdown specifically is from Richmond Hill.

Richmond Hill here.

Had two phone/internet outages back-to-back this morning and now my speeds are horribly slow. 1.65 down, 7.76 up. I pay for 50/50.

Smokeping test shows lots of latency.
hubrisnxs
join:2009-12-30
Fountain Valley, CA

1 edit

hubrisnxs to serge87

Member

to serge87
Serge, Visit www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering and then let me know which part you think is unfair?

Edit * sorry bad link earlier.
RolteC
The Need for Speed
join:2001-05-20
New York, NY

1 edit

2 recommendations

RolteC to Wineclaw

Member

to Wineclaw
said by Wineclaw:

said by RolteC:

This slowdown specifically is from Richmond Hill.

Richmond Hill here.

Had two phone/internet outages back-to-back this morning and now my speeds are horribly slow. 1.65 down, 7.76 up. I pay for 50/50.

Smokeping test shows lots of latency.

Yeah my transfer is hitting as low as 9Mbps now. Transfer was earlier able to hit 60+Mbps. Packet loss and bad ping times still. Maybe we should post in the direct forum so they can see it before it corrects itself sometime?

Edit:
Transfers are now hitting only 8Mbps max. Wow whats going on in Richmond Hill this afternoon?
Telling the router to ping the default gateway:
Status: Test Succeeded
Packets: 100/100 transmitted, 100/100 received, 0% loss
Round Trip Time: Minimum = 9 ms
Maximum = 139 ms
Average = 67 ms
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn to morio

Member

to morio
Reloaded, they said it checks for updates every time it restarts. They did it forcefully from their side, but a unplug and battery pull worked for my co worker as well.

So slow
@173.68.203.x

So slow to RolteC

Anon

to RolteC
Something must be happening in Richmond Hill, NY. My speeds are pretty bad (less than Mbps down, 4 Mbps up on a 50/50 connection)
Wineclaw
join:2012-11-14
Richmond Hill, NY

Wineclaw to RolteC

Member

to RolteC
Just posted my issue on the direct forum after seeing my DL is now at 0.5 Mb/s...

This is happening every few months.

Bill Av
Premium Member
join:2004-12-26
Richmond Hill, NY

Bill Av

Premium Member

Speed is back to normal for me in Richmond Hill. Was the pits earlier today.
said by Wineclaw:

This is happening every few months

I've noticed that speeds take a nosedive every few months too, but go back to normal in a day or so.
RolteC
The Need for Speed
join:2001-05-20
New York, NY

RolteC to morio

Member

to morio
Speeds are now improving but not yet anywhere near speeds I am suppose to be seeing in Richmond Hill. My other connections in Fresh Meadows and Flushing are running fine.
Wineclaw
join:2012-11-14
Richmond Hill, NY

Wineclaw

Member

Can confirm.

Now at 13/7

nycnetwork
join:2000-11-12
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

1 recommendation

nycnetwork to sludgemaster

Member

to sludgemaster
said by sludgemaster:

Verizon has failed to add interconnections, even as they have added subscribers. I had the same issue in NY for 6 months. In particular, Verizon has refused to purchase additional capacity from Cogent, giving rise to network congestion particularly between 16:00 and 22:00. The 5th tech that came out to me blamed the congestion on Cogent.

Verizon is exercising similar practices with their LTE network.

More than a year ago in NYC area they've added 20x20MHz AWS LTE spectrum capable of additional 150Mbps per cell at the radio layer, along with their existing 10x10MHz LTE in 700MHz band capable of 75Mbps. However they never boosted their backhaul bandwidth to their cell sites, even though they're fiber providers all over NYC. Their bandwidth to cell sites is still provisioned at about ~80Mbps-100Mbps per sector, which used to be enough for 700MHz LTE network, but is almost three times lower than 225Mbps where it ideally should be.

Now I know that it's hard to guarantee speeds in wireless, but it's annoying that as one of the wealthiest tech corporations they're saving on the backhaul cost to their own sites using their own fiber connections. They're now launching an additional 10x10MHz in the PCS spectrum (additional 75Mbps)... »www.fiercewireless.com/s ··· 14-12-04

Obviously there are benefits of getting more radio capacity, like being able to accept more connections to their network, and it's admirable that they're trying to stay ahead of the curve, but they're effectively lowering spectral efficiency of their own network by failing to spend money for sufficient bandwidth to their macro sites.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

nothing00

Member

said by nycnetwork:

Obviously there are benefits of getting more radio capacity, like being able to accept more connections to their network, and it's admirable that they're trying to stay ahead of the curve, but they're effectively lowering spectral efficiency of their own network by failing to spend money for sufficient bandwidth to their macro sites.

It's hard to advertise back haul. It's easy to advertise a faster connection to your phone.

I guess they figure as long as you can be provisioned for XX they're good and don't actually have to offer XX capacity in wireless OR landline. Sad.

nycnetwork
join:2000-11-12
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

nycnetwork

Member

said by nothing00:

It's hard to advertise back haul. It's easy to advertise a faster connection to your phone.

I guess they figure as long as you can be provisioned for XX they're good and don't actually have to offer XX capacity in wireless OR landline. Sad.

That's one of the reasons why they only advertise 5-12Mbps average download wireless data rates. They simply aren't interested in increasing the OpEx for something "banal" like bandwidth to their own sites. With recent addition of 10x10Mhz PCS LTE channel, they would really need 300Mbps of backhaul capacity per sector, times three sectors per cell site in order to fully support available radio capacity. I doubt that'll happen any time soon.

But adding only radio capacity and abandoning the backhaul will only get us back to sub 1Mbps data rates similar to post iPhone 5 launch.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

3 recommendations

mackey to hubrisnxs

Premium Member

to hubrisnxs
said by hubrisnxs:

Serge, Visit www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering and then let me know which part you think is unfair?

This section right here:

1.2 Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the aggregate amount of traffic exchanged between the Requester and the Verizon Business Internet Network with which it seeks to interconnect shall be roughly balanced and shall not exceed 1.8:1.

Nowadays Verizon is mostly a residential/end user ISP. As such it is impossible them to have a balanced traffic ratio - almost all of their traffic will be incoming.

birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

4 recommendations

birdfeedr

MVM

Confusion can stem from not making the distinction between Verizon Business which includes the backbone and peering, and Verizon Online which is the residential ISP. The reality is VZ Online needs to maintain the traffic exchange ratio otherwise pay for the interconnect.

The Verizon that most people think of is an umbrella that covers many different and distinct enterprises. They try to capitalize on the confusion by playing loosey-goosey with the rules, while laughing on the way to the bank.

If you wanted to clear up the peering problem, start with separating the players. VZ Online is charging its subscribers beaucoup bucks for service, but not paying for the interconnect, and VZ Business charges Netflix for improved access to VZ Online subscribers. It's a win/win for Verizon umbrella.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87

Member

said by birdfeedr:

VZ Online is charging its subscribers beaucoup bucks for service, but not paying for the interconnect, and VZ Business charges Netflix for improved access to VZ Online subscribers.

Tough sh!t for consumers I guess, if only the FCC represented the public interest not corporate lobbyists.
xi0
join:2014-09-23
Gaithersburg, MD

xi0 to morio

Member

to morio
So very broken.



Napsterbater
Meh
MVM
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA

Napsterbater

MVM

Actually yo have a solid 13-21ms ping and no packet loss to Google, what the problem?

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

1 recommendation

mackey to birdfeedr

Premium Member

to birdfeedr
said by birdfeedr:

Confusion can stem from not making the distinction between Verizon Business which includes the backbone and peering, and Verizon Online which is the residential ISP. The reality is VZ Online needs to maintain the traffic exchange ratio otherwise pay for the interconnect.

Most of the time said "confusion" is intentional, and if you try to post something assuming otherwise you get "but but but Verizon is a Tier 1!!!!" responses. Does Verizon Online even peer/connect to anyone besides Verizon Business? They also do not "need" to pay VZ Business for their asymmetric traffic ratio; the quote from the VZ Business peering terms page only lists a maximum "shall not exceed" ratio and does not list a minimum.

v6movement
@135.23.225.x

2 recommendations

v6movement

Anon

said by mackey:

Most of the time said "confusion" is intentional, and if you try to post something assuming otherwise you get "but but but Verizon is a Tier 1!!!!" responses. Does Verizon Online even peer/connect to anyone besides Verizon Business? They also do not "need" to pay VZ Business for their asymmetric traffic ratio; the quote from the VZ Business peering terms page only lists a maximum "shall not exceed" ratio and does not list a minimum.

No, they don't connect to anyone else. Verizon retail customers are directly connected to VZB / AS701. AT&T's relevant retail networks AS11486 / AS16967 / AS16966 / AS7132 / AS4473 only connect to AS7018. That is why it is so bad when carriers like Verizon and AT&T run retail ISPs and play these games. They use this situation as leverage.