dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1258
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

2 edits

yetdog

Member

[FiOS] Bothell, WA Area 100/15 Experiences?

I'm loathe to lose my 35/35 but if these upgrades indeed break through the peak time bottlenecks, I wanted to at least look into 100/15 and drop my TV side of things. Does anyone currently have 100/15 service in the Bothell area? And if so, are you getting the same experience as lower tiers: peak speeds during the day and slowdowns at night?

Basically, I'm curious if you're getting the 100/15 as advertised under normal circumstances. Kind of assuming on 1/9 that congestion will clear up. If not, any plan changes are moot and I might look at Comcast.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J

Premium Member

What type of ONT do you currently have?

McPolygon
join:2013-11-25
Bonney Lake, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
MikroTik RB4011

2 edits

1 recommendation

McPolygon to yetdog

Member

to yetdog
I have the 100/15 service served out of the Silver Lake CO just north of Bothell (right on the city line). They just finished upgrading my central office in early December and the experience totally meets and exceeds my expectations. Rock solid up and down 24/7 with single digit and low double digit pings in the evening to regional servers. I have only two complaints since switching to 100/15. The lack of any bandwidth generosity aka "Fluff" like other ISPs tend give you is sort disappointing, but not a deal breaker. Thats to say, Frontier will cap the speeds right around 97-98mbps/14.8mbps where as if you had Comcast 105mbps you would probably get more than that. Second complaint is the lack of any symmetrical speeds. All in all I couldn't be happier now and I feel like i'm actually getting my moneys worth.
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog to Ben J

Member

to Ben J
Motorola ONT1000-GT4
yetdog

yetdog to McPolygon

Member

to McPolygon
Awesome - exactly what I was hoping to hear!

When you speedtest (thus maxing your connection) and are pinging out, what does your latency climb to?

McPolygon
join:2013-11-25
Bonney Lake, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
MikroTik RB4011

4 edits

McPolygon

Member

This ping sample to google.com was taken while I did a speed test using Speakeasy's Seattle test server covering both upload and download. Maxed out at 98.5/14.5. There are no statistically significant differences in ping times between 0% and 100% load. There is a slight jitter added under heavy download but again nothing that would be detectable in practical use. The jitter could be influenced by my router under load? FYI, I'm on a Calix GPON ONT. Seems you're on BPON not sure if that makes a difference until you get past the 100mbps speeds? If you have FioS TV, On demand could impact your download speeds as BPON ONTs only have 100mbps ports where as GPON have gig ethernet ports which may allow for additional on demand bandwidth allocation.

PING google.com (216.58.216.174): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=5.802 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=5.567 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=4.538 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=10.327 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=17.039 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=14.378 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=12.685 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=10.784 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=11.263 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=13.601 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=13.765 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=11 ttl=56 time=15.162 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=12 ttl=56 time=13.353 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=13 ttl=56 time=9.236 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=14 ttl=56 time=4.901 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=15 ttl=56 time=6.472 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=16 ttl=56 time=5.491 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=17 ttl=56 time=5.750 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=18 ttl=56 time=6.047 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=19 ttl=56 time=4.052 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=20 ttl=56 time=4.455 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=21 ttl=56 time=3.797 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=22 ttl=56 time=11.219 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=23 ttl=56 time=4.717 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=24 ttl=56 time=5.473 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=25 ttl=56 time=8.985 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=26 ttl=56 time=4.130 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=27 ttl=56 time=5.837 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=28 ttl=56 time=3.430 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=29 ttl=56 time=4.552 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=30 ttl=56 time=4.424 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=31 ttl=56 time=4.865 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=32 ttl=56 time=6.405 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=33 ttl=56 time=5.157 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.174: icmp_seq=34 ttl=56 time=4.774 ms
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

Thanks - also good to know. Here in Bothell on my 35/35, even during the day without the typical evening congestion, I'm seeing 100-400ms+ ping times when I run a speed test or download a large file. I'm guessing/hoping that this congestion upgrade fixes that as well. I didn't think I should such drastic latency even when flooding my link.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J

Premium Member

With that ONT you would have the same congestion experience on 100/15 until the upgrade is done. The CO's external connectivity was upgraded in November, which resolved the majority of the congestion issues in Bothell. However, internally to the CO, the links between some (but not all) of the OLTs and the Router are where the current congestion is. So it now depends on what OLT you are on. This is why you see some people complaining and others not within the same CO. If you are on a BPON OLT, and upgraded to 100/15, you would be moved to a new (and already upgraded) GPON OLT at the time of the 100/15 upgrade. Because you are already on a GPON OLT, you wouldn't get moved (there's no overbuild on the existing GPON), so you'd be right back on the same congested OLT waiting for the upgrade.
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

Thanks as always for your insight Ben.

Here's my pingtest during a speedtest ran just now:

64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=40.761 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=35.441 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=38.677 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=46.996 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=85.746 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=99.852 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=166.262 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=233.436 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=267.607 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=11 ttl=56 time=308.799 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=12 ttl=56 time=359.933 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=13 ttl=56 time=417.956 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=14 ttl=56 time=108.443 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=15 ttl=56 time=161.567 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=16 ttl=56 time=211.264 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=17 ttl=56 time=249.044 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=18 ttl=56 time=316.493 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=19 ttl=56 time=36.968 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=20 ttl=56 time=28.539 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=21 ttl=56 time=28.218 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=22 ttl=56 time=205.233 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=23 ttl=56 time=115.199 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=24 ttl=56 time=34.610 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=25 ttl=56 time=205.184 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=26 ttl=56 time=107.787 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_seq=27 ttl=56 time=37.454 ms

Those spikes are during the up/down phases of the test. I assume this is not normal and is due to the congestion, even though I'm getting the full 35/35 during the daytime hours.

So if I can summarize what you've shared and make sure I understand:
- Two types of ONTs: BPON (older) and GPON (newer/higher capacity)
- I have a GPON
- If I had a BPON and wanted 100/15 service, I would need a GPON and would then be put on an uncongested OLT
- Since I already have a GPON, the upgrade to 100/15 would not require a new ONT and thus I would not be put on a new/different OLT

It seems like the evening of 1/9 will be a major milestone to see where we're at. I'm excited that the brass has given me a solid date and I'm looking forward to the end of the week!

Thank you again as always. You've been a tremendous resource for this forum and FTR's customers.

Ben J
My spoon is too big
Premium Member
join:2011-09-16
Elk Grove, CA

Ben J

Premium Member

Pretty much sums it up, with maybe one minor clarification:

- Since I already have a GPON, the upgrade to 100/15 would not require a new ONT and there isn't a new/different OLT to put me on

There are actually 3 types in Bothell. Old BPON, old GPON, and "new" GPON. New GPON had the capacity "upgrade" as part of the initial installation when it went in. But new GPON splitters generally only exist in cabinets where old BPON splitters are. They wouldn't be able to swap you out from old GPON to new GPON, because there aren't any splitters nearby that would get you to those.

woodway
@50.46.230.x

woodway

Anon

I have a Motorola ONT1000 JI with a 100MB Ethernet interface. Assume this is BPON? So if I switched to 100/15 would I have to get a new ONT?
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog to Ben J

Member

to Ben J
Apparently they're switching me out to a Calix GPON today or tomorrow. I'm not sure why we aren't just waiting for the capacity upgrade on my OLT, but maybe they just want to make sure I don't have issues down the road and want to move me over to the new PON card.
yetdog

yetdog

Member

Calix GPON just installed. Still no different. So I wait for tomorrow evening...

McPolygon
join:2013-11-25
Bonney Lake, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
MikroTik RB4011

1 edit

McPolygon

Member

It looks like something is in the works tomorrow morning for the Bothell CO and FiOS data. Look at row 25 on the excel document found on the Frontier Planned Network Maintenance page linked below. This file is updated daily M-F...

»wholesale.frontier.com/w ··· ntenance
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

Morning? I was told evening but earlier would be nicer/better to test earlier.
yetdog

yetdog to McPolygon

Member

to McPolygon
Since my ONT was replaced I haven't had any speed issues, but the high latency persists whenever I saturate my connection. It's worse downstream than up. The GM of our area agrees that it's a problem and will be getting in touch with me tomorrow with an update from his engineer.
woodway1
join:2002-09-25
Woodinville, WA

woodway1 to yetdog

Member

to yetdog
My speeds have sucked for the past week. I'm getting 1M down, 25 up tonight. I'm on a 35/35 plan.

I've been rethinking holding onto my 35/35 plan and going to one of the new plans. But not until I can get at least what I am paying for.
atigerman
join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI

atigerman to McPolygon

Member

to McPolygon
said by McPolygon:

Look at row 25 on the excel document found on the Frontier Planned Network Maintenance page linked below. This file is updated daily M-F...

»wholesale.frontier.com/w ··· ntenance

Are we allowed to read that? LOL, it feels like we have found something hidden and buried. Which is only for the eyes of the Powers that BE...

downlink
@50.35.24.x

downlink to woodway1

Anon

to woodway1
Im pn 15/5. At about 8pm1130 dnld drops to less than 5. There goes on demand
I ve been on the every night with tec for a week. Tech coming out tomorrow.
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

My latency under load has stayed exactly the same as my above post indicates. I understand contention but I wouldn't expect latency of 500ms - that seems exceedingly high, especially given McPolygon's experience.

FTR's team has been keeping in touch with me but we're getting bogged down troubleshooting the latency.

McPolygon
join:2013-11-25
Bonney Lake, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
MikroTik RB4011

McPolygon

Member

Here are my latest pings. Slight impact when maxing out upload. My tests were performed with an iMac connected to an Airport Extreme (6th Gen) via ethernet. The Airport WAN port is connected directly to the ONT via ethernet. When I connect via Wi-Fi (802.11ac), I get results more like what you have above.

PING google.com (216.58.216.142): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=5.912 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=5.737 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.876 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=11.641 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=12.478 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=14.630 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=13.191 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=12.713 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=14.586 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=14.522 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=14.491 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=11 ttl=56 time=13.041 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=12 ttl=56 time=13.818 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=13 ttl=56 time=12.555 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=14 ttl=56 time=6.406 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=15 ttl=56 time=5.466 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=16 ttl=56 time=7.550 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=17 ttl=56 time=6.400 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=18 ttl=56 time=5.463 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=19 ttl=56 time=85.191 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=20 ttl=56 time=99.282 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=21 ttl=56 time=101.243 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=22 ttl=56 time=84.692 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=23 ttl=56 time=82.391 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=24 ttl=56 time=93.500 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=25 ttl=56 time=79.742 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=26 ttl=56 time=80.326 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=27 ttl=56 time=85.575 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=28 ttl=56 time=98.957 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=29 ttl=56 time=38.396 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=30 ttl=56 time=7.177 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=31 ttl=56 time=5.462 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=32 ttl=56 time=6.429 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=33 ttl=56 time=6.327 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=34 ttl=56 time=6.244 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=35 ttl=56 time=5.637 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=36 ttl=56 time=6.600 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=37 ttl=56 time=5.940 ms
64 bytes from 216.58.216.142: icmp_seq=38 ttl=56 time=6.074 ms

--- google.com ping statistics ---
39 packets transmitted, 39 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.462/30.325/101.243/35.178 ms
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

Yeah - no wifi here. I even took the MoCA splitter WAN side off my FTR-supplied Actiontec and plugged it straight into a brand new TP-link router I have currently doing just layer 2. Same exact latency as when going through my actiontec.

I'm using speedtest.net for my tests as well as frontier.com/speedtest. Both tests push my latency into the 400s during downstream testing. I'd wager I'm on an over-provisioned port/blade in the router/my default gateway on FTR's side. Just hoping they put their finger on it so they can fix.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to yetdog

Premium Member

to yetdog
Why are you testing latency while doing a speedtest? That doesn't make any sense to me. You are congesting your own connection.
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

And other customers who do the same test experience 1/10th of my latency under load. You don't consider that interesting?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Quite honestly, no.
yetdog
join:2015-01-02
Bothell, WA

yetdog

Member

That's fine. A factor of 10x, like configurations, tells me something is different.