Jeff G
join:2001-07-31
Dayville, CT
| Time to Downgrade?
Hey guys latley seems I am just not able to get anywhere near the speeds I should. The modem is synced at 6016/768 or something simaler. I am on the elitle speed tier. No matter what I am always right around 3-3.5 download and like 350 upload. I have asked in the direct to review the line they always say looks fine. SHould I just downgrade and save the money or any ideas of other options to get at close to the speed I am paying to get?
Thanks Jeff |
|
MrFixitSC
Premium,VIP,ExMod 2001-06
join:2000-12-01
Moncks Corner, SC | before jumping send me the tel# and I'll see what I can find out.. |
|
wrand
join:2008-11-25
Marlborough, CT
| reply to Jeff G
I was at Pro speed and just downgraded. Speed was fine but had horrible latency. After months of back and forth trying to fix the problem AT&T said our lines might not be able to handle Pro speed and to downgrade which they did today. And latency is still horrible. |
|
MrFixitSC
Premium,VIP,ExMod 2001-06
join:2000-12-01
Moncks Corner, SC | if you want, IM me the tel# and I'll see what's up on Monday.. |
|
wrand
join:2008-11-25
Marlborough, CT
| Thanks for looking into my situation. Dave took a further look and couldn't find a solution. He seemed to think my problem was Level3 -- which seemed odd to me as I would think that would be a wider spread problem than just my connection.
So I guess I have to decide to live with a crappy connection through SNET/AT&T or switch to Comcast (Dave said they might use a different peer router than Level3.) Or is there another option? |
|
StillLearn
Premium
join:2002-03-21
Streamwood, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Post modem stats including sync speed, attenuation and S/N info.
Also, how are you measuring your speeds? Try »helpme.att.net/dsl/speedtest
Try shutting down other computers in the house, and shut down your other programs before testing, including P2P software. See if test speeds improve. |
|
wrand
join:2008-11-25
Marlborough, CT | Thanks, StillLearn. I've gone through a wide variety of tests trying to figure this out. Speed isn't the problem, latency is. Everything looks good from our computer up to the local substation which makes this really baffling. |
|
StillLearn
Premium
join:2002-03-21
Streamwood, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| said by wrand  :Thanks, StillLearn. I've gone through a wide variety of tests trying to figure this out. Speed isn't the problem, latency is. Everything looks good from our computer up to the local substation which makes this really baffling. I guess you are getting figures from a game server.
Ping and tracert/traceroute should be useful in figuring out what is going on. The standard version of Ping Plotter is really handy. There is a free 30-day trial. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to wrand
said by wrand :Thanks, StillLearn. I've gone through a wide variety of tests trying to figure this out. Speed isn't the problem, latency is. Everything looks good from our computer up to the local substation which makes this really baffling. If your latency on the ATTIS transit network is good, but tanks on the peer network, there isn't much AT&T will be able to do, short of changing peers. And ISPs, such as AT&T, are primarily interested in reasonable cost for bulk transit. Latency on the peer network is a low priority.
FWIW, if your alternative to 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' is Comcast, you need to check the Comcast forums, here, to see if they aren't also having transit latency issues. Some Comcast markets have latency issues; primarily because Comcast does not seem as well connected as AT&T. At least, AT&T West seems well connected. Comcast routing, in some markets, is horrible.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
wrand
join:2008-11-25
Marlborough, CT
| said by NormanS :If your latency on the ATTIS transit network is good, but tanks on the peer network, there isn't much AT&T will be able to do, short of changing peers. And ISPs, such as AT&T, are primarily interested in reasonable cost for bulk transit. Latency on the peer network is a low priority. From the ping/traceroute results I thought the problem was mainly with one of AT&T's stations (consistently got some horrible max pause results there) but I don't have a lot of experience analyzing those kinds of results. |
|
wrand
join:2008-11-25
Marlborough, CT
| I ran a couple things if that might help. Apple Network tool's trace route and the VOIP speed test:
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 208.65.8.6 (208.65.8.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.3.1 (192.168.3.1) 16.075 ms 0.254 ms 14.631 ms
2 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 1.401 ms 1.239 ms 0.948 ms
3 adsl-64-252-11-254.adsl.snet.net (64.252.11.254) 10.455 ms 8.349 ms 12.231 ms
4 dist1-vlan50.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (66.159.184.194) 9.418 ms 10.432 ms 8.685 ms
5 bb1-10g2-0.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.147) 16.672 ms 18.951 ms 10.686 ms
6 ex2-p4-1.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.74) 19.692 ms 37.129 ms 20.007 ms
7 gar7.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.79.81) 23.537 ms 23.062 ms 20.510 ms
8 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.134.142) 65.493 ms 64.160 ms 64.791 ms
9 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 65.986 ms 65.276 ms 65.100 ms
10 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) 65.869 ms 65.148 ms 65.435 ms
11 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) 65.861 ms 65.313 ms 65.458 ms
12 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) 255.067 ms 206.386 ms 192.218 ms
13 12.88.123.186 (12.88.123.186) 68.628 ms 68.396 ms 68.402 ms
14 catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) 71.725 ms 68.405 ms 68.734 ms
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 208.65.8.6 (208.65.8.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.3.1 (192.168.3.1) 1.872 ms 0.431 ms 0.239 ms
2 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 21.127 ms 1.134 ms 0.879 ms
3 adsl-64-252-11-254.adsl.snet.net (64.252.11.254) 17.450 ms 20.522 ms 41.592 ms
4 dist1-vlan50.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (66.159.184.194) 26.317 ms 9.652 ms 8.816 ms
5 bb1-10g2-0.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.147) 10.664 ms 12.286 ms 9.398 ms
6 ex2-p4-1.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.74) 113.613 ms 207.062 ms 203.793 ms
7 gar7.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.79.81) 21.158 ms 21.430 ms 22.176 ms
8 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.134.142) 65.620 ms 65.114 ms 65.493 ms
9 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 65.532 ms 65.157 ms 64.683 ms
10 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) 65.499 ms 65.612 ms 66.155 ms
11 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) 66.038 ms 65.296 ms 65.797 ms
12 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) 65.309 ms 64.392 ms 64.860 ms
13 12.88.123.186 (12.88.123.186) 68.931 ms 67.999 ms 68.656 ms
14 catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) 70.244 ms 68.505 ms 68.571 ms
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 208.65.8.6 (208.65.8.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.3.1 (192.168.3.1) 1.271 ms 0.321 ms 0.235 ms
2 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 1.077 ms 1.146 ms 0.879 ms
3 adsl-64-252-11-254.adsl.snet.net (64.252.11.254) 22.352 ms 21.585 ms 8.343 ms
4 dist1-vlan50.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (66.159.184.194) 13.086 ms 22.291 ms 22.659 ms
5 bb1-10g2-0.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.147) 21.750 ms 51.198 ms 10.208 ms
6 ex2-p4-1.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.74) 20.260 ms 19.872 ms 19.736 ms
7 gar7.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.79.81) 20.913 ms 20.540 ms 21.524 ms
8 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.134.142) 65.718 ms 65.759 ms 65.091 ms
9 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 64.823 ms 65.264 ms 116.720 ms
10 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) 65.655 ms 65.591 ms 65.664 ms
11 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) 65.114 ms 65.779 ms 64.954 ms
12 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) 128.735 ms 198.372 ms 195.945 ms
13 12.88.123.186 (12.88.123.186) 68.490 ms 68.395 ms 68.982 ms
14 catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) 68.573 ms 68.330 ms 68.702 ms
15 *
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 208.65.8.6 (208.65.8.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.3.1 (192.168.3.1) 1.631 ms 0.450 ms 0.226 ms
2 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 1.048 ms 0.953 ms 0.875 ms
3 adsl-64-252-11-254.adsl.snet.net (64.252.11.254) 32.927 ms 25.672 ms 8.857 ms
4 dist1-vlan50.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (66.159.184.194) 15.274 ms 21.078 ms 23.680 ms
5 bb1-10g2-0.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.147) 8.515 ms 21.393 ms 42.844 ms
6 ex2-p4-1.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.74) 20.691 ms 23.518 ms 19.505 ms
7 gar7.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.79.81) 194.142 ms 163.722 ms 212.082 ms
8 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.134.142) 67.131 ms 66.186 ms 64.959 ms
9 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 65.071 ms 65.953 ms 65.932 ms
10 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) 65.422 ms 65.454 ms 65.393 ms
11 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) 70.219 ms 67.781 ms 65.257 ms
12 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) 66.210 ms 64.863 ms 65.604 ms
13 12.88.123.186 (12.88.123.186) 68.096 ms 68.199 ms 68.652 ms
14 catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) 68.285 ms 68.626 ms 69.467 ms
Traceroute has started ...
traceroute to 208.65.8.6 (208.65.8.6), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.3.1 (192.168.3.1) 14.142 ms 0.402 ms 0.229 ms
2 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 1.074 ms 0.974 ms 11.288 ms
3 adsl-64-252-11-254.adsl.snet.net (64.252.11.254) 21.861 ms 35.263 ms 15.087 ms
4 dist1-vlan50.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (66.159.184.194) 42.410 ms 13.795 ms 12.618 ms
5 bb1-10g2-0.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net (151.164.92.147) 52.503 ms 90.450 ms 108.052 ms
6 ex2-p4-1.eqabva.sbcglobal.net (151.164.171.74) 28.061 ms 22.224 ms 19.491 ms
7 gar7.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.79.81) 20.906 ms 21.537 ms 20.457 ms
8 cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.134.142) 65.579 ms 65.347 ms 65.128 ms
9 cr1.attga.ip.att.net (12.122.1.173) 65.319 ms 65.455 ms 65.565 ms
10 cr2.ormfl.ip.att.net (12.122.5.141) 67.106 ms 65.082 ms 66.568 ms
11 cr2.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.122.30.77) 65.589 ms 65.365 ms 65.100 ms
12 gar1.nwrla.ip.att.net (12.123.153.85) 197.008 ms 184.264 ms 216.294 ms
13 12.88.123.186 (12.88.123.186) 68.542 ms 67.848 ms 68.009 ms
14 catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) 72.383 ms 72.484 ms 68.348 ms
15 *
|
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to wrand
said by wrand :From the ping/traceroute results I thought the problem was mainly with one of AT&T's stations (consistently got some horrible max pause results there) but I don't have a lot of experience analyzing those kinds of results. Looking at your subsequent trace routes, your problem still lies beyond AT&T Internet Services (ATTIS) transit. It lies with AT&T Worldnet Services (ATTW) transit. ATTW is a competitor with the likes of Level 3, Savvis, and NTT (Qwest and Verizon also operate Tier 1 transit networks, which are managed apart from their local, DSL transit networks).
I am not sure the AT&T wonks who post here have any more pull with ATTW than they have with Level 3. But your latency is showing up in the Tier 1 backbone hops, not in the local transit hops.
Addendum: I see StillLearn caught something I missed. Latency to the end looks okay. The problem with using trace route to troubleshoot problems is that the intermediary routers may not be the problem. If there was a problem introduced by the ATTW routers, it would propagate to the end. It does not, so I have to concur that there is no problem in your trace routes.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
StillLearn
Premium
join:2002-03-21
Streamwood, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to wrand
Try these two commands. Just post the summaries-- not the whole thing.
ping -c 500 64.252.11.254
ping -c 500 69.59.32.7
They should take less than 10 minutes each. The longer times should give some info.
I don't really see a problem shown by your traceroutes. The larger numbers in your hop 12 on two of your traces are not indicative of a problem since you make it on to catv.kaplantel.net (69.59.32.7) with what seems like reasonable delays. |
|
