Fed up with idnet.

GameRuk · Jan 05, 2009, 15:26:36

Since last year around june i have had nothing but problems with ping times and packetloss i got the packetloss fixed and ping times was fine for about 2 months, but since then ping are allways higher than normal and never change i have done test after test send them to idnet so for another 2 month i went on here and sent idnet emails asking what the problem was and to see if they could do anything again it was fixed this time for about 20odd days and again the ping is higher i put up with this, but now since last night there even higher i cant be bothered to go through all this again as idnet are not the quickest to sort things out so what i want to know is my next bill is on the 15th on this month is this for the month thats just past or the this month,when i goto another isp if its after the above date will i get a refund for the for the rest of the month or what or will i have to wait till near the end of this month before i switch>?.

Rik · Jan 05, 2009, 15:33:57

It's for the month in advance, Gamer. You'd have to talk to IDNet about a refund, they're due 30 days notice, so it wouldn't be a huge period of time.

MarkE · Jan 06, 2009, 03:57:08

I don't blame you for leaving,I will be yet another customer who once had faith in Idnet and be leaving myself in the not too distant future if the problems with gaming ping persist.
A while back if you was a gamer and asked me is Idnet good? I would have told you that it was superb,but its been nothing but downhill for a while lately,same friends on the same exchange yet
with a different provider do not get my high pings and the 12am disconnects all the time,which is damn unsatisfactory alone,Idnet have really gone downhill in my opinon big no no if anyone asks
me if they should use them

Simon_idnet · Jan 07, 2009, 17:42:58

Hi Guys

We've not got any network problems causing gamers any trouble. I know some very keen (obsessive even) gaming customers who waste no time at all in letting us know if/when we have problems. I've just asked around a few and they are telling me that their service performance is fine. If you want to contact us on support@idnet.com we can check-out your lines for you.

Regards
Simon

Rik · Jan 07, 2009, 17:43:50

Thanks, Simon.

Sebby · Jan 08, 2009, 01:36:00

Quote from: MarkE on Jan 06, 2009, 03:57:08
12am disconnects all the time,which is damn unsatisfactory alone

I see you've never asked for help regarding this particular issue before. If you had, we'd have told you that disconnects are usually caused by local issues, and we could have helped you attempt to solve it. I suspect that the ping issues are related, and not, in fact, to do with IDNet.

Ann · Jan 08, 2009, 09:04:24

If there's a disconnect every day at midnight on the dot, it seems to be caused by the router. I had that with the netgear and don't with the 2700.

Rik · Jan 08, 2009, 09:05:40

It's certainly likely to be a local issue, router or a switch surge. All we need do now is work out what exactly.

VaderDSL · Jan 09, 2009, 23:44:41

Are you near any businesses? I am sure I've heard of some systems activating at a set time that cause a spike which disconnects people nearby.

MarkE · Jan 10, 2009, 19:21:57

Quote from: VaderDSL on Jan 09, 2009, 23:44:41
Are you near any businesses? I am sure I've heard of some systems activating at a set time that cause a spike which disconnects people nearby.

I am right near Green Park business park which has companys like Cisco Systems and such.Thing is I have never had it this bad before with Idnet and Gaming is being ruined even on uk servers
I have just pinged multiplay.co.uk

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=124

That will translate to 70ms on a uk server and god knows what on a german one ,given multiplay are only in southampton these are some pretty appalling ping times.

kinmel · Jan 10, 2009, 19:37:33

Pinged from the Router to multiplay...........

ping successful: icmp_seq=10 time=174 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=11 time=157 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=12 time=171 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=13 time=168 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=14 time=160 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=15 time=108 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=16 time=113 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=17 time=187 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=18 time=168 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=19 time=194 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=20 time=194 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=21 time=205 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=22 time=202 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=23 time=212 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=24 time=215 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=25 time=231 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=26 time=221 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=27 time=225 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=28 time=169 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=29 time=117 ms

I have interleaving turned on

Ted · Jan 10, 2009, 21:51:58

Pinging [85.236.96.22] 30 times with: 64 bytes of data

ping successful: icmp_seq=0 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=1 time=47 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=2 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=3 time=47 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=4 time=47 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=5 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=6 time=40 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=7 time=49 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=8 time=46 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=9 time=40 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=10 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=11 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=12 time=48 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=13 time=48 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=14 time=50 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=15 time=53 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=16 time=48 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=17 time=48 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=18 time=44 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=19 time=55 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=20 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=21 time=44 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=22 time=47 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=23 time=47 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=24 time=44 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=25 time=44 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=26 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=27 time=45 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=28 time=46 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=29 time=44 ms

From router, also with interleaving turned on. GW5

g7pkf · Jan 11, 2009, 10:02:58

Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights rese

C:\Users\Dean>ping 85.236.96.22 -t

Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 22ms, Average = 15ms

interleaving off from my laptop (so over wireless as well) on GW5

Simon · Jan 11, 2009, 11:29:52

Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=47ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 47ms, Average = 46ms

vitriol · Jan 11, 2009, 11:59:15

Here's mine

Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 28ms, Average = 25ms

g7pkf · Jan 11, 2009, 12:43:31

Mines the best so far

and my line is probarly the crappiest.

although interleaving is off i am now stable synced at 3200 (line is capable of 5500 but the trains the trains

Rik · Jan 11, 2009, 12:47:54

You're doing better than me, atm, Dean.

Steve · Jan 11, 2009, 14:55:34

Are we comparing like with like here? We have different amounts of data 32 and 64 . Ping times from router and also from local machine. I know for instance if I ping an address from my router the time is greater than that from a client machine.Is this difference due to the difference in the amounts of data been sent?

Ted · Jan 11, 2009, 17:36:20

From a root terminal on machine.

[ted@localhost ~]$ su
Password:
[root@localhost ted]# ping 85.236.96.22 -c 30
PING 85.236.96.22 (85.236.96.22) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=1 ttl=124 time=46.6 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=2 ttl=124 time=54.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=3 ttl=124 time=48.5 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=4 ttl=124 time=48.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=5 ttl=124 time=45.1 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=6 ttl=124 time=45.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=7 ttl=124 time=43.8 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=8 ttl=124 time=44.1 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=9 ttl=124 time=52.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=10 ttl=124 time=44.7 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=11 ttl=124 time=43.0 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=12 ttl=124 time=43.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=13 ttl=124 time=45.5 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=14 ttl=124 time=45.8 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=15 ttl=124 time=44.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=16 ttl=124 time=44.3 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=17 ttl=124 time=44.8 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=18 ttl=124 time=54.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=19 ttl=124 time=45.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=20 ttl=124 time=43.5 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=21 ttl=124 time=45.8 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=22 ttl=124 time=54.0 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=23 ttl=124 time=50.1 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=24 ttl=124 time=44.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=25 ttl=124 time=44.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=26 ttl=124 time=43.2 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=27 ttl=124 time=45.5 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=28 ttl=124 time=43.9 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=29 ttl=124 time=46.1 ms
64 bytes from 85.236.96.22: icmp_seq=30 ttl=124 time=46.5 ms

--- 85.236.96.22 ping statistics ---
30 packets transmitted, 30 received, 0% packet loss, time 29076ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 43.036/46.493/54.900/3.331 ms
[root@localhost ted]#

g7pkf · Jan 12, 2009, 09:23:22

okay from the router, mine still look good

Pinging [85.236.96.22] 30 times with: 64 bytes of data

ping successful: icmp_seq=0 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=1 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=2 time=18 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=3 time=18 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=4 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=5 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=6 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=7 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=8 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=9 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=10 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=11 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=12 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=13 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=14 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=15 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=16 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=17 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=18 time=17 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=19 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=20 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=21 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=22 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=23 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=24 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=25 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=26 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=27 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=28 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=29 time=16 ms

Steve · Jan 12, 2009, 09:46:56

So do I conclude that when using ping the amount of data and source of test makes little difference?

shazzy · Jan 12, 2009, 17:32:15

I'm a gamer and I've not noticed anything wrong to be truly honest.
I have interleaving turned on.

Code Select


Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Sharon>ping 85.236.96.22

Pinging 85.236.96.22 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 26ms, Maximum = 43ms, Average = 31ms

C:\Users\Sharon>

Rik · Jan 12, 2009, 17:37:32

Thanks, Shazzy.

MarkE · Jan 13, 2009, 02:11:59

Quote from: g7pkf on Jan 12, 2009, 09:23:22
okay from the router, mine still look good

Pinging [85.236.96.22] 30 times with: 64 bytes of data

ping successful: icmp_seq=0 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=1 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=2 time=18 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=3 time=18 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=4 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=5 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=6 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=7 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=8 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=9 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=10 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=11 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=12 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=13 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=14 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=15 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=16 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=17 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=18 time=17 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=19 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=20 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=21 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=22 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=23 time=14 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=24 time=16 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=25 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=26 time=12 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=27 time=13 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=28 time=15 ms
ping successful: icmp_seq=29 time=16 ms

Now that is exactly what I use to get with Idnet,alas no more and peak times sees me up into 90ms,I feel a move coming on and its such a damn shame,as I can never fault my actual download speeds with you

Rik · Jan 13, 2009, 08:36:35

Have you talked to support, Mark?

Tacitus · Jan 13, 2009, 09:25:59

Quote from: Rik on Jan 13, 2009, 08:36:35
Have you talked to support, Mark?

I agree Rik. Even if the OP does decide to jump ship, I think it worth contacting support and giving them an opportunity to try and sort it out. If the results are posted here, there may be knowledge which is beneficial to all of us for the future.

Rik · Jan 13, 2009, 09:30:51

Particularly as Simon has invited the contact, Tac.

Tacitus · Jan 13, 2009, 09:39:25

Quote from: Rik on Jan 13, 2009, 09:30:51
Particularly as Simon has invited the contact, Tac.

I think it's called customer service Rik

davej99 · Jan 13, 2009, 17:59:26

I mentioned elsewhere that my speeds and pings were falling away sometimes.

BT speedtest 16.46hrs 13-1-08
DSL connection rate: 8128 kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP profile for your line is - 7150 kbps
Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 2608 kbps

Ping statistics for 212.69.63.51: telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net first hop
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 9, Lost = 1 (10% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 68ms, Maximum = 2180ms, Average = 407ms

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10: www.idnet.net
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 82ms, Maximum = 103ms, Average = 91ms

Tech support argue pings are low priority, but taken with low speeds and some gamers' perception, I interpret that as possible congestion in parts of the network. But whos?

Rik · Jan 13, 2009, 18:02:38

From here, with interleaving on:

ping www.idnet.net

Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 23ms

So I'd guess at a BT issue, possibly exchange congestion. OTOH, I'm only 30-50 miles away, which could be helping.

Steve · Jan 13, 2009, 18:19:49

Using winmtr

Shame it doesn't retain format with cut and paste.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Rik · Jan 13, 2009, 18:22:36

Closer to my results than Dave's, Steve.

davej99 · Jan 13, 2009, 18:25:46

When I was with a much congested ISP, it was possible to connect using various gateways at random. I used to automatically logoff and logon, checking pings on each to find the best. Some were good and some were congested with poor pings and poor speeds, whilst of course my exchange remained the same.

It would be interesting to know what different IDNET gateways are doing. For example are your most excellent pings achieved on telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net, Rik? If so that would put my local exchange in the frame.

Though, if as tech support say the issue is one of ICMP priority, why so some subscribers see times in the 20s while other see double that or more at best, with interleaving off off peak. I uses to see 20's.

On the other hand maybe those English electrons are reluctant to journey up here to Perthshire.

Rik · Jan 13, 2009, 18:36:38

I seem to come in on lo2, Dave, perhaps because I'm on dsl4, not gw5?

tracert www.idnet.net

Tracing route to www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms 1 ms <1 ms home [192.168.1.254]
2 23 ms 25 ms 29 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 23 ms 25 ms 25 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 23 ms 23 ms 25 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 29 ms 23 ms 37 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 23 ms 25 ms 23 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

Being that much closer to London helps as well, of course, but I'd rather be in Perthshire.

Philip · Jan 13, 2009, 18:45:10

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Philip>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 36ms, Maximum = 37ms, Average = 36m

here's mine from Penzance on dsl4

davej99 · Jan 13, 2009, 20:08:52

So there you have it; English electrons would rather go to Penzance than Perthshire.

Curiously, I found I can ping Rik's telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55] and it comes up as the one and only hop.

Ping statistics for 212.69.63.55:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 71ms, Maximum = 273ms, Average = 92ms

When I ping my own first hop telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51] I get a slightly better results.

Ping statistics for 212.69.63.51:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 66ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 78ms

So, if I listen, I think I can hear IDNET techs having a laugh here, because obviously I have no clue how the network is configured and tracert tells us nothing about it.

But suppose different subscribers consistently come in on different routes and some are congested and others not, then that could explain why some of us get poorer performance. Meantime I am looking at Thinkbroadband speeds of circa 1500 from 16.00 to 20.00hrs today, on a 7150 profile.

Philip · Jan 13, 2009, 20:18:52

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Philip>tracert www.idnet.com

Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 38 ms 39 ms 35 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 39 ms 37 ms 37 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 37 ms 37 ms 39 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 38 ms 38 ms 41 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 41 ms 36 ms 37 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

C:\Users\Philip>

davej99 · Jan 13, 2009, 20:39:30

Tracing route to www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms
2 89 ms 86 ms 137 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 96 ms 85 ms 87 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 95 ms 106 ms 92 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 98 ms 105 ms 102 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 102 ms 101 ms 90 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

LesD · Jan 13, 2009, 22:29:44

Here's one from Stafford up here in the midlands:

C:\Users\Les>ping www.idnet.com

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 31ms

C:\Users\Les>date
The current date is: 13/01/2009
Enter the new date: (dd-mm-yy)

C:\Users\Les>time
The current time is: 22:27:12.64
Enter the new time:

C:\Users\Les>

vitriol · Jan 13, 2009, 22:31:51

Ouch!!!!!!

Currently investigating.

LesD · Jan 13, 2009, 22:35:48

Quote from: LesD on Jan 13, 2009, 22:29:44

Pinging www.idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59

With the above why do I see 73ms in the attached BBMax result?

[attachment deleted by admin]

vitriol · Jan 13, 2009, 22:37:42

It's not on IDNet's network, so may have further to travel.

vitriol · Jan 13, 2009, 22:40:17

Just tested again an now have

this

something weird is going on with my phone line I think.

drummer · Jan 14, 2009, 00:54:44

Not sure if it helps anyone but I just did some pings:

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=124

Ping statistics for 85.236.96.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

Did this earlier.

Slightly bored at the mo because my web conference for midnight GMT hasn't started yet because southern California is having a late lunch, Okinawa and Tokyo went to bed hours ago and the northern Europeans are being prima donnas.

Never mind, snooker's on the telly as I type...

ducky22 · Jan 14, 2009, 18:19:32

Pings are better today than well the past 3 months... Did someone at IDnet find something? Upgrade a path? Or is this just an off day?

M:\>tracert idnet.co.uk

Tracing route to idnet.co.uk [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 23 ms 23 ms 23 ms telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
3 23 ms 24 ms 24 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

4 26 ms 27 ms 30 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 36 ms 41 ms 36 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 39 ms 43 ms 49 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

M:\>

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.138:
Packets: Sent = 40, Received = 40, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 48ms, Average = 30ms

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1231958263&v=6007994 - not the worst by far but not quite what it used to be.

siege2 · Jan 15, 2009, 16:04:25

I have played online for many years now, only problems I have had is when the new pipes were getting installed over a year ago, I spoke to idnet and resolved the problem with a certain game that I needed to get working "spring" alternative to the old c&C. also play alot off cod5 "siege2" and gtaIV, iam not suffering any problems atm.

jimc · Jan 16, 2009, 01:19:39

Must admit I have been suffering disconnects and latency for a few months now , however I no longer blame my ISP I just assume its BT at my local exchange and there is nothing I can do, Spent my early broadband days ISP hopping but have long since given up, of course I live in Peterhead , Scotland and there is no light at the end of my tunnel

Jim

jimc · Jan 16, 2009, 01:26:23

ah I have just found the old plusnet user tools

http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/

shows my VP as red , maybe there is light ?

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 08:56:18

That's just a Northern Light Jim. BT have barely got Scotland off cocoa tins and string. The general rule is that the more remote you are, and so the more you need high speed communications to function, the less likely you are to get them. However, if you are in SE england with 10 million people within hailing distance you can have state of the art; essential of course so the City can get us all in hock. Whoops, got to go, the string has got wet and my connection is ..........

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:20:41

Money goes to money, Dave.

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 10:37:50

As in "parcel of."

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:41:32

Rogues in the nation?

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 10:42:59

Touche

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:43:19

I'm warming up for next weekend.

jimc · Jan 16, 2009, 10:44:34

yeah I know
But I was grumpy and tired when I wrote that last night, but felt like a moan anyway

Regards
Jim

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 10:45:12

I'll lend and ear to all that.

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:49:08

Quote from: jimc on Jan 16, 2009, 10:44:34
yeah I know
But I was grumpy and tired when I wrote that last night, but felt like a moan anyway

Quite right, Jim.

Exchange congestion seems to be a problem BT won't invest in. They barely clear the congestion on each upgrade, and very quickly, exchanges clog again. No-one seems to have thought about putting in enough capacity to allow for further growth.

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:49:36

Quote from: davej99 on Jan 16, 2009, 10:45:12
I'll lend and ear to all that.

My favourite. That, or Ae Fond Kiss.

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 10:53:09

Quote from: Rik on Jan 16, 2009, 10:49:36
My favourite. That, or Ae Fond Kiss.

Its Holy Gordie for me.

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 10:56:43

Let's be honest, there's so much to choose from. Wild mountainside is another favourite, plus Winter it is past...

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 11:12:40

The best laid schemes o' mice and BT gang aft agley,
And leave us nought but grief and pain, for promised joy!

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 11:14:02

He's just as relevant today, isn't he.

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 11:26:25

Rik, if you have a copy to hand, read The Lovely Lass of Inverness, concerning Cumberland and think Gaza.

Last post here. Guilty of going way off topic. Anyway need to go to hospital and get treatment at the burns unit.

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 11:32:11

Sorry to hear that, Dave. Perth?

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 11:43:28

Don't worry, Rik. It's not life threatening. I keep slipping into 250 year old Scots verse and need to get treatment.

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 11:44:17

Yeah, bit slow there wasn't I.

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 12:05:40

I was pleased I did not get a

Rik · Jan 16, 2009, 12:06:21

That's because I was in sympathetic mode.

jimc · Jan 16, 2009, 13:13:44

Quote from: Rik on Jan 16, 2009, 10:49:08
Quite right, Jim. Exchange congestion seems to be a problem BT won't invest in. They barely clear the congestion on each upgrade, and very quickly, exchanges clog again. No-one seems to have thought about putting in enough capacity to allow for further growth.

yeah I know Rik its madness its like constant firefighting putting out small fires all over but not dealing with the underlying problem

Quote from: davej99 on Jan 16, 2009, 12:05:40
I was pleased I did not get a

you did get a groan dave , but I was feeling gentlemanly and didn't post

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 13:23:30

You want comedy, Jim? Then try BT for the best laugh, or even better, ofcom.

jimc · Jan 16, 2009, 13:31:20

Love that smiley Dave , where did you get it ?

Regards
Jim

davej99 · Jan 16, 2009, 13:38:11

Its on this board in post reply [more] smileys.

MarkE · Jan 19, 2009, 23:46:28

Well I spoke to Simon a couple of days ago and strangely since then all is back to normal,with some superb ping times since,I have no idea what has happened but I am damn grateful

Simon · Jan 19, 2009, 23:55:08

Pleased to hear that, Mark.

Rik · Jan 20, 2009, 10:12:01

Quote from: MarkE on Jan 19, 2009, 23:46:28
Well I spoke to Simon a couple of days ago and strangely since then all is back to normal,with some superb ping times since,I have no idea what has happened but I am damn grateful

What has happened in the past, Mark, is that when IDNet have been able to identify the problem, they have routed the traffic around the delay. That's why we always urge people to get in touch with support.

Simon_idnet · Jan 20, 2009, 17:18:55

It would be nice to take the credit but we can't in this case

Rik · Jan 20, 2009, 17:19:37

Do go on...

Simon · Jan 20, 2009, 17:26:18

He must have thought you said, "Do go..."

Rik · Jan 20, 2009, 17:26:49

Simon knows me better than that.

Sebby · Jan 20, 2009, 18:59:35

MarkE · Jan 23, 2009, 21:19:04

Bleh its a Friday and welcome back to random disconnects

Lance · Jan 23, 2009, 21:59:39

Are they sync or PPP only losses?

MarkE · Jan 28, 2009, 13:01:44

Quote from: Lance on Jan 23, 2009, 21:59:39
Are they sync or PPP only losses?

Well it was PPP but i have just had another (third time today internet cutoff and now im reconnected,ping times have also gone whacky)

Rik · Jan 28, 2009, 13:02:21

Today's is down to the router upgrade, Mark, as detailed in 'Announcements'.

davej99 · Jan 28, 2009, 13:08:03

Del by dave - wrong thread

MarkE · Feb 01, 2009, 17:53:59

How accidental a deletion of part of the thread,or maybe I am just being cynical

You say Idnet do not consider ping time an emergency,well I still can not game I still can only browse the web at very slow speeds,surely this is something worthy of their attention.
I also spotted Simon on the forums last night,yet no attempt at a reply was made.Good money for what is now (for me at least) becoming a shoddy and pointless isp and a good waste of £34.
What I even feel worse about is off the back of how Idnet once was for me,I whole heartedly recommended them to a friend who will be joining you at the start of February.

multiplay.co.uk tonight

Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=124

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 17:55:22

No deletion, Mark, I've separated pings out into a new thread to make it more focussed and visible.

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=12515.msg286790#msg286790

Sebby · Feb 01, 2009, 17:57:10

Please remember that this is an unofficial forum. We can help users resolve a lot of issues, but when the problem lies within IDNet or BT's network, all we can do is suggest that you get in touch with them directly. If you're not satisfied with the support and resolutions that you do or don't get, you're free to move to a new ISP - after all, your contract is only 1 month.

MarkE · Feb 01, 2009, 18:35:24

Quote from: Rik on Feb 01, 2009, 17:55:22
No deletion, Mark, I've separated pings out into a new thread to make it more focussed and visible.

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=12515.msg286790#msg286790

Ah my apologys then Rik.when I left Simon a message regarding ping times and web browsing,i told him if he could not get hold of me to take a look at this thread.

davej99 · Feb 01, 2009, 18:46:19

Del by dave - wrong thread - again.

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 18:46:59

It's a dream, Dave.

Rik · Feb 01, 2009, 18:47:35

Quote from: MarkE on Feb 01, 2009, 18:35:24
Ah my apologys then Rik.when I left Simon a message regarding ping times and web browsing,i told him if he could not get hold of me to take a look at this thread.

I've sent over my own results and a pointer to the new thread.