High pings again

[Gary]

Unfortunately there are no LLU operators on my exchange (Rawcliffe) so I am looking for an ISP with no traffic shaping/port blocking and Newnet or AAISP seem to fit my needs (I do quite a bit of online gaming so low latency is important to me)

AAISP get good ratings but you pay for it, they are very expensive but off peak being after 6pm is good, Newnet may be a better bet cost wise, I am online in the day (disabled) but at night when my wife gets home i am not so for me they would be a killer as I am up to 8GB peak already this month

[karser]

Yesterday for the 1st time since Tuesday ( and that was the 1st time in a long time before that), my pings were fine, right up until around 6:30pm today, where you can see in the ping graph below they jumped up, now on my 3rd router reboot, & no improvement. going to try the 30 mins reset in a bit, will post results of that later, & yes I've been in touch with support, their reply was :

Can you boot your PC into safe mode with networking support and send usthe results of some pings carried out using the Windows Command prompt?

Which I will do after the 30 min reboot.

One question I would like to ask:

1) Is everyone who is having the problems on gw5 AND adsl max?, I see people saying they are fine on gw5 but they never state max or wbc.

Edit: Forgot to include graph, Also I would like to state I have all automatic updates & scanning off right down to javascript, their are no processes running apart from the very basic necessities.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[cavillas]

Seems ok here and am on gw5, perhaps more of a local issue rather than national.


ping www.idnet.co -n 20

Pinging www.idnet.co [67.215.65.132] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
Reply from 67.215.65.132: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 67.215.65.132:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 35ms, Average = 26ms

[dujas]

I think it's misleading to place all the blame on BT's Colossus network, when it appears a major factor is the financial cost to the ISP of providing sufficient headroom at the BT Central link stage to cover these spikes in usage. Some pretty graphs might help us understand *nudge* Idnet

[Pmx]

Hi all, unfortunately having only been with IDNET for 1 month I've decided to migrate away as the standard of connection has been pretty awful throughout.

We're on a fairly short line and generally connect at 8128 to the exchange, and before moving to IDNET would get pings of 15-25 to the bbc etc along with speeds up 6-7mb. Since moving over it's been awful, with speeds regularly below 2-3mb and sometimes way lower at less than 300k!! Pings have also been really high making game playing pretty much impossible, this is a typical ping result:

C:\Users\Paul>tracert bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

 1     3 ms     1 ms     1 ms  192.168.1.1
 2   120 ms   102 ms   101 ms  telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
 3   123 ms   101 ms   101 ms  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]

 4   123 ms   101 ms   101 ms  rt-lonap-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [193.203.5.90]
 5   124 ms   101 ms   101 ms  212.58.238.129
 6   129 ms   101 ms   101 ms  virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]

Trace complete.

ping idnet.com

Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms 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 = 59ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 105ms


Just thought I'd post feedback, on the plus side the customer support people at idnet have been really helpful but the long and the short of it is that the connection has never been right, which is a shame.

[Simon]

  Paul,

Sorry to hear that you've had a poor experience. 

[dujas]

9.10PM (gw5) - Ping average (to www.idnet.net) was 210ms, rebooted router and now average is 77ms

[karser]

Cavillas, please could you say whether or not your on adsl max or the new 24mb wbc? It would help if we could narrow down where the problems are or arent as the case may be, so far as I can tell its those on gw5 with adsl max that have issues where wbc seems fine, I could be wrong tho.

Pmx I can understand your decision, I've been with Idnet for about 18 months now & the 1st year was fantastic, exactly what I wanted, but this is the second time this year the net has been virtually unusable for gaming for a protracted period.

Ok long post coming, after leaving router off for full 30 mins it was initially ok for about 30 mins then turned to garbage again, though not the worst I've seen it its still nothing like good, the 1st set straight after the 30 min reboot, the second within an hour later, as per requested I have emailed these to idnet:

Straight after reboot

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping www.idnet.net -n 30

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=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms 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=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 48ms, Average = 27ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>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 192.168.1.1
2 23 ms 24 ms 26 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 28 ms 24 ms 22 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 25 ms 24 ms 25 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 33 ms * 26 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 48 ms 43 ms 39 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.

One hour after reboot:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping www.idnet.net -n 30

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

Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 25ms, Maximum = 129ms, Average = 82ms

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert www.idnet.net

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

1 2 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 81 ms 71 ms 68 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 69 ms 64 ms 65 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 61 ms 69 ms 87 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 89 ms 92 ms 100 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 116 ms 114 ms 95 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

[dujas]

11.15PM (gw5) - Ping average (to www.idnet.net) is 24ms.

[MarkE]

GW5 pings are still dire,same as what many here are seeing right up to 200ms to idnet and also multiplay.co.uk


I would bother to phone support if it would help,I would bother to post a ping list here if it would help.

I also would try a power down for 30 mins to 1hr,but as I have done that about 20 times in the past few days,I cannot be bothered.


All in all a lot of "end of my tether" feeling here and if I do migrate I will not be in a hurry to come back again,as this is the second bout of cra*p and i think enough is enough..

[Sebby]

I'm sorry to hear that you feel like that, Mark. Time to look at other ISPs, perhaps, even if just to rule IDNet out as the cause?

[glen]

What am i doing

[Gary]

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\>ping idnet.net

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=30ms 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 = 30ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 30ms

ping on gw5 not on WBC, speed test earlier gave me a throughput of 6607, my profile is 7150 my sync is 8128  it varies but I read about Zen having issues, support being more terse, I think its a sign of the times for small ISP's, they are feeling the pinch more than the big ISP's like O2 and Virgin, and even they are not buying capacity at a level to keep people happy on ADSL MAX  I am not sure unless you can get an LLU product you will get a fast reliable connection at all these days and even then it can be over sold as Virgin have done. I guess demand is outstripping the wallets of the providers in the recession, and that may be the reason for the lower speeds, capacity is to expensive to buy, and the more basic replies from support are due to the fact they cant do anything much about it. To put it simply the product we got used to is not financially viable anymore and this will be seen across the board from most niche providers to the bigger ISP's and definitely BT.

[Mohux_Jnr]

 I am afraid I am another customer who has come to the end of the tether. Supports response the last time I contacted them, was that the problem was due to the tennis and to reboot my router.
I am not sure how many times a day they expect people to reboot in order to reset the ping to a level that is acceptable, that resolution is a short term fix sometimes only stabilising the ping for 20 mins before it slowly climbs back to the ridiculous.
How many posts or e-mails does it takes regarding ping issues for customer support to take it seriously, and for many people pings are MORE important than download speed.
The problem for me started months ago straight after the supposed upgrade and has been a daily occurrence, sometimes limited to a 2hr spell around 4pm, other days pingraph looks like the Himalayas and is far from funny.

IDNET might want to add a small disclaimer to the foot of their homepage.

With over 12 years of experience, IDNet provides high-performance Internet and Telecom solutions for business and home office users throughout the UK.........

Routers will require hourly reboots, services may be affected by the tennis, golf, football, cricket, big brother, dancing on ice or the Simpsons, gamers need not apply.

I apologise for the sarcasm but months of suffering and hoping for a solution has taken its toll, I tend to live in the past and remember when IDNET was a secret worth keeping, but it has become blatantly obvious over the past 3 months that capacity and NOT the tennis is to blame.

[Fox]

All in all a lot of "end of my tether" feeling here and if I do migrate I will not be in a hurry to come back again,as this is the second bout of cra*p and i think enough is enough..

Mark,

I agree with you, all IDNet seem to be saying is reboot your router and everything will be ok. Well obviously, it isnt. I do note that the network status page on IDNet's site still states sub optimal service (tell us something we dont know). It wouldn't be so bad if they just held up their hands and said yes we have a problem, that the reason for it is x,y or z, and we are going to have it fixed within a few days. My gut feeling is that they have oversold their capacity and we are having to suffer because of it. For a company that prides itself on customer service there really does seem to be something lacking, where so many people are having the same problem and nothing seems to be happening to fix it, or even to explain it.

my 2 cents

[Gary]

I am afraid I am another customer who has come to the end of the tether. Supports response the last time I contacted them, was that the problem was due to the tennis and to reboot my router.
I am not sure how many times a day they expect people to reboot in order to reset the ping to a level that is acceptable, that resolution is a short term fix sometimes only stabilising the ping for 20 mins before it slowly climbs back to the ridiculous.
How many posts or e-mails does it takes regarding ping issues for customer support to take it seriously, and for many people pings are MORE important than download speed.
The problem for me started months ago straight after the supposed upgrade and has been a daily occurrence, sometimes limited to a 2hr spell around 4pm, other days pingraph looks like the Himalayas and is far from funny.

IDNET might want to add a small disclaimer to the foot of their homepage.

With over 12 years of experience, IDNet provides high-performance Internet and Telecom solutions for business and home office users throughout the UK.........

Routers will require hourly reboots, services may be affected by the tennis, golf, football, cricket, big brother, dancing on ice or the Simpsons, gamers need not apply.

I apologise for the sarcasm but months of suffering and hoping for a solution has taken its toll, I tend to live in the past and remember when IDNET was a secret worth keeping, but it has become blatantly obvious over the past 3 months that capacity and NOT the tennis is to blame.

The thing is AAISP had the same issues with Wimbledon, I am not defending IDnet as something is not right, I think its capacity and cash flow but thats just my speculation and I could be well off the mark, but if other small ISP's are feeling the ripple you will have to go with a bigger ISP like Zen, and the small print does say they cap you if you go over your bandwidth, but at least a bigger ISP may be able to afford more capacity, saying that O2 access adsl max makes IDNet look positively fast, choosing a new ISP if you need to, is going to be....interesting  to say the least right now luckily my line is not as bad as most, but I can see your point of view. On and on that happy note I am off to bed, hope it all works out for people who migrate, let us know how you get on 

[glen]

I'm going to persevere a bit longer, because I would say with all this wbc change over happening ,surely it must be affecting a lot of isp's one way or another.

[Mohux_Jnr]

Gary,
       Its just frustration on my part, I suppose I was hoping I had finally found an isp that would not go down the capacity route, I suppose the trick maybe to switch and keep switching to a new smaller blossoming supplier as IDNET was when I joined.
The fact that customer support can only suggest a reboot and no mention of some technical problem that could be fixed is confirmation for me, however I am an optimist and will live with it for a few more weeks before I bite the bullet.

[Rik]

Either of those would be worth a try.

[Simon]

This sadly reminds me a bit of the last days of dial up, where someone would find a new small ISP, which provided a good service, then everyone flocked to them, and they soon went over capacity.  I hope IDNet can do something to rectify these issues, because this isn't doing them any favours. 

[Gary]

This sadly reminds me a bit of the last days of dial up, where someone would find a new small ISP, which provided a good service, then everyone flocked to them, and they soon went over capacity.  I hope IDNet can do something to rectify these issues, because this isn't doing them any favours. 

The thing is Simon how many people can they get on WBC? if like myself many are stuck on ADSL Max then new capacity will cost and not really be worth it  that could lead to issues if people start swapping back from WBc as a few have now 

[Steve]

I think you can't swap back? you are just re profiled back to adsl max on the same equipment so presumably you will still use the same equipment and route from the exchange as WBC?

[Gary]

I think you can't swap back? you are just re profiled back to adsl max on the same equipment so presumably you will still use the same equipment and route from the exchange as WBC?

I didnt realise that Steve, well I am at a loss unless IDnet cut back on adsl max capacity when WBC went live  or its a mysterious BT glitch, I have seen grumblings from other small ISP's  I am a bit lost really

[Steve]

I am not sure I am right Gary but if there're pulling DSLAM from exchanges I see no other solution. My worry is that the old system will be left to rot whilst attention and service is diverted to WBC

[Lance]

BT are indeed, we understand, reprofiling the line to act like a Max connection.