really gutted..............

Started by houseparty, Oct 05, 2006, 00:15:32

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

houseparty

Oct 05, 2006, 00:15:32
hi all.
ive been reading this forum for a long times so i decided i would at least join.

i too am getting very high pings monday too friday 9 in the morning too 18.00 approx.

Using the interent at the momnet isnt a pleasure like it use too be, so with regret i have asked for my mac code.

I dont want too leave idnet they have been great since i joined them, but i can no longer justify 25 pounds a month because of the high pings  (as a result im spending less time on the internet)

I spoke too Simon today and told him i was going too try a different ISP as i have tried everything i can think of too cure these high pings, but i also told simon when i move over too another isp if the pings still remain very high  ill return too Ident.


As i already said im gutted too be leaving Idnet.  im not for one moment going too knock Idnet they have been great, but ive had these high pings for 2 months now, so i really need too try something else, because these high pings are wrecking my enjoyment of the internet.

So a quick question.................

Has anyone moved from Idnet and there ping problems suddenly disappeared?



regards
houseparty

maxping

#1
Oct 05, 2006, 00:26:59
Avenger recently left and told me things had improved but never posted any screen shots to prove the fact.

Hope things work out m8 let us know how you get on.

houseparty

#2
Oct 05, 2006, 00:33:58
yes i will do,  ive  promised simon ill let him know as well.

I got these pings this morning:

Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:110ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:131ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:149ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:147ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:145ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:155ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:116ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:103ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:119ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:113ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:121ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:133ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:105ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:127ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:121ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:134ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:105ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:86ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:110ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:115ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:100ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:113ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:96ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:109ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:101ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:107ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:131ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:154ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:163ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:133ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:127ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:138ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:143ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:141ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:144ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:127ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:140ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:130ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:115ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:110ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:113ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:126ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:133ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:111ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:100ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:93ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:101ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:86ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:81ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:107ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:113ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:99ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:106ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:117ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:98ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:97ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:102ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:101ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:104ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:91ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:99ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:122ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:137ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:163ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:140ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:92ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:66ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:83ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:77ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:79ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:75ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:76ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:75ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:81ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:91ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:110ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:106ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:97ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:100ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:96ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:108ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:104ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:94ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:119ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:112ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:96ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:98ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:104ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:118ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:116ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:141ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:154ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:153ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 66ms, Maximum = 163ms, Average = 114ms


then later that night about 21.21 approx i got this results:


Pinging www.idnet.net with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:23ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:19ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:14ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:21ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:17ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:15ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:16ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:20ms TTL:60
Reply from 212.69.36.10 bytes:32 Time:18ms TTL:60
Ping statistics for www.idnet.net :
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0%) loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 23ms, Average = 16ms


what a difference in the pings.

AvengerUK

#3
Oct 05, 2006, 09:20:46
Quote from: maxping on Oct 05, 2006, 00:26:59
Avenger recently left and told me things had improved but never posted any screen shots to prove the fact.

Hope things work out m8 let us know how you get on.

Errr. click my l8nc link.......

*IN MY SIG*

Theres the proof ;) plus the trace i pm'd u a while back

houseparty

#4
Oct 05, 2006, 10:04:13
Quote from: AvengerUK on Oct 05, 2006, 09:20:46
Errr. click my l8nc link.......

*IN MY SIG*

Theres the proof ;) plus the trace i pm'd u a while back

hi Avenger
can i ask what isp u moved, p.m me if u like
thx alot

maxping

#5
Oct 05, 2006, 18:13:46
Quote from: AvengerUK on Oct 05, 2006, 09:20:46
Errr. click my l8nc link.......

*IN MY SIG*


Ooops i didn't realise the Sig link updated as the last time i clicked it was from a few days ago.

Nice looking graph , your pings were fine in the PM , my pings have been fine for quite a while now and the disconnections seem to have settled down.

houseparty

#6
Oct 05, 2006, 20:32:21
hi all

just an update...........i got a call from simon today, asking me if my pings where still very high, i told him they where.

Simon has a idea what the problem is, i have agreed not too move from idnet for a while.

I would like too say on here though, that simon/idnet are trying there hardest too fix this problem, thought i would post this, at least this is coming from a customer of theres and not the isp itself.

houseparty


maxping

#7
Oct 05, 2006, 20:47:14
Thanks for the post m8 , i think the problem with the original "pings" thread is its way too long and no one who was not involved at the time would be bothered to read it all.

Most of the people involved in that thread have been emailing CS with graphs and ping test results and talking to CS staff , for me that has been Simon & Miriam and they have been very helpful.

I don't mind admitting that around the time Avenger left i was that sick of the ping problems i phoned Simon and asked for my MAC , we had a  long conversation in which he explained a lot to me in term's i could understand (no tecky BS) and i decided to stick around and see what happens.

For me things have been great ping wise for a while, i have had a few disconnections but  its been more a inconvenience than a total pain in the ass.  ;)

houseparty

#8
Oct 05, 2006, 20:54:25
i too have decided too give it a while long, my ping problem is there all the time between the days off monday too friday 8 in the morning and 18.00 at night, the net is so s~it during them hours, email crawls pages load so slow on some sites etc.

houseparty


Quote from: maxping on Oct 05, 2006, 20:47:14
Thanks for the post m8 , i think the problem with the original "pings" thread is its way too long and no one who was not involved at the time would be bothered to read it all.

Most of the people involved in that thread have been emailing CS with graphs and ping test results and talking to CS staff , for me that has been Simon & Miriam and they have been very helpful.

I don't mind admitting that around the time Avenger left i was that sick of the ping problems i phoned Simon and asked for my MAC , we had a  long conversation in which he explained a lot to me in term's i could understand (no tecky BS) and i decided to stick around and see what happens.

For me things have been great ping wise for a while, i have had a few disconnections but  its been more a inconvenience than a total pain in the ass.  ;)


mrapoc

#9
Oct 05, 2006, 21:17:11
im hopeful it will be fixed soon, in fact im pretty sure  :)

jimc

#10
Oct 06, 2006, 12:25:33
ahh

what do you know mrapoc

equk

#11
Oct 06, 2006, 12:42:38
Quote from: houseparty on Oct 05, 2006, 00:15:32
I dont want too leave idnet they have been great since i joined them, but i can no longer justify 25 pounds a month because of the high pings  (as a result im spending less time on the internet)
I completely agree with what you're saying. I'm hopefully migrating today, we have been patient aswell as trying to help resolve the problem, but we cannot be expected to pay £25 for a service we're not recieving.
e6400 @ 3.2Ghz 38°C 45°C | ATI X1900XT | P5W DH | ss: linux | osx
migration complete - sync 5mb 500k - stable low ping times

cavillas

#12
Oct 06, 2006, 14:22:46
Surely you are receiving the sevice you signed up for, a stable and reliable internet connection.
------
Alf :)

Dev

#13
Oct 06, 2006, 14:48:48
Quote from: cavillas on Oct 06, 2006, 14:22:46
Surely you are receiving the sevice you signed up for, a stable and reliable internet connection.

What with constant timeouts and disconnects every 5 minutes? 150 - 200 ping constantly between 4pm and 11pm. Thats not a 'stable and reliable internet connection'. You'd have a more reliable connection on a 56k modem.

Simon_idnet

#14
Oct 06, 2006, 15:16:41
Hi Dev

Please get in touch with Support so that we can investigate your problems and try to solve them for you.

Regards
Simon

mrapoc

#15
Oct 06, 2006, 16:27:11
The more stuff we email to support, the more they can analyse it and come up with a solution

I hope this will be sorted soon, if you had signed up 2 months ago (before the ping issue) you would agree with me that idnet was the god of isps  :D sure thats a bit of a wierd statement at recent times, but they were really good. I don't think they will just let this go so easily (all the good talk and praise) and I'm expecting an improvement any time soon  *






*I reserve the right to be wrong at any time

cavillas

#16
Oct 06, 2006, 16:51:43
I have had a stable and efficient connection since I joined with them in February of this year and when I have been upgraded to Max.  There are many reasons why some people have disconnections and high pings, dropouts etc.  It is nearly always some other reason than the ISP's pipes and connections to them.  It is very often network problems outside the ISP's control but, unfortunately, they are the first ones to be blamed for everything.
I have been involved with computers, networks, progrmming and other connection systems for the past 35 years so I am always reluctant to blame the ISP until all other avenues have been exhausted.

It is always preferable to check the exchange contention and other local issues first.

At the moment this thread seems to be getting like the sad ones they have had on PlusNet in the past.  I hope it doesn't go that way.
------
Alf :)
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions