Hey just wondered if anyone else is suffereing from clunky net browsing again as well as ping times.
i am seeing well over 200ms currently to
multiplay.co.uk
as well as google being off the charts.However sync seems fine.
anyone else? I tried a router reboot and as well as powering it off for an hour,but alas its still the same. I am on gw5.
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=104ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=116ms 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:
i would say pings are a little wacked have you tried a router restart?
Minimum = 85ms, Maximum = 121ms, Average = 106ms
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>
I have got used to the daily reboots at 3.30pm EVERY day to bring my ping back down to normal but today has reached an all time low and has been on going since the upgrade months ago, I am afraid it may well be the final straw for me.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms 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 = 100ms, Maximum = 138ms, Average = 118ms
Quote from: Colin Burns on Jul 01, 2009, 15:43:07
i would say pings are a little wacked have you tried a router restart?
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>
Yes i tried a restart as well as powering the router off for well over an hour Colin :(
I'm on gw5 and have the same problem, router reboot makes no difference. Average ping to www.idnet.net is 147ms, pinging every 15 seconds for half an hour. I've emailed idnet, download speeds don't appear to be affected.
Pings very high here s well
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=200ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=163ms 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 = 163ms, Maximum = 215ms, Average = 196ms
C:\Users\>
I think this is one that only IDNet can look into.
Just spoke to idnet, they wanted me to drop my firewall to ping me, not something I particularly wanted to do really but its been reported. :(
Lucky that's all they wanted you to drop! :P
Quote from: Sebby on Jul 01, 2009, 16:15:55
Lucky that's all they wanted you to drop! :P
;D in this heat Sebby I wouldn't care
I'm on gw6 with no ping issues.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Yep, high pings and slow speeds here too on .dsl4 :(
Ping has started ...
PING www.idnet.com (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=156.042 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=232.798 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=255.875 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=177.391 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=170.535 ms
--- www.idnet.com ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 156.042/198.528/255.875/38.726 ms
No good on .net either >100 I blame the tennis, similar issue to what we had with the Olympics? Hopefully improve when Murray finishes
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 01, 2009, 16:17:49
I'm on gw6 with no ping issues.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
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=24ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping multiplay.co.uk
Pinging multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=124
Reply from 85.236.96.22: bytes=32 time=23ms 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 = 23ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 23ms
C:\Users\zappaDPJ>
Are you on ADSL: 2+ though? that would make a difference
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 01, 2009, 16:20:34
No good on .net either >100 I blame the tennis, similar issue to what we had with the Olympics? Hopefully improve when Murray finishes
I knew there was a reason I did not like Tennis ;)
Quote from: Gary on Jul 01, 2009, 16:21:08
Are you on ADSL: 2+ though? that would make a difference
I am Gary.
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 01, 2009, 16:23:41
I am Gary.
That makes a difference, last time ping issues happened the few on ADSL2+ did not have the problem.
Quote from: Sebby on Jul 01, 2009, 16:10:48
I think this is one that only IDNet can look into.
they wernt so helpful when i rang and just said that all was well but i think not.
on GW5
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.195] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 212.58.251.195:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
Pinging www.l.google.com [209.85.227.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=247
Reply from 209.85.227.99: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=247
Ping statistics for 209.85.227.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 141ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 166ms
any comments?
Thanks :)
Quote from: Colin Burns on Jul 01, 2009, 16:29:54
they wernt so helpful when i rang and just said that all was well but i think not.
I know, not to impressed with the response I got I have to say.
Probably watching the tennis, I've emailed them with stats and directed them here.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\>tracert idnet.net
Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 179 ms 179 ms 186 ms telehouse-gw2-lo2.idnet.net [212.69.63.55]
3 210 ms 204 ms 215 ms telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
4 167 ms 159 ms 164 ms redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
5 166 ms 177 ms 183 ms redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
6 171 ms 177 ms 187 ms www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\>
Quote from: Gary on Jul 01, 2009, 16:36:13
I know, not to impressed with the response I got I have to say.
i think the tech i got might have worked for Tiscali or Talk Talk and left it off his CV
and still has a copy of the how to lie to customers manual
Quote from: Gary on Jul 01, 2009, 16:26:21
That makes a difference, last time ping issues happened the few on ADSL2+ did not have the problem.
So those of you that are having problems are on the 8 Mb service? It's something I need to to consider as I'm currently looking at switching back :-\
Yup- no ADSL2+ from BT here yet :(
Adding my pings here to keep that part in one thread :)
danni@Matilda:~$ ping idnet.net -c5
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=161 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=183 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=194 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=164 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=174 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 161.148/175.722/194.745/12.471 ms
Here's mine on GW5
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=176ms 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 = 142ms, Maximum = 176ms, Average = 159ms :dunno:
Same problems here on GW5:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=189ms 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 = 188ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 193ms
The extra Wimbledon traffic could well be the cause of this :(
Quote from: tomharrison on Jul 01, 2009, 17:00:34
Same problems here on GW5:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=188ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=189ms 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 = 188ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 193ms
The extra Wimbledon traffic could well be the cause of this :(
But would that point to capacity issues though :dunno:
Pings seem to be decreasing? Averaging 38ms now to www.idnet.net, still higher than normal but much better than earlier in the day.
Not for me on .net adsl Normal is 20-25ms
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=120.382 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=171.677 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=105.606 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=118.826 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=150.193 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=166.557 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=161.470 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=184.040 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=175.794 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=171.870 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 105.606/152.642/184.040/26.321 ms
not for me either and for anyone interested im on dsl4
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\colin>ping idnet.net
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=178ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms 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 = 120ms, Maximum = 178ms, Average = 157ms
C:\Documents and Settings\coli
Quote from: Gary on Jul 01, 2009, 17:09:46
But would that point to capacity issues though :dunno:
Hope not :-\
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=57ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=31ms 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 = 57ms, Average = 37ms
C:\Users\>
Getting better here too
Quote from: tomharrison on Jul 01, 2009, 17:19:14
Hope not :-\
Well things are coming back to life, damn tennis ;D
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Jul 01, 2009, 16:48:04
So those of you that are having problems are on the 8 Mb service? It's something I need to to consider as I'm currently looking at switching back :-\
Probably ok it only seems to play up when there's a major sporting event and then BBCiplayer "kills" the internet
Ping average down to 26ms now, be fun to see what effect the semi-finals will have if it's all due to Wimbledon :-\
Quote from: dujas on Jul 01, 2009, 18:37:00
Ping average down to 26ms now, be fun to see what effect the semi-finals will have if it's all due to Wimbledon :-\
I really hope not :(
Could job it's not table tennis :blush:
Why can't people watch tennis on the bloody television? :mad:
I guess its related, I had tons of trouble last night, stayed up rather late. From about midnight until 6am browsing was nigh on impossible, It took me approximately 2 hours of refreshing every few minutes to even load idnetters to see if there was a problem. Got better after 6am though and it seems back to normal now.
That really doesn't sound right, even if there is some congestion.
Here we go again! Its been 25-30ms all morning. I didn't realise women's tennis was that interesting or is it something else.
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=125.978 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=140.847 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=131.367 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=145.662 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=66.094 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=121.887 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=79.011 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=107.173 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=76.469 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=105.556 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 66.094/110.004/145.662/26.677 ms
I agree, load issues (on gw5 at least) still somewhat persist. Average ping to www.idnet.net at 11am this morning was 29ms, now at 1.30pm its risen to 53ms. Main difference appears to be the range in fluctuations, whereas previously it was steady.
I noticed this on AAISP's status blog (http://aaisp.blogspot.com/)
QuoteWednesday, July 01, 2009
Tennis
People watching the tennis on-line is generating huge load on 20CN and 21CN services resulting in some packet loss at present.
I wonder how many ISPs are struggling with the increased load. The World Cup next year could temporarily send us back to the 56k modem days with iplayer HD usage ;)
but hopefully i wont be on the sick with a broken thumb with no way of getting about board stiff.
Have you tried rebooting your router? It helped somewhat for me, main issue is the fluctuations; the graph of ping against time looks like an outline of the Big Dipper roller-coaster in Blackpool.
The BBC need to see what there iPlayer is doing, I use it myself and its great like the Glastonbury clips, but not to watch live tennis and drag the UK's internet down with it :(
GW5 - I've noticed poor ping times for iRacing over the last few days.
Before reboot of router:PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=160.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=160.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=150.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=150.0 ms
After: PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=90.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=20.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=30.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=20.0 ms
Reported speed dropped from 1600 to 1500 - that's still quite high for me and no doubt I'll need a few more reboots before it's down to its customary (and stable) 1200.
Quote from: gizmo71 on Jul 02, 2009, 17:07:36
GW5 - I've noticed poor ping times for iRacing over the last few days.
Before reboot of router:PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=160.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=160.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=150.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=150.0 ms
After: PING 212.69.36.10 (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=90.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=20.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=30.0 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=20.0 ms
Reported speed dropped from 1600 to 1500 - that's still quite high for me and no doubt I'll need a few more reboots before it's down to its customary (and stable) 1200.
AAISP are having the same issue, no idea what its like on the bigger ISP's I dread to think
Quote from: Gary on Jul 02, 2009, 17:14:52
AAISP are having the same issue, no idea what its like on the bigger ISP's I dread to think
Their users probably aren't noticing the difference. :evil:
Quote from: gizmo71 on Jul 02, 2009, 17:57:54
Their users probably aren't noticing the difference. :evil:
:lol:
Quote from: Gary on Jul 02, 2009, 17:06:46
The BBC need to see what there iPlayer is doing, I use it myself and its great like the Glastonbury clips, but not to watch live tennis and drag the UK's internet down with it :(
I really don't think BBC are to blame. Services like iPlayer are the future. It's BT and their total lack of investment in their network.
I agree. The fact is that Internet users are using their connections in a way permitted by their ISP and for which they pay. If the ISPs and BT can't cope then they need to invest and stop overselling capacity by so much.
My ping has never been very good with IDnet, I use to get 40-50 ping on BT, since being on IDnet generally I get 60-70. But last few days its been shooting up to 200 most games, today it's at a constant 200. Needless to say it means gaming is pointless.
Things have gone wonky again...
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=183ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms 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 = 157ms, Maximum = 183ms, Average = 167ms
Good ol' Wimbledon! :(
They certainly have..
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=174ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=147ms 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 = 133ms, Maximum = 174ms, Average = 155ms :bawl:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms 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 = 105ms, Maximum = 153ms, Average = 134ms
Not good :mad:
Murray's on now so interested to see if it gets worse shortly. :(
I am afraid I do not buy into the tennis theory, the pings for me at least, have never been right since the upgrade with daily reboots required around 4pm every day in order to stabilise or reduce a steadily increasing ping.
Maybe someone can explain to me if it is down to congestion as many people suggest, why was I not affected pre-upgrade?. I can set my watch by the daily fluctuations ever since.
I am currently running ping graph and I am getting jumps from 16-171 in one hop, for gamers IDNET has become non-viable unless you play throughout the night, and although the tennis may be having some adverse affect, this problem has been on-going for alot longer than 2 weeks.
NETGRAPH at the moment looks like the Pyrenees, even after 6 reboots.
[attachment deleted by admin]
I, too, do not believe this Wimbledon theory. Sounds like an excuse to me, we didn't have this during Obama's Inaguration or when Jacko died? Surely there would have been country wide use of online streams etc at the time? My ping were fluctuating badly well after the tennis had finished last night so it doesn't tie in at all.
Quote from: Ninny on Jul 03, 2009, 15:48:25
I, too, do not believe this Wimbledon theory. Sounds like an excuse to me, we didn't have this during Obama's Inaguration or when Jacko died? Surely there would have been country wide use of online streams etc at the time? My ping were fluctuating badly well after the tennis had finished last night so it doesn't tie in at all.
From Metronet_James, the isp rep on the tbb PlusNet forum:
Guys - We've got about 2Gbps of traffic from iPlayer currently.
That's 2/7ths of our Network capacity. Now is not a great time to be testing latency.Direct link for those interested:
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/3660379-timeouts.html
Looks like throughput is being affected too:
(http://www.speedtest.net/result/509394724.png) (http://www.speedtest.net) :o
This must be the slowest speed I've ever recorded since my exchange was congested over four years ago :eek4:
Another one on gw5 with screwed up pings, between the new central pipe, bt constantly disconnecting me to fiddle with their exchange, & now this I'm getting a bit bloody sick of it :mad: This has been happening for the last few days & no amount of router reboots fixes it, or if it does it never lasts for more than a few seconds before its high again.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=168ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=177ms 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 = 165ms, Maximum = 177ms, Average = 171ms
Bad here also:
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=173ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=184ms 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 = 169ms, Maximum = 184ms, Average = 174ms
Here's my contest entry ;D
[ted@Zeus ~]$ ping www.idnet.net -c 10
PING www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=184 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=182 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=186 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=166 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=176 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=184 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=190 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=205 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=188 ms
64 bytes from www.idnet.net (212.69.36.10): icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=186 ms
--- www.idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9197ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 166.530/185.056/205.880/9.521 ms
My pings have in the last 30 mins gone up and are erratic again Ping has started ...
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=140.027 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=62.405 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=114.212 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=161.715 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=182.035 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=177.594 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=129.213 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=148.680 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=114.429 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=111.457 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 62.405/134.177/182.035/34.145 ms
The excuse last year towards the end of August was the Olympics ,however the problem remained afterwards. Idnet eventually admitted then that there were congestion problems on their network and to their credit it was eventually resolved. It is frustrating as we end up in a guessing game, surely idnet are aware of these issues and are probably working hard to resolve them but the network status page states "all is well" which it clearly isn't for some users.
Having been with idnet for 18 months now, they do seem to take great pride in their network performance and so far most of these issues have been eventually resolved in time. I do worry that the more "expensive" adsl max service may be allowed to slide now ADSL2+ is here.Time will tell, its only a month's notice anyway, me I'll sit tight for awhile if it persists I'll complain to support and take it from there.
Well it's not universal:
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=19.551 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=19.508 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=18.997 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=18.660 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=18.917 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=19.087 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.538 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=19.020 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=19.009 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=19.463 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=18.405 ms
^C
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 18.405/19.105/19.551/0.360 ms
Which if anything are about 5msec lower than usual...
Bill, you are ADSL2+ I believe . Confirms my worries about adsl max becoming the poor relation
Seems speed is affect too now:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/509418385.png
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results/id/1246635090121672620.html
Just got a reply from idnet:
This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.
Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?
Quote from: karser on Jul 03, 2009, 16:48:06
Just got a reply from idnet:
This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.
Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?
Which "they" are you referring to? IDNet, BT or the BBC?
Perhaps I'd like to believe that if the BT exchanges are congested there's nothing idnet can do about it.If you see Bill's figures on adsl2+ there's no congestion there.
I'm ready to join the club aswell, my pings are completely up the left
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.bbc.co.uk
Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.195] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 212.58.251.195:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>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=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=193ms 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 = 181ms, Maximum = 196ms, Average = 191ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.jolt.co.uk
Pinging www.jolt.co.uk [84.234.17.86] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=124
Reply from 84.234.17.86: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=124
Ping statistics for 84.234.17.86:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 182ms, Maximum = 209ms, Average = 197ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>ping www.yahoo.co.uk
Pinging www.euro.fyeu.b.yahoo.com [217.146.186.51] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=57
Reply from 217.146.186.51: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=57
Ping statistics for 217.146.186.51:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 165ms, Maximum = 208ms, Average = 191ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Glen>^V
Quote from: karser on Jul 03, 2009, 16:48:06
Just got a reply from idnet:
This is almost certainly due to the exceptionally high traffic levels being caused by iPlayer viewing of Wimbledon this afternoon. We know that we are seeing higher than normal traffic and that the BBC site is under very heavy load and that some Exchanges are now congested.
Wth is this supposed to mean? are they actually going to do anything about it or just fob us off with an excuse?
To be fair, IDNet have told you the reason for the problem. I don't call that being 'fobbed off'. IDNet are a small ISP, and although I have no idea of their business structure, I would imagine that the expense of making additional provisions for events such as Wimbledon, would be prohibitive to doing so, especially on a 'temporary' basis. I bet if Andy Murray gets knocked out, latency will improve again. ;)
Well I'm away to watch the tennis on Iplayer if you cant beat them join them :evil:
Quote from: stevethegas on Jul 03, 2009, 16:31:10
Bill, you are ADSL2+ I believe . Confirms my worries about adsl max becoming the poor relation
Sorry, missed your post.
Yes, I'm on ADSL2+ (and one who's reasonably happy with it!)
I'm not sure what the intentions are, but I suppose if BT intend to move everybody over to WBC (21CN? I get confused) it may happen... unless it supports fixed speed connections as well?
I'm beyond the edge of my knowledge range...
Hopefully he will get knocked out
Quote from: Simon on Jul 03, 2009, 17:00:36
To be fair, IDNet have told you the reason for the problem. I don't call that being 'fobbed off'. IDNet are a small ISP, and although I have no idea of their business structure, I would imagine that the expense of making additional provisions for events such as Wimbledon, would be prohibitive to doing so, especially on a 'temporary' basis. I bet if Andy Murray gets knocked out, latency will improve again. ;)
Simon. I agree, however if the BT part of the network is congested there is sod all idnet can do as they have no LLU facility
Indeed, Steve.
By the way, just to show not everyone is being affected by the bloody tennis, here are my pings on GW5:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.252] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.254.252:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 43ms, Average = 37ms
QuotePotential Performance Issues(New)
We are currently receiving calls related to performance problems. Please be aware that due to unprecedented demand for streaming Wimbledon coverage congestion over Internet links is resulting in slow speeds for some users.
We anticipate normal service resuming following this afternoon's match.
A Zen service alert (http://status.zensupport.co.uk/index.php?serviceid=5&incidentid=1380). It's not just an Idnet problem.
Average ping for me is 29ms currently, Home Supermax traffic priority could be helping though.
Hmm that is strange I thought the problem was directly with gw5, as most of those experiencing the problem who have stated what gw theyre on have said 5, & adsl max. If it is just congestion & not a problem with the network, why does it seem mostly limited to those 2 factors & why have I never experienced this problem for previous wimbledons, or even big football matches.
I believe iPlayer has become increasingly more popular and I would presume that as the quality of the stream has improved so as the bandwidth required increased.
Well the last time a Brit actually reached a Wimbledon singles final was apparently in 1936...
Quote from: karser on Jul 03, 2009, 17:17:10
why have I never experienced this problem for previous wimbledons, or even big football matches.
Because Murray wasn't playing so we had no real chance of winning...
Much better now, incidentally Roddick deservedly won.
Ping has started ...
PING idnet.net (212.69.36.10): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=24.281 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=23.277 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=25.597 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=28.279 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=25.566 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=25.912 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=25.092 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=24.817 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=25.967 ms
64 bytes from 212.69.36.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=25.468 ms
--- idnet.net ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 23.277/25.426/28.279/1.230 ms
I thought pings would improve after the tennis but no. Just done a speed test on bbmax and the speed is bouncing from 3mbps- 6 down to 4 back to five and taking more time than usual to load a page :bawl:
Quote from: Simon on Jul 03, 2009, 17:00:36
To be fair, IDNet have told you the reason for the problem. I don't call that being 'fobbed off'. IDNet are a small ISP, and although I have no idea of their business structure, I would imagine that the expense of making additional provisions for events such as Wimbledon, would be prohibitive to doing so, especially on a 'temporary' basis. I bet if Andy Murray gets knocked out, latency will improve again. ;)
From IDNet's website:
We guarantee no throttling, no traffic shaping, no port blocking, and no contention on our network. No contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand. This means that we can guarantee the maximum throughput that your line can support at all times. I hope that your suggestion that IDNet may not be up to scratch on a "temporary" basis is not actually true, because their stated ability to provide maximum throughput "at all times" is a significant carrot that will have influenced a lot of users' decision to join IDNet.
Unless and until ISPs and BT voluntarily or are compelled to publish contention rates, capacity and usage stats - which can't be hard for them to do if there was a will - the end user will continue to be suspicious of ISPs blaming BT and BT blaming ISPs.
If I were an ISP and had empirical evidence that my service could provide the maximum throughput that BT could handle, I'd publish it and see immediately all complaints and suspicions about my service vanish.
And for the IDNet fanatics and apologists here, please don't take this as a serious knock against IDNet. I stick with them because I believe they are one of the most honest and customer centred ISPs around, but I am beyond fed up with hearing the blaming going on between BT and ISPs. Publishing data would stop the blame game in its tracks.
9pm is the tennis still on? my pings are erratic now to say the least 30-180 & completely unstable.
As there have been reports of this across various ISPs, it looks like BT capacity issues. I guess it will still be affected now as people will be watching Wimbledon no doubt.
Yep my throughput is up and down like Monica.
Any ISP who is unlucky enough not to have LLU is going to be suffering, I'd imagine.
Quote from: Dopamine on Jul 03, 2009, 20:47:34
From IDNet's website:
We guarantee no throttling, no traffic shaping, no port blocking, and no contention on our network. No contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand. This means that we can guarantee the maximum throughput that your line can support at all times.
I hope that your suggestion that IDNet may not be up to scratch on a "temporary" basis is not actually true, because their stated ability to provide maximum throughput "at all times" is a significant carrot that will have influenced a lot of users' decision to join IDNet.
Unless and until ISPs and BT voluntarily or are compelled to publish contention rates, capacity and usage stats - which can't be hard for them to do if there was a will - the end user will continue to be suspicious of ISPs blaming BT and BT blaming ISPs.
If I were an ISP and had empirical evidence that my service could provide the maximum throughput that BT could handle, I'd publish it and see immediately all complaints and suspicions about my service vanish.
And for the IDNet fanatics and apologists here, please don't take this as a serious knock against IDNet. I stick with them because I believe they are one of the most honest and customer centred ISPs around, but I am beyond fed up with hearing the blaming going on between BT and ISPs. Publishing data would stop the blame game in its tracks.
AAISP were reporting the same thing, so its pretty much clear that its BT. There was even a post on there site about it.
Quote from: Gary on Jul 03, 2009, 23:19:59
AAISP were reporting the same thing, so its pretty much clear that its BT. There was even a post on there site about it.
Why do you make the assumption that it is only BT? Are you suggesting that most ISPs have so much spare capacity that they can accommodate all the demand that this has placed upon them, and that BT can't? Seems highly unlikely.
My point is that if information was more readily available, and that ISPs with genuinely uncontended networks published that data, then we wouldn't have to put up with blame, supposition and uninformed comments from some users about the efficiency or otherwise of their ISPs and BT.
As with many forums that become the social hub for some of their users, loyalty starts to impact on the accuracy of their claims. I have no doubt that BT has struggled with capacity today, but I'm also suspicious that even if BT had had sufficient capacity, some ISPs wouldn't have had, and that all claims here by IDNet users are based on supposition, not fact. That is where the publishing of data would serve a very valuable purpose.
The problem with Idnet is that they aren't great communicators (although this forum is very good).
QuoteNo contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand.
I imagine the important part is the "our network" phase, side stepping the fact that BT's responsibility in the chain, routing the customer's data from the exchange to their network, can equally play an important part.
You only have to lookup what BT wholesale charge for such a service to know there is no way it would be economically viable for an ISP to support a 1:1 contention ratio on that part of the link. They budget for an acceptable average usage. So in times of unusually high traffic, connection performance for the customer suffers, as the ISP can't just in an instant switch on a BT Central to increase capacity, they can only really just shuffle customers between 'pipes' to help balance the load.
AAISP's blog (http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/07/tennis_03.html) may again provide some insight into what goes on behind the scenes in these situations:
QuoteOnce again, people viewing tennis on-line is pushing bandwidth massively over normal levels.
Just to explain - at present BT operate with a pre-set level, which we increase gradually over time as we move customers to 21CN or usage increases - leaving some headroom.
Events like this go way beyond the normal headroom, and ideally we'd like to increase the bandwidth earlier than normal to accommodate this. However, unlike the promised 24 hour lead time that BT told when they introduced the 21CN service, we have a 5 working day lead time, so were not able to react.
For 20CN the lead time to increase capacity is 3 months! Thankfully we have more headroom on 20CN because of the moves to 21CN so the impact is not as noticeable. IPSC triallists see no impact at all even though on the 21CN equipment.
We are increasing bandwidth one 21CN anyway soon and BT are making changes in November which will mean we may be able to increase bandwidth to some extent almost instantly, but at some cost. This would be ideal for events like this.
Obviously events like the next Olympics will have slightly more planning...
Quote from: Dopamine on Jul 03, 2009, 23:43:49
Why do you make the assumption that it is only BT? Are you suggesting that most ISPs have so much spare capacity that they can accommodate all the demand that this has placed upon them, and that BT can't? Seems highly unlikely.
My point is that if information was more readily available, and that ISPs with genuinely uncontended networks published that data, then we wouldn't have to put up with blame, supposition and uninformed comments from some users about the efficiency or otherwise of their ISPs and BT.
As with many forums that become the social hub for some of their users, loyalty starts to impact on the accuracy of their claims. I have no doubt that BT has struggled with capacity today, but I'm also suspicious that even if BT had had sufficient capacity, some ISPs wouldn't have had, and that all claims here by IDNet users are based on supposition, not fact. That is where the publishing of data would serve a very valuable purpose.
Many of the smaller ISP's were having the same issue Dopamine, if you want huge capacity then I don't know where you will go, the bigger ISP's have huge contention issues as you well know, the smaller ISP's only have a budget for so much bandwidth, having the BBC iPlayer used heavily during Wimbledon as people watched the English hopeful impacted on a few, AAISP's put up a post saying they were having issues, not users but the ISP themselves, there is no easy answer you want small you have small and sadly they will always be limited by funds but they do get the job done in a better fashion, you want an ISP with a huge capacity go find once and suffer the hell you get with that, catch 22 when the net is being used for more and more high bandwidth programs and we have been told more than once that BT do not have the capacity to keep providing more, and that eventually speeds will slow down as the sheer number of users online at anyone time and the pipes they share will just not cope. This is well documented, even if the bigger ISP's put more LLU systems in and BT put in more capacity the use of the net has changed, and rich content HD material is going to bring it to a halt at the present rate unless something is done. But even then can the smaller ISPs afford it anyway?
I am not saying IDNet are perfect, but when more than one ISP experiences difficulties what do you surmise the problem is? You pay your money you make your choices, do some research and you will see future bandwidth limitation forecasts mentioned elsewhere. If you can set up an ISP with a 1:1 contention ratio, keep the user base down so you can afford the necessary capacity for high demand bandwidth applications such as the iplayer and pay the bills let alone make a profit, please share that knowledge with IDNet I'm sure they would love the help, as would AAISP ::)
You're completely failing to understand the issue and my point. What you are effectively saying when you continually lay the blame for everything at BT's feet is that if BT got their act together and/or had infinite bandwidth, the problems would go away. I am certain that they would not.
Most, if not all, ISPs invest in the smallest amount of bandwidth possible in order to maximise their profitability. That is sound business sense but is open to abuse, depending upon how aggressively any particular ISP views market share or short term profitability over long term customer retention through quality of service.
Whatever, making any sort of comment on this forum that might be seen by some (many?) of the regulars as critical of IDNet has always and will always result in the army of IDNet devotees running to their defence, which means that the information posted by users is often little more than uninformed guesswork prompted by a strange sense of loyalty.
Those who keep banging on suggesting that leaving and moving elsewhere is the answer to dissatisfaction also conveniently ignore comments made by me and a few other posters that we accept that IDNet is one of the best ISPs and that moving will achieve nothing, but that the whole ISP business is shoddy, and being the best of a bad bunch isn't much of an accolade. I sympathise with the difficulties faced by IDNet, but they could be at the forefront of change and improvement by being more open with data proving their claimed ability to never saturate their capacity.
ISPs are primarily to blame for customer dissatisfaction, not BT. ISPs continually promise the earth, then fail or are unable to deliver it. A simple "It's BT's fault" just doesn't wash. If BT are the real cause, let's see data to back up those claims. It's available, I'm sure, just never published.
Quote from: Gary on Jul 04, 2009, 02:08:17
I am not saying IDNet are perfect, but when more than one ISP experiences difficulties what do you surmise the problem is?
That some have a bottleneck at BT's end, some have a bottleneck at their end, and some suffer a bit of both. Those that have a bottleneck in their own networks must love having the ability to hide behind the "blame it on BT" culture that is so prevalent and unquestioned by some. Transparency would solve much of the customer dissatisfaction. After all, didn't IDNet initially blame the Olympics and BT for their network's problems, before eventually admitting that they too had capacity issues? That misguided attitude to customer communication has made me less happy to believe everything I'm told now.
Quote from: Dopamine on Jul 04, 2009, 03:34:40It's available, I'm sure, just never published.
You just destroyed your own argument with those last three words... have you ever tried getting hard data out of BT?
Quote from: Dopamine on Jul 04, 2009, 03:34:40
You're completely failing to understand the issue and my point. What you are effectively saying when you continually lay the blame for everything at BT's feet is that if BT got their act together and/or had infinite bandwidth, the problems would go away. I am certain that they would not.
Most, if not all, ISPs invest in the smallest amount of bandwidth possible in order to maximise their profitability. That is sound business sense but is open to abuse, depending upon how aggressively any particular ISP views market share or short term profitability over long term customer retention through quality of service.
Whatever, making any sort of comment on this forum that might be seen by some (many?) of the regulars as critical of IDNet has always and will always result in the army of IDNet devotees running to their defence, which means that the information posted by users is often little more than uninformed guesswork prompted by a strange sense of loyalty.
Those who keep banging on suggesting that leaving and moving elsewhere is the answer to dissatisfaction also conveniently ignore comments made by me and a few other posters that we accept that IDNet is one of the best ISPs and that moving will achieve nothing, but that the whole ISP business is shoddy, and being the best of a bad bunch isn't much of an accolade. I sympathise with the difficulties faced by IDNet, but they could be at the forefront of change and improvement by being more open with data proving their claimed ability to never saturate their capacity.
ISPs are primarily to blame for customer dissatisfaction, not BT. ISPs continually promise the earth, then fail or are unable to deliver it. A simple "It's BT's fault" just doesn't wash. If BT are the real cause, let's see data to back up those claims. It's available, I'm sure, just never published.
That some have a bottleneck at BT's end, some have a bottleneck at their end, and some suffer a bit of both. Those that have a bottleneck in their own networks must love having the ability to hide behind the "blame it on BT" culture that is so prevalent and unquestioned by some. Transparency would solve much of the customer dissatisfaction. After all, didn't IDNet initially blame the Olympics and BT for their network's problems, before eventually admitting that they too had capacity issues? That misguided attitude to customer communication has made me less happy to believe everything I'm told now.
Totally agree with you mate
Quote from: Bill on Jul 04, 2009, 09:14:17
You just destroyed your own argument with those last three words... have you ever tried getting hard data out of BT?
I don't think it was BT data that Dopamine was after it was throughput data from ISPs to 'prove' there is no congestion on their networks.
The issue of transparency is possibly one of the ways that AAISP is making headway. Their continuous monitoring, the blog detailing some of their problems with BT are all part of a (fairly) transparent communication process and, although much of this has to be taken at face value it is extremely good PR. The continuous monitoring may be of limited practical use though when discussing problems with BT.
That said, despite my not being with them I do think iDNet are one of the best around and are always recommended by me.
I don't disagree with what's been said. We can only pass on what IDNet tell us. We don't have any secret information. If IDNet say there's no problem within their network, we have to accept that, as there's no way of proving otherwise.
I agree that IDNet have been to blame in the past when BT were originally blamed, and I do see what you mean about BT always getting the blame, Dopamine.
All I can suggest is that if anyone is not happy with the level of service they receive, or do not believe what IDNet are saying, they request their MAC and move to another ISP.
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of d
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% l
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 17ms
Thats better :)
Pings should be ok now Andy Murry is out of wimbledon.
Flippin iplayer.
Entanet (http://noc.enta.net/) have been transparent with BT Centrals usage, they used to have real-time graphs of capacity. Although their transition to IPSC (http://noc.enta.net/ipsc-interconnect-status/) (IPStream Connect) wasn't generally well received by most of their customers.
I don't think at any point I blamed BT, I just pointed out the costs may restrict the capacity Idnet is able to afford and be a viable business.
In IDNet's defence, I'd like to give my experience.
I was with O2 on their Home Access service (non LLU). And they just buy the bare minimum off bandwidth of BT. The congestion is unbearable. And customer services has nothing to offer to help except "have you checked your pc/cables". My pings every evening went to 140ms+ and speed was erratic.
Immediatly after the switch to IDNet my ping is now 50ms. The highest it gets during really busy times (like the tennis) is 100ms. I'm perfectly happy with this.
And when I sent a little emial to customer support mentioning my pings, and if there is anything I can do to help, they immediately offered to turn off interleaving.
Now that's miles ahead of the great, but scripted, customer support I got from O2.
So IDNet may not be perfect. But they seem miles ahead in customer service and reliability of connection than the likes of O2.
Really hope your connection gets sorted. :karma:
I agree with you on the issue of all ISPs suffering from contention ration problems. I suppose it's the fault of "up to 8meg" when really we might need to go back to the old "pay for 2mb get 2mb, pay for 8mb get 8mb". Having those who really need 8mb and can get it pay a premium and those who can only get 2mb pay for that might help.
I was with o2 as well Ben, so I know exactly what you mean,good connection during the day useless after 5 oclock.
I'm going to have to disagree with one of Dopamine's comments. I don't believe that negative comments on this forum about Idnet are met with opposite comments from loyal customers. One thing I've always liked about this forum is that people posting are honest and that means that if Idnet are to blame then people are critical. However, I believe that even though they are critical of Idnet, they appreaciate that things happen that should and are generally happy as long as lessons are learnt and there are no repeats.
Apologies, that should have said things happen that should not
Well, it's nearly 11pm on a Sunday night and still the ping times are shocking! Doesn't seem the tennis can be blamed at the moment.
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=116ms TTL=59
That really is bad, Ninny. Let IDNet know.
That looks like the results I got from my dongle. :)
Whenever I've tried a ping test the results are wholly inconsistant, if I try a ping now for example, here are the results:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
This is totally unacceptable for gaming, but even when it was stable I was getting 60-70 in-game, when most people have 30 pings in the UK. The 60 - 70 ping is slightly higher to what I got on BT but some days I would get a 40 - 50 ping which was much better, however it's never been that low with IDnet.
Is anybody else on gw5 still getting this inconsistant ping problem? At the moment it's skyrocketing up to 200 ping all game and is just unplayable and makes it impossible for me to play competitively (ie for money/prizes, which I use to do).
I'm not going to bother complaining to IDnet Sebby, because I'm getting moved to a new BT line on gw7 in a few days, hopefully I'll see an improvement and be able to have interleaving taken off, here's hoping..
No point in me commenting, Ninny as, although I'm on GW5 I'm also on WBC. :(
27ms ping average on gw5 atm. The latency problem was just a one day affair for me, that being women's semi-finals day with a 200ms+ ping, strangely the day of Murry's game was fine. Rebooting your router or disconnecting/re-connecting PPP might help.
Quote from: Ninny on Jul 06, 2009, 19:19:57
Whenever I've tried a ping test the results are wholly inconsistant, if I try a ping now for example, here are the results:
Pinging www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=59
This is totally unacceptable for gaming, but even when it was stable I was getting 60-70 in-game, when most people have 30 pings in the UK. The 60 - 70 ping is slightly higher to what I got on BT but some days I would get a 40 - 50 ping which was much better, however it's never been that low with IDnet.
Is anybody else on gw5 still getting this inconsistant ping problem? At the moment it's skyrocketing up to 200 ping all game and is just unplayable and makes it impossible for me to play competitively (ie for money/prizes, which I use to do).
I'm not going to bother complaining to IDnet Sebby, because I'm getting moved to a new BT line on gw7 in a few days, hopefully I'll see an improvement and be able to have interleaving taken off, here's hoping..
Hi Ninny I'm getting more or less the same problem if it's any consolation, very frustrating indeed, especially when your teenage son is playing games online
then starts cracking up because he keeps getting kicked from the server. It's doing my loaf in!!
Hi,
I'm also on gw5. Been having the high latency since Satruday I think.
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.252] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.254.252:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 109ms, Maximum = 160ms, Average = 140ms
It can't be down to the tennis now. All I can suggest is to contact IDNet. :)
My pings are also high at 11.00am on GW5
Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=180ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=120ms 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 = 120ms, Maximum = 180ms, Average = 147ms
I know this may be of no help but I am experiencing the same same problems on GW5 of high ping (ping to idnet is currently 175-180ms, it is normally 40ish). Despite the high ping my throughput is still fine (ran several speed tests all show between 5 and 6 meg, I sync at 8128)
I rang Idnet and explained the situation, they said there was no problem on their network. They also said I should drop them an email about the problem which sounds silly to me as I was on the phone to them about it....not the sort of customer service that I was expecting, just sounds like being fobbed off.
Did they not ask for router stats, and a BT Soeedtest in the email, Fox?
I know it's not much help, but I am also on GW5, and my pings seem normal:
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.252] with 32 bytes of data
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=249
Reply from 212.58.254.252: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=249
Ping statistics for 212.58.254.252:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 31ms, Maximum = 33ms, Average = 32ms
C:\Documents and Settings\Simon>ping idnet.com
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=29ms 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 = 29ms, Maximum = 34ms, Average = 31ms
They didnt ask for anything, just said email them about the problem
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=149ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=167ms 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 = 132ms, Maximum = 167ms, Average = 153ms
Pinging idnet.com [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=181ms 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 = 148ms, Maximum = 181ms, Average = 164ms
I just tried to play on a couple of my normal game servers (I play on american servers a lot as I am in an american clan for gaming) and got kicked for high ping. I hope this issue is resolved soon as I have a match tonight and if my ping stays high like this I will not be able to play
I think the point needs to be emphasised to support that it appears to be a gw5 problem. Any ping tests they do from within their own network are unlikely to uncover the problem.
Occasionally one of our pipes may attract more traffic than the others and become congested. We have enough aggregated to bandwidth to cope with normal loads (massive iPlayer events notwithstanding) so a simple router reboot should force a reconnection to a different pipe.
Regards
Simon
Simon,
The test results below were taken 5 minutes after our telephone conversation and forced reboot from your end. 16ms as we spoke on the phone but within 5 minutes back to this.
It is what I have been experiencing for weeks, long before the tennis and no amount of rebooting works for more than 20 mins max in my case between the hours of 4-8pm.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=132ms 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 = 127ms, Maximum = 157ms, Average = 141ms
I'd suggest you copy this to Simon by email, Mo, just in case he doesn't see it here. How's your dad?