Sponsored

Poor Service

Moonraker

Casual Member
My initial impressions with Quik were good. Good connections and worked well with 128k on BoD.

However over the last few weeks it has worsened noticably. The last email response said that there were problems during the day with capacity reached. I have problems quite often now not just getting the second channel but even getting connected on 1 64k line.

Tonight for example it is 01:58 and I have been trying for 30 minutes to connect but busy all the time.

They also said they would be dealing with abusers and adding extra capacity but as there is no status page or fopurm on Quik I have no idea what is happening and given continuing problems I assume this has not been put in place or is insufficient.

I have no idea what impact the second ISDN service will have but I don't see why we have to wait weeks for a decent service.
 
Moonraker

Thanks for the post. I have checked and I can't get on to unmetered. But the lines aren't busy. Currently, over 70 ports are empty. I have logged this with COLT.

With regard to the 128k service. COLT seem to be having problems, which are affecting some customers. So we have taken the commercial decision to use another telco as well. But who do we use. The only one bigger than COLT is BT. But they don't do 128k. But they will be doing in a few weeks. I can't do anything other than wait for OFTEL and BT to agree date, but I believe it will be about 5 weeks away.

The harsh reality is that I am in the hands of the telcos.

We are trying to solve the problems (hence me being at the machine testing at 2.00 am), but telcos seem to move slower than treacle. Some of the posts have said how the service was a few weeks ago, and we are trying to get back there.

Regards
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
Thanks for the prompt response David. Impressed with a reply at this time ! ( I see you are testing).

Are you sure it is not busy? I mean the call not the ports. I get a 'busy' message from my router test and also tried manually dialling it and it was an engaged tone.

It does seem that sometimes it is simply a number of retries then I get on; othertimes like now it is simply no way to get on and engaged tones. I assume it is a Colt issue.

It is good that you are trying to sort out the issue but really I can't see me hanging on for a possible 5 weeks having paid the cash etc. There does seem to be a general problem with telco's screwing services and not dealing with them promptly. Always difficult of course to isolate the reason's especially as a customer! But at the end of the day my money goes to you for a service which is failing at the moment ( for me anyhow) and I need a steady, decent service, at 64k at the very least. It feels like the telco's with 128k seem bent of crippling any service offered.

perhaps it's the sheer logisitics of catering for bandwidth hungry 128k users that does not add up in the end.

Personally i really don't know why ISP's insist on BoD and short ( 2-3 minute) idle cutoffs. That way lines are not used up when not used and hopefully it stops those people that set high cutoff times ( often because of difficulties of reconnecting - a vicious circle) and use both lines unreasonably. With ISDN the reconnect is so fast you hardly notice it anyhow.

It always amazes me the ISP's always end up blaming abusers for problems and begs the questions why measures are not taken to kick them as soon as these issues appear.

Anyway I hope you can let us know what is the problem with COLT and advice when it is likely to be cleared up. And that you do find a way to sort out the service over the next weeks or so. otherwise i will have to be moving ( again! (Surfanytime who I was with before they started using useless NTL have a load of problems still from what I see).

Thanks again for the quick heads up which is always appreciated ( shame you don't have a status page though. I am sure it would save many calls and emails.)
 
Moonraker

Where to begin. The busy signals are an error, and COLT have replied with a log number and were working on it within minutes of my seeing your post.

Re my still being available. Quik have 200 offices, in 20 countries. We have an image of being small and local, because we try and give personal support from each office (we are a franchise organisation). When we sort out these issues, we will again be giving a good technical service, with good personal service.

I take on board the fact that you can't wait 5 weeks and I will advise you (and Vawn) of latest status later this week.

I will also look at a status page on our website.

In respect of how telcos view unmetered. The revenue generated for the telcos from one port is about 10% of the normal call charges. Quite simply, the business model for them does not allow the same service as the 0845. You get what you pay for.

I have had one telco tell me quite candidly, that the service, regardless of telco, can never be the same as the 0845 until the customers are willing to pay more.

In respect of abusers. A tricky issue. For example, if the Acceptable use policy is say 100 hours, and someone is using 10 hours a day, you can't boot them until the 11th day. If you have a 100 or a 1000 users doing this then the service will be hit at the start of the month.

Also, we advertise a 10:1 contention service, with a maximum 150 hours. Clearly, everyone can't get 150 hours evrery month (10 x 150 = 1500, but there are only 720 hours in a month). But it seems most users expect the mathematical impossible.

Also some customers are "less than realistic" when talking with you.

They sign-up, use up hundreds of hours and hop to another ISP. Hence some ISP's introducing daily maximums as well as monthly limits.

In short, we are always trying to provide a service, whilst protecting it from an abusive 20%, but having to remain competitively priced.

My guess is that this time next year prices will be higher, Acceptable hours lower, general customer service better, but still a great deal compared to normal BT rates.

Regards
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
I note the service is up again which is good.

I guessed it was a franchise with the web site being 24 hops away in the USA :) . Nothing wrong with that of course if the value for money is right and service is good.

You do give a good personal service which is one reason I prefer 'smaller' operators to BTI. It is unfortunate the usage checker is not available for unlimited users like me to keep a track on hours used ( no excuses then if provided). Also I would have thought having a status page with prompt posts would save you time and money in the inevitable calls and emails to reply to each time there is a problem, as it is the first thing I checked on BTI.
Also talking of personal service one feature of the Surfanytime service was a forum with prompt replies to queries. A personal touch I miss ( I would prefer not to post to a general site like ISPreview for this type of issue. It is nice to have one place to go to share ideas, problems and catch up on the latest status etc. An option perhaps to a specific status page).

Again the regular contact with customers via a forum or even email newsletter would keep them informed as to work in progress etc etc. I always believe it is better to keep people informed as much as possible which reduces the level of frustration using a service.

In the end the expectation is that I can connect to the service at least with 64k connection; accepting that at peak times I may not get two channels and occasionally a few retries to get on. But beyond that I feel it is below a reasonable expectation of the service. After all not everyone will be using the service and 10:1 contention should be better than say BT with nearer 50:1! But for instance with BTI Anytime I ALWAYS got first time connection which in the end saves frustration and hassle for me. Perhaps there the advantage of a large operation is higher capacity. I suspect 128k services tend to attract heavy users anyhow.

Perhaps it is more advanced software and hardware which can be tweaked to cope with high demand periods. Personally, connecting regularly first time at 64k is more important than getting in with 128k and staying there for as long as possible and hogging bandwidth. As I said perhaps making the services BoD only would free up more bandwidth. If BT are to provide a FRIACO 128k service maybe it will provide a more reliable service ( given it's near monopoly in the UK).

I think your calculations for contention do not make it clear because the whole basis of a contended service is not everyone will be using it all the time. Like the golf club, if every member turned up to play it would take 10 hours to get a round! I really don't think it is unreasonable to expect first time connections and use of both lines ( which is what we pay over double for after all) at all but peak hours.

It seems from the email I received that business users are hogging daytime bandwidth and many services do not accept that use ( or offer it at a higher rate to pay for the heavier usage).

I do not see how we will necessarily be facing much higher charges next year. Looking back at some of the business models used the sub £10 services were always bound to fail. But BT make money out of Anytime at £15.99 / month so even doubling that to £32/ month would give a sustainable return ( provided the heavy usage can be curtailed by the small % of abusers). I guess time will tell.

For me I have already decided to move to France where broadband is widely available even in rural areas and where, even if the service goes down, I can go and sit in the sunshine and sip some wine :cool:
 

Vawn

Regular Member
David Mitchell
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I take on board the fact that you can't wait 5 weeks and I will advise you (and Vawn) of latest status later this week.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Once again you have restored my faith in Quick and justifyed my staying with you as i have feel you are at least trying to do something about my conection, i also have tryed to refrain from posting as all my post seem to sound like im trying to make Quick look bad lol :) , this may i say is not what im trying to do, im only trying to sort my conection as its the only hobbie i have.
May i add that i feel that Quick IS proving itself as one of the most userfriendlyest isp's i have ever had.

thnx goes to David Mitchell :) .

Moonraker
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> For me I have already decided to move to France where broadband is widely available </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oh you lucky Berger :D
 
Hello to Vawn and Moonraker.

Moonraker. You're moving to warmer climes, cheaper wine, and more space and broadband. I won't comment as my envy would probably result in some sarcastic comment. But I hope that it works out. Perhaps you can update the forum from your new Broadband connection and tell us how fast it is, always on etc.

I like your suggestions re an "internal bulletin board" and status pages etc. I have started work on an outline spec, and if it looks feasible we will build it into our website. Many thanks for taking the time out to say the sort of things that you would like. It can only help us.

Vawn. I know you'r not trying to make us look bad. As far as I can tell all posts have ben accurate and fair. We will fix this.

Some good news, perhaps. COLT are installing some changes and we have already experienced some improved ping times, still far from perfect, but could you please test at your end, and let us know the result.

Regards
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
In the end ISP's will only be able to offer customers what they want if the customers bother to communicate with them. Whether it's grumbles or suggestions or praise ( steady!) the best ISp's do listen and respond on the personal level like Quik. For example despite many problems I stuck with Surfanytime because of their forum and customer support participation in it. In the end it didn't work for me but a customers do show loyalty when ISP's listen and respond.

That said I can't get online now :( . Any idea if it's a COLT problem or capacity? having to revert to 0845 again.

<small>[ 12.11.2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Moonraker ]</small>
 

Vawn

Regular Member
ok did some ping test and this is what i get.

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=328ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=247ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 206ms, Maximum = 328ms, Average = 265ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping 193.35.135.106

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=227ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 122ms, Maximum = 355ms, Average = 208ms

ok all looks bad but if you consider im getting better pings like the next ones 25% of the time the you agree its batter than iv been getting.

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=110

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 75ms, Average = 69ms

Wish they would stay like this

Also did some TraceRT tests .

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>tracert 193.35.135.106

Tracing route to redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 91 ms 233 ms 192 ms cust-E1S031292-s1-0-5-5-1.kjc-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.14
2 436 ms 192 ms 63 ms router.quik.co.uk [212.36.160.253]
3 214 ms 384 ms 105 ms 213.86.52.66
4 411 ms 507 ms 192 ms g1-0.core-1.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.33]
5 513 ms 504 ms 118 ms p0-0.core-2.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.254]
6 63 ms 235 ms 478 ms p1-2.ibr-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [195.110.65.177]
7 862 ms 503 ms 771 ms pos2-0-roobarb.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.25]
8 553 ms 190 ms 63 ms pos1-0-oscar.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.18]
9 119 ms 59 ms 91 ms pos.64.74.212.in-addr.arpa [212.74.64.242]
10 335 ms 374 ms 275 ms core2-pos14-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.122]
11 463 ms 574 ms 677 ms core2-pos5-1.reading.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.230]
12 616 ms 671 ms 384 ms core2-pos13-2.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.109]
13 453 ms * 327 ms mspaccess2-gig0-0-0.birmingham.fixed.bt.net [62.6.196.140]
14 265 ms 386 ms 505 ms 213.121.154.170
15 383 ms 501 ms 164 ms 213.121.150.6
16 331 ms 197 ms 477 ms 193.35.137.221
17 402 ms 480 ms 75 ms 193.35.137.230
18 194 ms * 74 ms 193.35.135.1
19 179 ms 106 ms 302 ms 193.35.135.33
20 267 ms 290 ms 383 ms 193.35.135.35
21 420 ms 300 ms 306 ms 193.35.135.52
22 296 ms 292 ms 387 ms redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]

Trace complete.

aggain looks bad but im also getting this next one 25% of the time as well.

Tracing route to redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 59 ms 58 ms 67 ms cust-E1S031292-s1-0-5-5-1.kjc-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.146.42]
2 108 ms 196 ms 58 ms router.quik.co.uk [212.36.160.253]
3 74 ms 64 ms 67 ms 213.86.52.66
4 82 ms 98 ms 98 ms g1-0.core-1.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.33]
5 74 ms 73 ms 61 ms p0-0.core-2.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.254]
6 139 ms 189 ms 195 ms p1-2.ibr-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [195.110.65.177]
7 174 ms 115 ms 96 ms pos2-0-roobarb.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.25]
8 73 ms 98 ms 61 ms pos1-0-oscar.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.18]
9 156 ms 213 ms 121 ms pos.64.74.212.in-addr.arpa [212.74.64.242]
10 59 ms 136 ms 82 ms core2-pos14-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.122]
11 93 ms 155 ms 97 ms core2-pos5-1.reading.ukcore.bt.net [194.74.65.230]
12 88 ms 88 ms 100 ms core2-pos13-2.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net [62.6.196.109]
13 174 ms 102 ms 138 ms mspaccess2-gig0-0-0.birmingham.fixed.bt.net [62.6.196.140]
14 126 ms 83 ms 155 ms 213.121.154.170
15 219 ms 192 ms 193 ms 213.121.150.6
16 87 ms 67 ms 79 ms 193.35.137.221
17 133 ms 96 ms 99 ms 193.35.137.230
18 68 ms * 101 ms 193.35.135.1
19 187 ms 337 ms 190 ms 193.35.135.33
20 94 ms 76 ms 79 ms 193.35.135.35
21 163 ms 91 ms 99 ms 193.35.135.52
22 77 ms 85 ms 82 ms redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]

Trace complete.

so mabe it is getting better or could prolly be coincidence :)
fingers crossed and hopefully David Mitchell will keep sorting it till its back to the Quick i know , (with 70 pings :) )
 
Vawn

Many thanks for the test results. COLT are working on it. I also look back with nostalgia on the 60/70 pings. More later this week.

Regards
 

Shaun

ULTIMATE Member
Wow, it appears that you have to go thru at least 13-14 servers just to get out of your own ISP, I thought mine was bad <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Shaun :)
 

Shaun

ULTIMATE Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by David Mitchell:
<strong>

Regards</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">David Mitchell, if you are an ISP Rep, can you please email kilzat@ispreview.co.uk and ask for your account to be changed to a Rep account. Thanks

Shaun :)
 

Vawn

Regular Member
lol yer i know FiftySixKer, But at least Quick are trying to fix it and they have always helped me in anyway posible plus they are also verry polite , prompt and you can count on getting hold of them on phone everytime so i think QuickInternet is well worth the wait till its back to norm. :D

oh and good luck David Mitchell haha. :)
 

Shaun

ULTIMATE Member
Tracing route to redeemer.unreal.orange.net [193.35.135.106]
[ 1] ( 213.120.56.10 ) [ 125ms] webport-cl6-hg10.ilford.mdip.bt.net
[ 2] ( 192.168.1.102 ) [ 110ms]
[ 3] ( 194.74.77.230 ) [ 109ms] interconnect6-l0.ilford.fixed.bt.net
[ 4] ( 194.74.16.84 ) [ 125ms] core1-gig2-1.ilford.ukcore.bt.net
[ 5] ( 62.6.196.226 ) [ 125ms] core1-pos13-0.reading.ukcore.bt.net
[ 6] ( 195.99.120.225 ) [ 125ms] core1-pos5-2.birmingham.ukcore.bt.net
[ 7] ( 62.6.196.12 ) [ 125ms] mspaccess2-gig1-0-0.birmingham.fixed.bt.net
[ 8] ( 213.121.154.170 ) [ 125ms]
[ 9] ( 213.121.150.6 ) [ 125ms]
[10] ( 193.35.137.221 ) [ 125ms]
[11] ( 193.35.137.230 ) [ 125ms]
[12] ( 193.35.135.1 ) [ 125ms]
[13] ( 193.35.135.33 ) [ 109ms]
[14] ( 193.35.135.35 ) [ 141ms]
[15] ( 193.35.135.52 ) [ 125ms]
[16] ( 193.35.135.106 ) [ 140ms] redeemer.unreal.orange.net
-- Traceroute complete --

16 servers :D

Shaun :)
 

Moonraker

Casual Member
Vawn. Are you on modem or ISDN?

My traceroute shows better esults consistantly, even with bigger packets sizes ( 40 bytes):

Sorry, this is post has been edited as it had distorted the forum page due to being to wide

Just to olet you know.

moon

BTW Quik has been pretty maddening over the last few days ( weeks!). Today for example it started fine then around midday it was connecting but not resolving an i.p address for quite a while. So sometimes it seems to run fine with a few retries at peak times, then screws up totally for anything from an hour to hours a a time with no connection. No idea what the problem was but it seems to be working now.

<small>[ 16.11.2002, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Cre@tive ]</small>
 

Vawn

Regular Member
FiftySixKer .. Grrrrr lucky munkey :D

MoonRaker

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Vawn. Are you on modem or ISDN?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ISDN but i bet you cant tell haha.

and im having the same problems as you like now at 9:13pm took me 7 redials and managed to get on 64k but im still unable to get on 128k.

nevermind i dont mind the wait for conection long as it isnt 2 long but the constant bad ping is what killing me :( .
but David is sorting it out so i have faith :) .
 

Vawn

Regular Member
err it seemed to change for about 5 mins .

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=217ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=148ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=167ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=235ms TTL=110
Request timed out.
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=110
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=110

verry inconsistant dont you think.
lol its even worse than a consistant bad ping haha.
mabe the test are efecting it.

oh and btw that was on 128k 64k was slightly worse.
 
All

Shaun. I emailed the address you quoted and it rejected. I will try again tomorrow. I did previously notify Mark Jackson at ISPR but I will do so again.

Also, I always get out from COLT by hop 9. IS anyone else taking 13 hops like Shaun?

Apologies to anyone using system after Lunch. We had an outage from about 13.00 to 15.00.

Re ping times. I actually pinged bbc.co.uk and was back to 60 and 70ms. I think it is faster now, so COLT have done something. BUT, the issue is STILL OPEN, and we intend to improve further. We used to have people complimenting us on our speed, and we will do so again, hopefully.

Regards
 

Vawn

Regular Member
omg <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

pinged bbc.co.uk at 9:59 pm

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a>

Pinging <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=590ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=626ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=602ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=584ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 212.58.240.121:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 584ms, Maximum = 626ms, Average = 600ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a>

Pinging <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=441ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 212.58.240.121:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 265ms, Maximum = 441ms, Average = 371ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a>

Pinging <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=610ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=551ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=714ms TTL=248
Reply from 212.58.240.121: bytes=32 time=647ms TTL=248

Ping statistics for 212.58.240.121:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 551ms, Maximum = 714ms, Average = 630ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>tracert <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a>

Tracing route to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 231 ms 249 ms 243 ms cust-E1S031292-s1-0-5-5-1.kjc-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.146.42]
2 226 ms 201 ms 205 ms router.quik.co.uk [212.36.160.253]
3 325 ms 385 ms 391 ms 213.86.52.66
4 308 ms 278 ms 272 ms g1-0.core-1.pct.lon.UK.COLT.NET [212.161.120.33]
5 551 ms 566 ms 564 ms p1-2.ibr-2.ctf.lon.UK.COLT.NET [195.110.65.173]
6 332 ms 299 ms 311 ms s5-0.ibr-1.kjc.lon.UK.COLT.NET [213.86.6.2]
7 371 ms 435 ms 291 ms pos2-0-roobarb.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.25]
8 312 ms 278 ms 308 ms pos1-0-oscar.LON.router.COLT.NET [212.74.64.18]
9 368 ms 352 ms 444 ms rt-linx-a.thdo.bbc.co.uk [195.66.224.103]
10 532 ms 611 ms 575 ms rt1-POS7-2.thny.bbc.co.uk [212.58.255.182]
11 462 ms 510 ms 438 ms <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk</a> [212.58.240.121]

Trace complete.

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>

i have made sure nothing is running in the background and i even have a second clean install operating system .. Me insted of my usual Xp and got the same results.

btw leastest hops iv ever had yet.
 

Vawn

Regular Member
David :
Shawn was refering to my hops to get out of Quick. :)

BTW i just pinged with Quicks Pay As You Go service and got this.

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 64ms, Maximum = 69ms, Average = 65ms

D:\Documents and Settings\Vawn>ping 193.35.135.106

Pinging 193.35.135.106 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109
Reply from 193.35.135.106: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=109

Ping statistics for 193.35.135.106:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 64ms, Maximum = 73ms, Average = 66ms

<small>[ 14.11.2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Vawn ]</small>
 
Top
Promotion
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £19.95 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPER20
  • SSE £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • TalkTalk £22.95 (*29.95)
    Avg. Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*35.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £75 Reward Card
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Promotion
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2724)
  2. FTTP (2619)
  3. FTTC (1759)
  4. Building Digital UK (1708)
  5. Politics (1614)
  6. Openreach (1574)
  7. Business (1391)
  8. FTTH (1317)
  9. Statistics (1209)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1179)
  11. Fibre Optic (1045)
  12. 4G (1017)
  13. Wireless Internet (1002)
  14. Ofcom Regulation (993)
  15. Virgin Media (981)
  16. EE (672)
  17. Sky Broadband (658)
  18. TalkTalk (645)
  19. Vodafone (643)
  20. 5G (476)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules