Problems with network-status

1246712

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    Andrew Taylor, I share your pain, can't even stream an effing YouTube video or download music playing on iTunes match without it buffering forever and then you lose the moment.
    Was getting the same 1.57meg down as you.

    Here's a thought mr durnford why don't you let us give you our customer ac numbers and whilst your trying to sort this out you waive the monthly fees we pay to you and then as soon as you get it to work we start paying again, that is only a nice to do.

    A need to do is sort it and take my money so I can get a 50 meg that I'm happy with.

    Got a workmate in Dreghorn who got cable and he is unaffected or so he says, I think it's about time you came clean and told us how many people are affected and are complaining so we new how big the problem is, if the guys you employ to fix the thing can't do it then get rid of them and pay someone that can otherwise your fan base going to disappear, the reason I hold on is your s**t service is probably just as bad as BT, I kinda wish you would rip out all the stuff you done before November and give us back the service we signed up for.
    Its funny you should mention that, ive got a workmate who stays a few streets away from me who signed up to smallworld 3 weeks ago and he insists his internet is not affected and gets close to full speed from speedtest.net servers not on smallworlds network.

    Also theres not that many people online complaining which i find very strange considering the severity of the issue.

    Your right, we really need some answers on how big this problem is and whos affected.

    Would also like an aknowledgement that the low speeds were reporting are actually being noted. I still get the impression that smallworld dont realise just how bad things are.

    Also why the hell does network status show "There are no current issues" when im strugglng to get 3Mbps.


    What happened when you refused to pay for it mate?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 21
    Forum Member
    I refused to pay for the 30meg when my speeds were lower than 10 most of the time.
    They agreed and switched me to the cheapest tariff till they got things sorted I think, but maybe not.

    I'm thinking I need to get back on the phone with them so they have a log of my problems, I kinda got lost in here thinking that we were getting listened to.

    Would getting a new line in from street or a check of the equipment box at end of street help at all?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 21
    Forum Member
    What package you getting with bt Andrew?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    Up to 20Mbps with 40GB limit. I work from home regularly but don't do a huge amount of downloading so should be enough. They estimate I should be on about 12Mbps, which is reasonably accurate as when I was with Sky it was between 11 and 13.

    Only reason I'm going with BT is to hopefully make things a bit simpler for the line reconnection and I can upgrade to Infinity as soon as that's available, supposed to be Sept for Killie.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    Would getting a new line in from street or a check of the equipment box at end of street help at all?

    Was thinking the same when my own speeds started playing up but if your getting full speed with the test to irvine server then the problem must be after that.
  • meherenowmeherenow Posts: 132
    Forum Member
    I can't help but think you're all being a bit harsh here.

    David Durnford is good enough to keep us all up to date on what is happening, what other MD would do that?

    I've had problems in the past with the service and found it to be sorted out after the problem was looked at, it just seems to be taking a bit longer this time what with speed issues during peak times, but Mr Durnford has said it's being worked on, what more do you want?

    I commend Smallworld for their drive in trying to better themselves and pushing forward with new products, upgrades and faster speeds, just think what it would be like if it were Virgin in our area - your bandwidth would be throttled and traffic shaping implemented as soon as you've streamed some HD video content and that would be you for the rest of the night!

    As for BT, I'm afraid a miserly 40GB limit would be no good in our house where the BBC iPlayer is put to maximum use, not to mention streaming to various devices and not forgetting that Anytime+ has opened up on Sky.

    Let's give our local company a chance to get back to its usual 99% efficiency and applaud the boss for his continued investment.

    From the website - "All speeds shown are the highest speed that may be achieved; actual speed may be less from time to time." I am thankful that for the vast majority of the time it is usual to be able to max out the connection if you so wished.

    Although I am suffering the low speeds in peak times, (connection maxes out at around 2.6MB/s instead of the usual 6.2MB/s on the 50Mb product) I'm under no illusion that I'm paying for a 1:1 product!

    As I said, it's not like we are being ignored or they are burying their heads in the sand - whatever problems they have we are told they are being actively worked on, save for a wave of the magic wand I'm not sure how much more can be done?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 21
    Forum Member
    awe jeez meherenow your making me feel all bad for writing about my problems with smallworld in this here smallworld forum.
    and theres me thinking that people are able to read the whole thread and come to their own conclusion as to whether we're being harsh for expecting a service for which we are paying for.

    I have also thank Mr Durnford for taking the time to reply on this forum and i agree you dont get many MDs doing that personally, if we dont feedback to him or the company then they are not going to know their failings, others on the forum are looking for an end date to the problems so they can decide on their contract, callum just signed up on the strength of Mr Durnfords commitment, andrew decided to leave as he is willing to brave bt till they upgrade, for me its a decision on whether to end my contract with them and use my mobile provider as just now the service from smallworld is no better than that, i cant use it for gaming as my lag gets me beat every time, i cant use it for streaming iplayer, youtube, netflix as it buffers all the time.

    you get the idea?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    meherenow wrote: »
    Although I am suffering the low speeds in peak times, (connection maxes out at around 2.6MB/s instead of the usual 6.2MB/s on the 50Mb product) I'm under no illusion that I'm paying for a 1:1 product!
    You do realise that when we say our speeds are dropping to 2.5Mbps were talking bits and not bytes?

    Your connection maxing out at 2.6MB/s at peak is still a speed of 20Mbps which is nearly ten times what were getting at peak.

    I'm under no illusion that I'm paying for a 1:1 product either but 2.5Mbits on a 50Mbit connection is taking the piss.

    You obviously dont have the same problem.
  • meherenowmeherenow Posts: 132
    Forum Member
    Yes, I know my megabits from my megabytes.

    I'm also talking using more than one connection - if you think you will get 50Mb / 6.2MB/s from one connection stream on anybodys network you will be disappointed (save for the speedtest direct to the Irvine headend). If I use just one connection I DO see the same speeds as yourself, so "obviously" I DO have the same problem - we use various devices to access the internet, so that's how I know the bandwidth is maxing out at peak time at the level I stated (last night anyway).

    And I agree burnt-toast, I have read the whole thread and I do keep track of this forum so I have come to my own conclusion that you are all being a bit harsh.

    I just thought it would be nice to have some kind words to say about the 99% of the time the service is fast and reliable because quite frankly this forum has turned into a haven for moaners.

    Have a bit of faith that the problems caused by the upgrading work will be sorted out, leading us to a bigger and better service - it's all worked out before, I don't see why it wouldn't this time.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    meherenow wrote: »
    99% of the time the service is fast and reliable because quite frankly this forum has turned into a haven for moaners.

    Have a bit of faith that the problems caused by the upgrading work will be sorted out, leading us to a bigger and better service - it's all worked out before, I don't see why it wouldn't this time.

    The "upgrade" happened in November, four months down the line and speeds are dropping by the day. I get about 20% of the service I pay for in daytime hours. Evening it's dropping to between 5 and 10% of the service I am paying for.

    Imagine you bought 50 bags of groceries from Tesco each month. They updated their delivery system and for the following 4 months you got less and less groceries, but were expected to pay the same price. You complain and you get told we're working in it, don't know what the problem is and don't know when it will be fixed. Meanwhile you only get 4 or 5 bags or groceries but are still paying full whack.

    That's why we're pissed off and moaning. Add to which I was told this morning that I am in contract for this shit service until November because I took the reduced price when it dropped from £25 to £19 last Nov. Bloody brilliant, my mobile phone has a faster and cheaper connection. Funnily enough there's a BT Openworld van outside my house upgrading the cabinet to FTTC. I doubt they'll be the panacea I'm looking for but it's nice to have a choice.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    meherenow wrote: »
    think you will get 50Mb / 6.2MB/s from one connection stream on anybodys network you will be disappointed

    Yes I do expect 50Mbps and yes I used to get it. That's the whole point of having cable. Here are the test results from earlier in the year that show it's both possible and expected...otherwise what's the point?

    http://speedtest.net/result/1778710194.png
    http://speedtest.net/result/1778709020.png
    http://speedtest.net/result/1739876203.png
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 290
    Forum Member
    Hi all

    As you've all been discussing, we've had a problem with our broadband speeds for the past few months. It became really apparent to us about two months ago, as the full effect of an increase in streaming post Christmas becamse clear.

    Since then we've invested very substantially in new equipment, and have spent a lot of time both upgrading some elements and also troubleshooting why the situation in Irvine has gone backwards in the past couple of weeks.

    Back a couple of months ago, the worse complaints were in our English network (running primarily off our core routers in Morecambe). Both Irvine and Morecambe routers were replaced and this made a huge difference in Morecambe and Carlisle. It seems to have made things worse in Irvine however, and we have been busy troubleshooting since then. In fact our engineers are working through tonight again to do some more tests. It is very frustrating but we will get it fixed, and very soon, at which time you will go back to the excellent speeds we were able to provide pre November.

    In the meantime I am very sorry for the problems caused. I am acutely aware of the hassle and frustration and we are doing everything we can to get it sorted asap.

    Thanks

    David
    Smallworld Cable
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 290
    Forum Member
    Hi

    We carried out some more work last night. You should see better speeds today. We still have some more work we want to do over the coming weeks as we aim to quadruple capacity, but hopefully this should make things better for now.

    Thanks

    David
    Smallworld Cable
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 120
    Forum Member
    It must be just the one area - here in Carlisle I'm getting 50+ when the modem is connected directly into the computer and a bit less when it goes via the router. I've been a customer since it was Omne and never a major problem.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    Shaun, do you get 50 Mbps in the evenings when things are busy too?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 290
    Forum Member
    Shaun, do you get 50 Mbps in the evenings when things are busy too?

    Hi

    How is your speed now?

    Thanks

    David
    Smallworld Cable
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32
    Forum Member
    50Mbps to morcambe. :)
    http://speedtest.net/result/1861478713.png


    Unfortunately rest of web still around 5Mbps, although it seems as if thats per connection. If i run 2 speedtests at same time from same server i get a total of 10Mbps, im sure if i did 3 it would be 15Mbps.

    Very strange :confused:

    Going to try a download manager/booster for direct downloads to see if i hit full bandwidth.

    Not tried HD streaming yet.

    Torrents maxing out around 6MB/s. :):) So the bandwidth is definately there if downloading from multiple hosts/servers.
    http://i39.tinypic.com/2jdjdqw.png

    Excellent work david, great start.

    If you dont mind me asking what was the problem?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 120
    Forum Member
    Shaun, do you get 50 Mbps in the evenings when things are busy too?
    Yes, when cable direct into computer; otherwise, via router, anything from 40 to 46.
    I had low, low speeds like yours at one time, but it turned out to be the router, so I got a new one, since when all's well.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    callum84 wrote: »

    Not tried HD streaming yet.

    iPlayer HD still buffering, not getting the "You do not have sufficient bandwidth" error message but it's certainly not smooth nor watchable unless you like to take a break every minute or so.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 21
    Forum Member
    http://www.speedtest.net/result/1861673550.png

    a poor 2.96meg from my speedtest tonight on lancaster server
    but morecambe giving http://www.speedtest.net/result/1861681348.png 18.86??????????:eek::confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    The Morecambe server is hosted by Smallworld, so traffic to it can be routed so it doesn't leave their network, hence much higher numbers. It does show their network has the potential to provide good performance. The numbers we're seeing for servers located outside their network (all the others) shows there's still a problem between their network and the outside world. This is the actual performance, the golden rule applies, any network is only as fast as it's slowest component.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    Yes, when cable direct into computer; otherwise, via router, anything from 40 to 46.

    Nice, Im jealous as hell. You get that speed to all the servers on Speedtest, Lancaster, Skipton, Manchester, Liverpool etc?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    Righty, here's one for the techies....

    Used Wireshark to get the IP addresses of the speedtest servers. Morecambe Smallworld server is 84.19.126.16 and Lancaster is 217.114.59.88.

    If you go to a command prompt and use TRACERT command and the IP address you can see how the traffic is routed to each destination.

    So routing to Morecambe speedtest server looks like this...

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 84.19.126.16

    Tracing route to host-84-19-126-16.smallworlduk.com [84.19.126.16]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 8 ms 7 ms 36 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 5 ms 6 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms carzswh01-ve17.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.50]

    6 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms morzcr01-ve15.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.41]
    7 46 ms 50 ms 30 ms morzswh01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.26]

    8 12 ms 9 ms 9 ms host-84-19-126-16.smallworlduk.com [84.19.126.16

    Which in laymens terms shows the traffic is not leaving their network on it's way from your PC to the Morecambe speedtest server = good speeds.

    Now trying the same on Lancaster Speedtest server you can see the hops are much longer in length, hence the speed drops as packets may be lost or have to be re-sent due to errors = poor speeds.

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 217.114.59.88

    Tracing route to speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 3 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 7 ms 16 ms 6 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 6 ms 9 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 7 ms 5 ms 5 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms host-80-255-192-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192
    .254]
    6 19 ms 21 ms 20 ms anchor-inside-1-g5-0-0-s1650.router.demon.net [1
    93.195.186.149]
    7 20 ms 19 ms 20 ms xe-0-1-0-xur1.lns.uk.cw.net [193.195.25.70]
    8 20 ms 21 ms 19 ms lonap-the.c4l.co.uk [193.203.5.217]
    9 * * * Request timed out.
    10 28 ms 29 ms 29 ms speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]

    Tried Skipton Speedtest server as a comparison...

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 217.114.59.88

    Tracing route to speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 3 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 7 ms 16 ms 6 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 6 ms 9 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 7 ms 5 ms 5 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms host-80-255-192-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192
    .254]
    6 19 ms 21 ms 20 ms anchor-inside-1-g5-0-0-s1650.router.demon.net [1
    93.195.186.149]
    7 20 ms 19 ms 20 ms xe-0-1-0-xur1.lns.uk.cw.net [193.195.25.70]
    8 20 ms 21 ms 19 ms lonap-the.c4l.co.uk [193.203.5.217]
    9 * * * Request timed out.
    10 28 ms 29 ms 29 ms speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]

    Now I'm no network engineer, although I have several that work next to me. So please don't ask me what this means other than the internet is most definitely slow and traffic to Morecambe is not going onto the internet.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 290
    Forum Member
    Righty, here's one for the techies....

    Used Wireshark to get the IP addresses of the speedtest servers. Morecambe Smallworld server is 84.19.126.16 and Lancaster is 217.114.59.88.

    If you go to a command prompt and use TRACERT command and the IP address you can see how the traffic is routed to each destination.

    So routing to Morecambe speedtest server looks like this...

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 84.19.126.16

    Tracing route to host-84-19-126-16.smallworlduk.com [84.19.126.16]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 8 ms 7 ms 36 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 5 ms 6 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms carzswh01-ve17.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.50]

    6 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms morzcr01-ve15.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.41]
    7 46 ms 50 ms 30 ms morzswh01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.26]

    8 12 ms 9 ms 9 ms host-84-19-126-16.smallworlduk.com [84.19.126.16

    Which in laymens terms shows the traffic is not leaving their network on it's way from your PC to the Morecambe speedtest server = good speeds.

    Now trying the same on Lancaster Speedtest server you can see the hops are much longer in length, hence the speed drops as packets may be lost or have to be re-sent due to errors = poor speeds.

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 217.114.59.88

    Tracing route to speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 3 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 7 ms 16 ms 6 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 6 ms 9 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 7 ms 5 ms 5 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms host-80-255-192-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192
    .254]
    6 19 ms 21 ms 20 ms anchor-inside-1-g5-0-0-s1650.router.demon.net [1
    93.195.186.149]
    7 20 ms 19 ms 20 ms xe-0-1-0-xur1.lns.uk.cw.net [193.195.25.70]
    8 20 ms 21 ms 19 ms lonap-the.c4l.co.uk [193.203.5.217]
    9 * * * Request timed out.
    10 28 ms 29 ms 29 ms speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]

    Tried Skipton Speedtest server as a comparison...

    C:\Users\AndrewTaylor>tracert 217.114.59.88

    Tracing route to speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 3 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
    2 7 ms 16 ms 6 ms host-80-255-209-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.209
    .254]
    3 6 ms 6 ms 9 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    4 7 ms 5 ms 5 ms irvzcr01-ve10.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192.33]
    5 7 ms 5 ms 6 ms host-80-255-192-254.smallworlduk.com [80.255.192
    .254]
    6 19 ms 21 ms 20 ms anchor-inside-1-g5-0-0-s1650.router.demon.net [1
    93.195.186.149]
    7 20 ms 19 ms 20 ms xe-0-1-0-xur1.lns.uk.cw.net [193.195.25.70]
    8 20 ms 21 ms 19 ms lonap-the.c4l.co.uk [193.203.5.217]
    9 * * * Request timed out.
    10 28 ms 29 ms 29 ms speedtest.luns.net.uk [217.114.59.88]

    Now I'm no network engineer, although I have several that work next to me. So please don't ask me what this means other than the internet is most definitely slow and traffic to Morecambe is not going onto the internet.

    Hi

    The work done last night involved temporarily forcing all traffic from Irvine out of our C&W feed rather than internally. There is no direct connection from Irvine to Morecambe internally (although Morecambe and Carlisle can fall over to Irvine and out if required). So you are correct that traffic from Irvine to Morecambe is not going anywhere - we disconnected that link last night.

    The situation is rather different if you live in Lancaster, Carlisle and Morecambe, where our customers are getting very good speeds.

    Carlisle, Morecambe and Lancaster traffic is routed via Manchester to Level3, Global X and our peering partners (incl BBC, Google etc). Irvine traffic used to go this way as well if it was the best available route (esp for BBC iPlayer etc).

    Because of the problems we have been having with the new routers in Irvine we reverted back to the old routers and pushed all the Irvine traffic out via C&W. This means continued contention during the peak time but has substantially improved performance off peak. In the meantime we are working hard to get the new routers working as they should before reinstating them.

    The new architecture has made a big difference to Lancaster, Morecambe and Carlisle and will do in Irvine and Troon - but its not working correctly and we are working hard on that. Speed tests and trace routes are useful so please keep sending them in.

    Thanks

    David
    Smallworld Cable
Sign In or Register to comment.