Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help in AT&T Broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r3966560 en Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:25:00 EDT Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:25:00 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3975858 OldPissy : Hey people just face it.. AT&T SUCKS DONKEY ?????!! They will never fix this crap until in our lifetimes. They lie, blow smoke up our as-! Mislead all the time & constantly pass the buck. Never ever will AT&T accept responsibility for the crappy services they give us. They to busy changing they're website and running adds on the home page. Not to mention expanding to other areas before fixing what they have here.. I have over 112 tickets going to tasc for the same crap since January 03...

Look at these & see why I have a tude. Like I don't have a damn reason.

PING 2 GATEWAY @ 1745HRS
H:\DOCS\ATT-SUCKS>ping 12.246.104.1

Pinging 12.246.104.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 12.246.104.1: bytes=32 time=1975ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.104.1: bytes=32 time=1793ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.104.1: bytes=32 time=1968ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.104.1: bytes=32 time=2843ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 12.246.104.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1793ms, Maximum = 2843ms, Average = 2144ms

==============================

Ping statistics for 12.246.104.1:
Packets: Sent = 336, Received = 335, Lost = 1 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 1561ms, Average = 510ms
Control-C

===================================

THIS IS AFTER THE NEW CMTS HERE

H:\DOCS\ATT-SUCKS>ping 10.185.0.1 -n 10

Pinging 10.185.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=423ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=335ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=378ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=377ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=319ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 10.185.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 195ms, Maximum = 423ms, Average = 324ms

====================

TODAYS at the cmts

Pinging 10.185.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=304ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=253ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=197ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=244ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=473ms TTL=255
Reply from 10.185.0.1: bytes=32 time=342ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 10.185.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 153ms, Maximum = 473ms, Average = 270ms

=======================================

TODAY AT MY GATEWAY

H:\DOCS\ATT-SUCKS>ping 12.246.125.1 -n 10

Pinging 12.246.125.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=455ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=420ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=272ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=367ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=523ms TTL=255
Reply from 12.246.125.1: bytes=32 time=379ms TTL=255

Ping statistics for 12.246.125.1:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 147ms, Maximum = 523ms, Average = 323ms

*************************************************

Go figure.. Some people get fixed & some get thrown to the curb.. I sure as hell wouldn't take anything AT&T says as a fact anymore. They don't even keep they're word.

Maybe if I use profanity enough they will do me a favor & close my account. I wouldn't doubt thats next since they cant or wont fix the crap..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3975858 Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:32:11 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3968521 deblin : That's exactly how it is. I wonder if it's typical with all cable companies or just ATTBI/former @home? Because it seems to me they do NO forecasting for their customer base, and simply allow their existing infrastructure to get used up, causing latency and performance problems. Then, when they realize it's overloaded (WAY too late), they place the order for more parts/etc to increase the capacity. I've seen it happen over and over, they just have NO insight into their market and how many people they'll sign up. They're unique in that every other successful business I know of has people who actually do forecasting and business analysis. It's like ATTBI just has a time schedule when they just blindly upgrade their equipment, regardless of the load on the system/etc.
--
"I drank what?" -Socrates ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3968521 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:17:20 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3968304 anon : Yep, I live in the Pocket area and have had trouble on and off the last few years. Seems like every so often it runs great then you run months at a time with horrid pings.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3968304 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:53:24 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3967090 AD44 : I'm deffinetly going to call SureWest tomorrow, but not holding my breath. I live right on the border area as well in between Howe/Fulton on Hurley..right below Arden. I ordered IDSL to at least play online games through speakeasy. Now I will have 1 idsl 144/144 and att cable whatever/whatever. I would love to switch my internet and cable tv service to surewest though!

Does anyone know the pricing for SureWest internet??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3967090 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:42:04 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3966560 tecarte : ATTention! everyone! if u live in the arden ,or natomas area go check out winfirst.com. now owned by surewest. they have fiber optic in your area. i wish i could get it but i live the border of where their service stops. speeds are way faster! the price is comparable. much more speed for your buck! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3966560 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:44:56 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963803 AD44 : I live in the Arden area, and am having the same problems!! They already sent a tech and the tech said our signal is great, its on thier end. Now they are saying its my modem, so are sending another tech.

The bastards.. =(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963803 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:38:17 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963470 tecarte : i live in off la riviera dr. and my speeds (WERE) great until about a month and a half ago. then crap. im getting pissed off. they need to fix the problem. I cant wait until wincable gets to my neighborhood which is now Surewest.soon as they do , bye bye attbi.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963470 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:53:03 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963346 Solja_Bear : Rancho Cordova here also:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>tracert www.attbi.com

Tracing route to www.attbi.com [204.127.202.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 11 ms 11 ms 17 ms 10.183.32.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms 12.244.69.129
4 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms 12.244.73.34
5 15 ms 26 ms 18 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 13 ms 13 ms 20 ms gbr1-p50.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.162]
7 14 ms 17 ms 14 ms tbr1-p013601.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.77]
8 59 ms 60 ms 55 ms tbr1-cl1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.10.5]
9 80 ms 80 ms 75 ms tbr1-p012301.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.10.1]
10 91 ms 75 ms 74 ms gbr1-p10.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.11.2]
11 75 ms 72 ms 75 ms gar1-p360.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.1.129]
12 74 ms 82 ms 76 ms mdf1-gsr12-2-pos2-0.nyc3.attens.net [12.122.255.
162]
13 74 ms 74 ms 75 ms sccsbix11-1-4.attbi.com [63.240.64.34]
14 91 ms 82 ms 73 ms www.attbi.com [204.127.202.8]

Trace complete.

C:\>tracert www.kernal.org

Tracing route to www.kernal.org [209.126.186.73]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 11 ms 11 ms 21 ms 10.183.32.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 14 ms 16 ms 32 ms 12.244.69.129
4 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms 12.244.73.34
5 12 ms 14 ms 18 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 13 ms 13 ms 14 ms ggr1-p360.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.65]
7 18 ms 17 ms 40 ms pos4-0.cr7.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [208.184.232.153]
8 29 ms 25 ms 19 ms so-6-2-0.mpr3.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [64.125.30.6]
9 34 ms 18 ms 33 ms pos5-0.mpr1.pao1.us.mfnx.net [208.184.233.142]
10 19 ms 20 ms 22 ms 64.124.11.198.cogent-above.above.net [64.124.11.
198]
11 19 ms 20 ms 55 ms p6-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.14
5]
12 20 ms 19 ms 36 ms p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.94
]
13 31 ms 30 ms 31 ms p13-0.core01.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.7
3]
14 40 ms 39 ms 33 ms p5-0.core01.san01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.78
]
15 40 ms 35 ms 34 ms g7.ba21.b006588-1.san01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.2
8.66.106]
16 93 ms 33 ms 37 ms ge1-2.gw65-02.kmc01.sdcix.net [66.28.28.126]
17 35 ms 72 ms 36 ms 209.126.186.73

Trace complete.

I seem to always timeout on the second hop, but the numbers are all pretty darn good.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3963346 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:33:14 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3961653 mcoleg : Rancho Cordova here

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop>tracert www

Tracing route to www.attbi.com [63.240.76.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 * 220 ms 316 ms 10.183.32.1
2 179 ms 260 ms 275 ms 12.244.118.33
3 192 ms 261 ms 151 ms 12.244.69.129
4 69 ms 219 ms 96 ms 12.244.73.34
5 151 ms 165 ms 137 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 275 ms 315 ms 399 ms gbr1-p50.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.162]
7 247 ms 96 ms 206 ms tbr1-p013501.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.11.73]
8 205 ms 248 ms 274 ms tbr1-p013602.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.11.37]
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 83 ms 219 ms 193 ms gbr2-p10.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.11.6]
11 124 ms 123 ms 206 ms gar1-p370.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.1.133]
12 206 ms 219 ms 234 ms mdf1-gsr12-2-pos2-0.nyc3.attens.net [12.122.255.
162]
13 138 ms 192 ms 96 ms sccsbix11-1-4.attbi.com [63.240.64.34]
14 261 ms 110 ms 288 ms www.attbi.com [63.240.76.8]

Trace complete.

Notice the fine ping on the first hop.

And, pinging a "site with real bandwidth", as someone on these forums pointed out we all should do, lol:

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop>ping www.kernel.org

Pinging zeus-pub.kernel.org [204.152.189.116] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 204.152.189.116: bytes=32 time=288ms TTL=52
Reply from 204.152.189.116: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=52
Reply from 204.152.189.116: bytes=32 time=344ms TTL=52
Reply from 204.152.189.116: bytes=32 time=302ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 204.152.189.116:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 137ms, Maximum = 344ms, Average = 267ms

As I understand it, the ping flux cannot possibly be that high on a good connection.

There is also cough..SBC..cough in the area ;)

ATTBI is (insert your favorite expression here)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3961653 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 04:22:51 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3960843 xrandom :
said by tkenny53:
From what I'm told, you shouldnt see IP address without the server info. This seems to be a flag for service tech.since your first few hops are this way I would guess this is the problem


The person who told you that does not know what he/she is talking about.

Now about that lag.. hmm can't help sorry.. keep on complaining.. maybe they will get just annoyed from you calling to fix it :) Its sad when that is what it takes to get a problem fixed... :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3960843 Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:16:08 EDT Re: Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3952482 tkenny53 : From what I'm told, you shouldnt see IP address without the server info. This seems to be a flag for service tech.since your first few hops are this way I would guess this is the problem, Got to get ATT on the ball, also try your tracert to mail.attbi.com,thats ATT standard and keeps the server in ATT systems.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3952482 Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:35:22 EDT Sacramento 95825 I Pay 50 bucks for this LAG Help http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3949811 Mack Lewis : Target Name: www.attbi.com
IP: 204.127.198.9
Date/Time: 7/26/2002 4:25:30 PM

1 295 ms [10.183.32.1]
2 342 ms [12.244.118.33]
3 473 ms [12.244.69.129]
4 502 ms [12.244.73.34]
5 539 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 562 ms idf26-gsr12-1-pos-6-0.rwc1.attens.net [12.122.255.222]
7 593 ms rwcsbix11-3-1.attbi.com [63.241.85.254]
8 613 ms www.attbi.com [204.127.198.9]

Target Name: www.attbi.com
IP: 204.127.198.9
Date/Time: 7/26/2002 4:25:30 PM

1 295 ms 136 ms 251 ms [10.183.32.1]
2 342 ms 173 ms 277 ms [12.244.118.33]
3 473 ms 195 ms 305 ms [12.244.69.129]
4 502 ms 211 ms 329 ms [12.244.73.34]
5 539 ms 252 ms 358 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 562 ms 278 ms 379 ms idf26-gsr12-1-pos-6-0.rwc1.attens.net [12.122.255.222]
7 593 ms 439 ms 425 ms rwcsbix11-3-1.attbi.com [63.241.85.254]
8 613 ms 455 ms 441 ms www.attbi.com [204.127.198.9]

Target Name: www.attbi.com
IP: 204.127.198.9
Date/Time: 7/26/2002 4:25:30 PM

1 295 ms 136 ms 251 ms 139 ms [10.183.32.1]
2 342 ms 173 ms 277 ms 151 ms [12.244.118.33]
3 473 ms 195 ms 305 ms 167 ms [12.244.69.129]
4 502 ms 211 ms 329 ms 177 ms [12.244.73.34]
5 539 ms 252 ms 358 ms 197 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 562 ms 278 ms 379 ms 223 ms idf26-gsr12-1-pos-6-0.rwc1.attens.net [12.122.255.222]
7 593 ms 439 ms 425 ms 257 ms rwcsbix11-3-1.attbi.com [63.241.85.254]
8 613 ms 455 ms 441 ms 279 ms www.attbi.com [204.127.198.9]

Target Name: www.attbi.com
IP: 204.127.198.9
Date/Time: 7/26/2002 4:27:29 PM

1 -32765 ms 126 ms -32765 ms 185 ms -32765 ms 214 ms -32765 ms 173 ms -32765 ms 273 ms [10.183.32.1]
2 -32765 ms 158 ms -32765 ms 219 ms -32765 ms 238 ms -32765 ms 207 ms -32765 ms 285 ms [12.244.118.33]
3 -32765 ms 195 ms -32765 ms 241 ms -32765 ms 272 ms -32765 ms 246 ms -32765 ms 315 ms [12.244.69.129]
4 -32765 ms 219 ms -32765 ms 253 ms -32765 ms 293 ms -32765 ms 268 ms -32765 ms 343 ms [12.244.73.34]
5 -32765 ms 256 ms -32765 ms 289 ms -32765 ms 330 ms -32765 ms 298 ms -32765 ms 381 ms gbr3-p80.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
6 -32765 ms 281 ms -32765 ms 316 ms -32765 ms 543 ms -32765 ms 323 ms -32765 ms 831 ms idf26-gsr12-1-pos-6-0.rwc1.attens.net [12.122.255.222]
7 -32765 ms 314 ms -32765 ms 354 ms -32765 ms 563 ms -32765 ms 361 ms -32765 ms 852 ms rwcsbix11-3-1.attbi.com [63.241.85.254]
8 -32765 ms 336 ms -32765 ms 363 ms -32765 ms 585 ms -32765 ms 383 ms -32765 ms 883 ms www.attbi.com [204.127.198.9]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,3949811 Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:42:24 EDT