PDA

View Full Version : Is there something wrong with my connection



willie_M
21-08-2004, 09:34 PM
Cursed dialup troubles...

But I don't want to go to broadband... that could be even worse under telecoms rule...

Anyway, I run a quicksilver connection and it's been timing out a lot lately so I pinged the quicksilver server for a while and heres the results....

Sent = 545 Recieved = 371 Lost = 174 (31% Loss)
Min = 125ms Max = 1485ms Avg = 500ms

Thats really shitty right?

george12
22-08-2004, 02:14 AM
Go to broadband. But don't go under telecom's rule.

http://www.orcon.co.nz

As for your dialup troubles: Dialup = trouble, and your ping times are normal. If (When) you get broadband you can expect about 50ms to your ISP, 55-65ms in NZ, and 150-350ms worldwide. That's what I get.

Cheers
George

metla
22-08-2004, 02:29 AM
your connection sucks.

Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=58
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=58
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=58
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 122ms, Maximum = 206ms, Average = 149ms

Mike
22-08-2004, 02:51 AM
> your connection sucks.

I agree

> Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=206ms TTL=58
> Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=58
> Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=58
> Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=58
>
> Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
> Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0%
> (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 122ms, Maximum = 206ms, Average =
> e = 149ms

And mine:

Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 130ms, Maximum = 154ms, Average = 139ms

Mike.

PS this is interesting - I got an email notification to say this thread had been updated as if I was watching it or had posted in it... but I wasn't and hadn't ?:|

tweak\'e
22-08-2004, 12:25 PM
shitty yes...join the club :)

however if you are in the country it could be considered normal.

how far from the exchange are you ?

borrow a mates isp account , set it up on your pc and test it. if the results are the same then most likly its your lines that are poor not the isp.

with lines that bad forget ADSL it just won't work.

MrBeef
22-08-2004, 01:05 PM
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 110ms, Average = 97ms

Your guys dial-up sucks.

haha! And i live on a farm

pulling hair out
22-08-2004, 01:05 PM
Hi willi_M

I'm on Quicksilver too, and since they've changed the number that CHCH dials up to, I am always getting those timeouts. One night I changed back to the old number but couldn't get through at all then.

Marg.

godfather
22-08-2004, 01:12 PM
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=55
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 64ms, Average = 63ms

Murray P
22-08-2004, 01:48 PM
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 63ms, Maximum = 63ms, Average = 63ms

willie_M
23-08-2004, 02:12 AM
You guys, that isn't very accurate....

I sent 500 packets.... you guys only did for... for the love of science do 50 at least!

BTW, broadband is too expensive...

I am hating telecom soooooooo much at this point! Greedy bastards they are. Just like microsoft! Only care about the shareholders, not the users!

Orcon owns way more submerged cables than telescum, why don't they shaft them and deny access to the lines unless telecom eases up on the prices and caps etc.... telecom would be forked! they own like 2 lines heading to intl waters!

If only that foxy chick that owns slingshot nz with would merge with orcon..... they would control the copper!

zqwerty
23-08-2004, 02:30 AM
Query 202.89.128.19 at whois.thur.de
Process query: '202.89.128.19'
Query recognized as IP.
Querying whois.apnic.net:43 with whois.

% [whois.apnic.net node-2]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

inetnum: 202.89.128.0 - 202.89.159.255
netname: MERCURY1-NZ
descr: Mercury Telecommunications Ltd
country: NZ
admin-c: MH63-AP
tech-c: MF83-AP
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-MERCURY-NZ
changed: hostmaster@apnic.net 20010215
changed: hostmaster@apinc.net 20020125
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
source: APNIC

person: Matthew Hobbs
address: Mercury Telecommunications Ltd
address: PO Box 99856, Newmarket, Auckland
country: NZ
phone: +64 21 336-629
fax-no: +64 9 916-0301
e-mail: mhobbs@quicksilver.co.nz
nic-hdl: MH63-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-MERCURY-NZ
changed: hostmaster@apnic.net 19991103
source: APNIC
changed: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz 20040422
remarks: -----------------------------
remarks: Send abuse reports to
remarks: abuse@quicksilver.co.nz
remarks: -----------------------------

person: Mark Frater
address: Quicksilver Internet
address: P.O. Box 99856
address: Newmarket
address: Auckland
country: NZ
phone: +64-9-9160300
fax-no: +64-9-9160301
e-mail: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz
nic-hdl: MF83-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-NEW
changed: mfrater@quicksilver.co.nz 20020122
source: APNIC

Query done.

Mike
23-08-2004, 05:49 PM
> You guys, that isn't very accurate....
>
> I sent 500 packets.... you guys only did for... for
> the love of science do 50 at least!

Pinging 202.89.128.19 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=151ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 113ms, Maximum = 151ms, Average = 120ms

Happy now? :D

Mike.

Mike
23-08-2004, 06:04 PM
> > You guys, that isn't very accurate....
> >
> > I sent 500 packets.... you guys only did for...
> > for the love of science do 50 at least!

I was bored, so I just sent 500 packets, increasing the packet size to 128 bytes and here are the results:

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 500, Received = 500, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 112ms, Maximum = 1626ms, Average = 129ms

I would say its a problem with your connection :)

Mike.

MrBeef
23-08-2004, 06:25 PM
Pinging 202.89.128.19 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 202.89.128.19:
Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 110ms, Maximum = 150ms, Average = 118ms

I love our connection, we are like 3.5 KM from the Local Exchange, and then about 1.2 KM from (whati presume is a booster). All this about 4.7 km from the SH 1. Its awesome, we live on a farm.

Growly
23-08-2004, 08:49 PM
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56
Reply from 202.89.128.19: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=56

I win

davidb
23-08-2004, 09:22 PM
doesn't count when you ping you own nic growly...lol!!

tedheath
23-08-2004, 11:09 PM
I feel sorry for you Willy, all these clowns are showing how how good their connections are compared to yours. Same thing if someone says they cant get to website they take great pleasure in saying they can.
They probaly cant but are just being smart asses. What you need to do is work your way through the trouble shooting guide from the xtra website for a start.
Check your BT boxes if they are 3 wire change them all to 2 wire.
It dosent cost much to change the wiring as well. Dont let the wire cross an electrical cable anywhere. I fixed one house by spotting the cable clip tack had gone through the copper wire cutting it.
Every junction box you put in causes higher resistance, try and get your computer connection as close as possible to the Telcom line from the road.
Put all your phone connections after the computer one.
If your phone line is clear when you talk on it and the dial tone is not scratchy you are on a win.
If its still crap ring Telecom and get them to fix your pair.
I had problems and it was a high resistance join 5 km away its been mint ever since. I t was choice Telecom belived me there was something wrong and spent hours till they fixed it. Good lads.
I live in Northern East Massey Dorkland ,dont laugh I have bad tv reception and 021 and 025 dont work here. I get better reception on backblocks in Helensville and Woodhill forest than here. So if us Dorklanders can have problems anyone can.
Broadband is still too expensive and a great overkill I only need email , look at a few porn sites. When its less than 25 smackeroos a month unlimited caps and connects everytime all the time I might only then consider it.

cheers
tedheath

Mike
24-08-2004, 08:11 PM
> I feel sorry for you Willy, all these clowns are
> showing how how good their connections are compared
> to yours. Same thing if someone says they cant get
> to website they take great pleasure in saying they
> can.
> They probaly cant but are just being smart asses.

Be careful who you're calling a clown tedheath. If you read Willy's original post you'll note that he actually asked us whether his connection was bad, and so we ran similar tests to his on our own connections so he (and we) could compare. Would you rather us ignore his original question and post unrelated replies? ?:|

Mike.