Are Eircom better than the rest?

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 3:47pm #1

No, I'm being serious. I'm not a fan of the company, but simply put, they have most likely engineered it so that their connection is a step above the ones offered by their Re-Seller Wholesale customers like Imagine, BT, UTV, etc.

I have access to an Eircom connection remotely on some of the PC's at Shannon Community Radio, in Shannon, Co. Clare, at which their connection has been upgraded from 2Mb to 3Mb. Before the upgrade and post-upgrade ping times are the same, as it's only on 3Mb, and there's no need for excessive Interleaving. For the purpose of this thread, I opted to connect one of the worst spec'ed PC there, a PIII. This will ensure that nothing is exaggerated. Read on for details.

So, what am I yapping on about? This is high treason, you might be thinking. Am I singing Eircom's praises? Not exactly.

What I have done is I have a screen capture of myself using Radmin to connect to the PC in Shannon using 3Mb Eircom broadband. In the capture, you can see that I have pinged a server located in Sweden. I've tried this a few times over the last few months, and even did it on another Eircom connection at a friend's house. The results are fantastic. Never have I ever got that low latency before, and it remains consistent with all the attempts I have made in the past from the Eircom connection.

I've had broadband since June 2004, starting firstly off with UTV 512k, upgraded to 1Mb in 2005, and then in early 2006, I opted to switch over to BT 3Mb. I took on UTV 3Mb back in June of this year since moving house, and before the upgrades, the ping was not that low, nor has it ever been.

Since I'm on the 7.6Mb package and have high amounts of Interleaving that is interfering with my ping times, I challenge anyone who is on an Eircom Re-Seller connection to do an ordinary DOS ping to that server (mta.abgames.net). Let's see if you can get anything close to 51ms-52ms. Over the past 3 years, I have always been receiving pings from 70-80ms to that specific server. Less often or not, pings in the late 60's may appear, but no lower.

Please don't bother trying unless you use the residential 3Mb or 1Mb packages, as the 7.6Mb package will have elevated ping times and will ruin this challenge if ping times from that are posted.

Also, please post what ISP and Package that you use so we can compare results from various ISP's. There's no point in posting your pings unless we know.

So, help me out, and tell me if what I'm trying to prove is worthwhile or have I just been unlucky over the last 3-4 years to have gotten latencies of 70ms+?

Thanks.

P.S. Here's a longer dragged out ping of the same server, to prove that the results are consistent.

PogMoThoin · 19-08-2008 3:54pm

HEHE, I just copied your XP licence key

Naw m8, you might think bout removing it from the pic

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 3:56pm

PogMoThoin wrote: »

HEHE, I just copied your XP licence key

Naw m8, you might think bout removing it from the pic

Removed. Thanks.

Rattlehead_ie · 19-08-2008 3:59pm

IBB 3Mb Serives of the Rathmines Exchange, Unfortunately at this remote site Ive nothing but Linux machines, so cant do DOS stuff.

--- mta.abgames.net ping statistics ---
46 packets transmitted, 46 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 45.205/46.240/66.523/3.083 ms

/FAIL

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:01pm

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

IBB 3Mb Serives of the Rathmines Exchange

--- mta.abgames.net ping statistics ---
46 packets transmitted, 46 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 45.205/46.240/66.523/3.083 ms

/FAIL

Can you do a DOS ping for me? I'd be interested to see if IBB are any better than the Re-Sellers, which that may indicate that Eircom are not at fault for the lower service of their Re-Sellers.

PogMoThoin · 19-08-2008 4:05pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

Can you do a DOS ping for me?

Its linux, how can he do a Dos ping? What he's done is post the results of a ping from the terminal in linux, exactly the same thing.

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:07pm

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Its linux, how can he do a Dos ping? What he's done is post the results of a ping from the terminal in linux, exactly the same thing.

I use both XP and Linux. I was hoping just to keep it consistent, but yeah, I'm sure they're both just as accurate as each other. I've only just started to use Linux, so I'm fairly new to it all.

Anyone else want to try and put this to bed?

BaconZombie · 19-08-2008 4:07pm


Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 44ms, Average = 43ms

C:\WINDOWS\system32>

DECEiFER wrote: »

Can you do a DOS ping for me? I'd be interested to see if IBB are any better than the Re-Sellers, which that may indicate that Eircom are not at fault for the lower service of their Re-Sellers.

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:09pm

BOFH_139 wrote: »

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0&#37; loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 43ms, Maximum = 44ms, Average = 43ms

C:\WINDOWS\system32>

That's not bad at all, but you didn't mention what ISP and package you use?

GreyArea · 19-08-2008 4:14pm

--- 217.211.168.4 ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 45.588/46.561/49.613/1.154 ms

Conclusion:
Your latency is relatively better than it was before but worse than all other posted latencies... sucks to be you.

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:19pm

GreyArea wrote: »

--- 217.211.168.4 ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 45.588/46.561/49.613/1.154 ms

Conclusion:
Your latency is relatively better than it was before but worse than all other posted latencies... sucks to be you.

I'm actually using UTV 7.6Mb. My latency to that server is in the 90's now. Sucks to be me is right, but I intend on getting that sorted sooner rather than later. I'm also assuming that anyone else using a Re-Seller's 7.6Mb package won't be getting anything less than myself by much, especially if it's UTV being used. It's clear that you decided not to bother reading my entire post.

But I must ask, what ISP and package are you using?

matrim · 19-08-2008 4:37pm

Eircom 3Mb business package.

--- mta.abgames.net ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 80.215/83.531/96.046/5.640 ms

NTL 20Mb package

--- mta.abgames.net ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4001ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 76.247/86.904/97.692/7.099 ms

Please don't bother trying unless you use the residential 3Mb or 1Mb packages, as the 7.6Mb package will have elevated ping times and will ruin this challenge if ping times from that are posted.

So essentially what your saying is Eircom are the best but don't use their new package because it will give you bad times and make them look bad.

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:41pm

matrim wrote: »

So essentially what your saying is Eircom are the best but don't use their new package because it will give you bad times and make them look bad.

Oh God no. I'm all for making Eircom look bad, if it will help with progress.

I'm saying that even before the upgrades, it might be possible that they have been offering a higher service to their direct residential customers than their Re-Sellers have, but how that is, I don't know. I am merely curious to know if Eircom are offering a better service than the Re-Sellers are. That's all.

It's just that with the 7.6Mb package giving out so many problems and that it's using higher Interleaving, it's better to use the lower packages that have it set as normal, for more accurate and realistic ping times.

Your times are quite high, I wonder why that is?

hbr · 19-08-2008 4:51pm

Eircom 3Mb/s ADSL
Cork City.

[hbr@localhost ~]$ ping -c 4 217.211.168.4
PING 217.211.168.4 (217.211.168.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=56.4 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=63.5 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=53.7 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=54.9 ms

--- 217.211.168.4 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3066ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 53.775/57.183/63.558/3.802 ms

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 4:53pm

hbr wrote: »

Eircom 3Mb/s ADSL
Cork City.

[hbr@localhost ~]$ ping -c 4 217.211.168.4
PING 217.211.168.4 (217.211.168.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=56.4 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=63.5 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=53.7 ms
64 bytes from 217.211.168.4: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=54.9 ms

--- 217.211.168.4 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3066ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 53.775/57.183/63.558/3.802 ms

That's around the same as the Jet FM connection's times. Thanks for posting all the relevant info.

Would anyone who happens to be using BT and/or UTV 3Mb be able to post?

cian1500ww · 19-08-2008 5:32pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

Would anyone who happens to be using BT and/or UTV 3Mb be able to post?

UTV 3MB:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Cian>ping mta.abgames.net

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 138ms, Maximum = 214ms, Average = 174ms

C:\Users\Cian>

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 5:55pm

cian1500ww wrote: »

UTV 3MB:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Cian>ping mta.abgames.net

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 138ms, Maximum = 214ms, Average = 174ms

C:\Users\Cian>

WHOA. That's quite bad. Maybe try pinging another server to see if it's your connection at fault or if it's the route taken to the Swedish server's fault.

daffy_duc · 19-08-2008 6:36pm

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 51ms, Maximum = 52ms, Average = 51ms

Irishbroadband 12mb

cian1500ww · 19-08-2008 6:37pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

WHOA. That's quite bad. Maybe try pinging another server to see if it's your connection at fault or if it's the route taken to the Swedish server's fault.

C:\Users\Cian>ping google.ie

Pinging google.ie [72.14.207.104] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 72.14.207.104: bytes=32 time=303ms TTL=239
Reply from 72.14.207.104: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=239
Reply from 72.14.207.104: bytes=32 time=286ms TTL=239
Reply from 72.14.207.104: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=239

Ping statistics for 72.14.207.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 233ms, Maximum = 314ms, Average = 284ms

C:\Users\Cian>ping boards.ie

Pinging boards.ie [89.234.66.107] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=58
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=58
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=58
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 89.234.66.107:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 133ms, Maximum = 214ms, Average = 168ms

C:\Users\Cian>

I've been on to UTV about it and they say its due to the upgrades, I haven't been upgraded yet

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 6:57pm

cian1500ww wrote: »

I've been on to UTV about it and they say its due to the upgrades, I haven't been upgraded yet

They don't know that. They're only using it as an excuse to fob you off for now. I'd press harder.

cian1500ww · 19-08-2008 7:05pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

They don't know that. They're only using it as an excuse to fob you off for now. I'd press harder.

Thats exactly what I am going to do.

lmimmfn · 19-08-2008 7:26pm

the only part that matters is pinging the first server on your isp, everything after that is specific to the isp, their ip network and their routing setup, e.g. im on utv and it takes me 50ms to get to their server and that mta.abgames.net address takes 123ms, therefore with utv's setup its spending 73ms from utvs server to that address which has absolutely nothing to do with my connection( of course its round trip so half that to reach server )

crownhill · 19-08-2008 7:28pm

UTV 2mb Package not upgraded yet/Post September

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 80ms, Maximum = 82ms, Average = 80ms

DECEiFER · 19-08-2008 7:41pm

crownhill wrote: »

UTV 2mb Package not upgraded yet/Post September

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47
Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 80ms, Maximum = 82ms, Average = 80ms

I gotta say, that looks about normal. I used to get those pings all through 2005 until July 2008, when I was upgraded.

Bohrio · 19-08-2008 10:05pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

I gotta say, that looks about normal. I used to get those pings all through 2005 until July 2008, when I was upgraded.

I think deciding wether Eircom is the best or not just by pointing at one website as reference is not enough.

For ex

If I ping rte.ie I get

Pinging rte.ie [89.207.56.94] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 89.207.56.94: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56

Reply from 89.207.56.94: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56

Reply from 89.207.56.94: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=56

Reply from 89.207.56.94: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 89.207.56.94:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms

If I ping bbc.co.uk I get

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.131] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=108

Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=108

Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=108

Reply from 212.58.224.131: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=108

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.131:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 13ms

and if I ping mta.abgames.net I get

Pinging mta.abgames.net [217.211.168.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=45

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=45

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=45

Reply from 217.211.168.4: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=45

Ping statistics for 217.211.168.4:

Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

Minimum = 39ms, Maximum = 42ms, Average = 40ms

As you can see it all, or most of it, depends on how your ISP is routing your packets.

I am on FTTH therefore those low pings (in side ireland), as soon as I go abroad the pings increase.

I think this is a very good thread but you need more than just 1 site to make a good diagnostic.

Give it a go, try other sites and include tracerts...

Jonathan · 20-08-2008 8:23am

BT 3Mbps
Fastpath
malahide exchange

Ping mta.abgames.net
min/avg/max
65.0/68.7/70.0

DECEiFER · 20-08-2008 1:59pm

jmccrohan wrote: »

BT 3Mbps
Fastpath
malahide exchange

Ping mta.abgames.net
min/avg/max
65.0/68.7/70.0

Wow wow wow, stop right there. Care to explain how you managed to get on Fastpath? :eek:

I asked, but was told that it will only be possible when the upgrades are fully complete.

Your pings are below normal, below my old averages, probably because you're closer to Sweden than I am and because you're on Fastpath. Looks about right for BT. Thanks for posting.

Bohrio · 20-08-2008 2:16pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

Wow wow wow, stop right there. Care to explain how you managed to get on Fastpath? :eek:

I asked, but was told that it will only be possible when the upgrades are fully complete.

Your pings are below normal, below my old averages, probably because you're closer to Sweden than I am and because you're on Fastpath. Looks about right for BT. Thanks for posting.

Either he hasnt been upgraded or he has but was on a old 2 mb package..

DECEiFER · 20-08-2008 2:23pm

Bohrio wrote: »

Either he hasnt been upgraded or he has but was on a old 2 mb package..

Yeah, I'd imagine it's the former. If it's the latter, then I seriously want to know how he managed it.

Jonathan · 20-08-2008 2:27pm

Old 2mb package, got the upgrade to 3mb.

DECEiFER · 20-08-2008 2:30pm

jmccrohan wrote: »

Old 2mb package, got the upgrade to 3mb.

So, tell us a story. How did you manage to get on Fastpath? :P

Bohrio · 20-08-2008 2:52pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

So, tell us a story. How did you manage to get on Fastpath? :P

if you were on an auld 2 mb package when you are upgraded to 3mb you will remain on low interleave.

Only 3mb customer are put to high interleave..

DECEiFER · 20-08-2008 2:57pm

Bohrio wrote: »

if you were on an auld 2 mb package when you are upgraded to 3mb you will remain on low interleave.

Only 3mb customer are put to high interleave..

Would that also be the same for those who are not using Interleaving, who are on Fastpath?

I suppose we'll have to wait for Eircom to finish the **** up.

Bohrio · 20-08-2008 3:46pm

DECEiFER wrote: »

Would that also be the same for those who are not using Interleaving, who are on Fastpath?

I suppose we'll have to wait for Eircom to finish the **** up.

This is what eircom have at the moment

old 1 mb service 2 options:

1mb Low interleave
1mb high interleave

Old 2 mb service 3 options:

2 mb low interleave
2 mb high interleave
3 mb low interleave

Old 3 mb service will have the same interleave different speeds (all high interleave)

DECEiFER · 20-08-2008 3:55pm

Bohrio wrote: »

This is what eircom have at the moment

old 1 mb service 2 options:

1mb Low interleave
1mb high interleave

Old 2 mb service 3 options:

2 mb low interleave
2 mb high interleave
3 mb low interleave

Old 3 mb service will have the same interleave different speeds (all high interleave)

"Low Interleave" isn't "Fastpath". Even "No Interleave" isn't "Fastpath". So if it's not an option, how does one obtain it? :rolleyes:

Are Eircom better than the rest?

Comments