Rogers Cable Internet Canda VOIP

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by m, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. m

    m Guest

    VOIP On a Rogers 3 meg connection

    My experiences have been terrible.

    Well at first It was great .. I could call all the time and recieve
    calls. I called every day all over the place was trying to find ways to
    call places I was local to , trying to find a reson to play with it.
    6 months later just after christmas My voip connection started geting
    crummy. i noticed my ping rates dropping. (I am guessing alot of people
    in my area got highspeed?) I dunno but was unable to make or recieve a
    voip call weather it was over freeworld dial or my voip provider lines
    with out the othere party telling me they can not hear me and I am
    breaking up and that they are going to hang up now.


    I noticed my ping to my gate way increased to 100+ ms and its all
    over the place.

    My question is are there otheres out there with ping rates 60-80 with
    peeks like 180 here and there after 4pm

    Early morning its great I get like 5-10 peeking at 21 or so... as the
    day rolls pon it get crummy. thats when I can't get the calls

    after repeated calls to the rogers support lines i get that 60ms is
    fairly decent.

    I sumited numours times for them to fix my connection. for a bit there
    I had a week or so of decent net with pigs to the gate way at busy
    times (after 4pm) at 30-40ms ) I thought that was acceptible
    considering cable highspeed is my only option.

    that did not last long. Maybe I never made that many calls but its just
    as bad again. after 12 noon it gets crummy. I can dial put but I am
    lucky if I can speek for 5 mins before I lose the ability to speak to
    the othere party. the people on the othere end always seem to be decent
    clear. Just me they stop hearing.

    in my numous attempts to get them to fix that i have been told by one
    fellow technical support rogers that possibly they can fix it

    Then a bit later i managed to get a not so friendly fellow who tells me
    the service they provide is not on othere ping rates and on providing a
    3 meg service. I told him with such crummy pings to the gate way does
    not give me the full 3 meg connection he really did not listen much to
    me and went on to tell me I am wasteing my time complaining. Itold him
    I just want my internet back the way it was before the christmas nice
    and fast. I made it clear I do not run windows and that its not a issue
    of communication s spyware using up my bandwidth. unlike windows users
    I am in control of what goes in and out of my computer.

    I hear Rogers plans to roll out the VOIP of there own service .. i have
    a feeling they are not going to be very good at it. I hear also they
    want to use seperate units (not sure what they mean by that) but I got
    the impression from a few techs that it was a seperate connection all
    together for the phone service.

    I have a friend I speak with in the states NY and he gets a steady 2ms
    in a 50 ping .. All i can say is wow thats amazing. and how bad Rogers is.

    my bloody 2 cents. dam it .
    m, Jan 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. m

    radar Guest

    m wrote:
    > VOIP On a Rogers 3 meg connection
    >
    > My experiences have been terrible.
    >
    > Well at first It was great .. I could call all the time and recieve
    > calls. I called every day all over the place was trying to find ways to
    > call places I was local to , trying to find a reson to play with it. 6
    > months later just after christmas My voip connection started geting
    > crummy. i noticed my ping rates dropping. (I am guessing alot of people
    > in my area got highspeed?) I dunno but was unable to make or recieve a
    > voip call weather it was over freeworld dial or my voip provider lines
    > with out the othere party telling me they can not hear me and I am
    > breaking up and that they are going to hang up now.
    >
    >
    > I noticed my ping to my gate way increased to 100+ ms and its all
    > over the place.
    >
    > My question is are there otheres out there with ping rates 60-80 with
    > peeks like 180 here and there after 4pm
    >
    > Early morning its great I get like 5-10 peeking at 21 or so... as the
    > day rolls pon it get crummy. thats when I can't get the calls
    >
    > after repeated calls to the rogers support lines i get that 60ms is
    > fairly decent.
    >
    > I sumited numours times for them to fix my connection. for a bit there
    > I had a week or so of decent net with pigs to the gate way at busy
    > times (after 4pm) at 30-40ms ) I thought that was acceptible
    > considering cable highspeed is my only option.
    >
    > that did not last long. Maybe I never made that many calls but its just
    > as bad again. after 12 noon it gets crummy. I can dial put but I am
    > lucky if I can speek for 5 mins before I lose the ability to speak to
    > the othere party. the people on the othere end always seem to be decent
    > clear. Just me they stop hearing.
    >
    > in my numous attempts to get them to fix that i have been told by one
    > fellow technical support rogers that possibly they can fix it
    >
    > Then a bit later i managed to get a not so friendly fellow who tells me
    > the service they provide is not on othere ping rates and on providing a
    > 3 meg service. I told him with such crummy pings to the gate way does
    > not give me the full 3 meg connection he really did not listen much to
    > me and went on to tell me I am wasteing my time complaining. Itold him
    > I just want my internet back the way it was before the christmas nice
    > and fast. I made it clear I do not run windows and that its not a issue
    > of communication s spyware using up my bandwidth. unlike windows users
    > I am in control of what goes in and out of my computer.
    >
    > I hear Rogers plans to roll out the VOIP of there own service .. i have
    > a feeling they are not going to be very good at it. I hear also they
    > want to use seperate units (not sure what they mean by that) but I got
    > the impression from a few techs that it was a seperate connection all
    > together for the phone service.
    >
    > I have a friend I speak with in the states NY and he gets a steady 2ms
    > in a 50 ping .. All i can say is wow thats amazing. and how bad Rogers is.
    >
    > my bloody 2 cents. dam it .


    You're ping isn't that important with the numbers you described. It
    would be more helpful if you can actually describe you voip setup in
    detail. From what you've said so far one is to assume Rogers is the bad
    guy. Could you provide more details about your setup?
    radar, Jan 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. m

    Alan Guest

    It sounds as if the problem is that you are using a broadband
    connection to carry voip but the service provider doesn't guarantee QoS
    or bandwidth. You are simply seeing that the cable network segment you
    are attached to is more heavily used than that of your friend in NY -
    the quality and performance of the cable network may well be identical.

    When your service provider introduces VoIP based telephony service they
    will probably use the DOCSIS and PacketCable standards, which guarantee
    quality of service. This does not run over a separate network however
    would use a separate "slice" of bandwidth within the cable network that
    is reserved for voice traffic.

    Alan
    www.voiptroubleshooter.com
    Alan, Jan 29, 2005
    #3
  4. m

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Alan wrote:

    > It sounds as if the problem is that you are using a broadband
    > connection to carry voip but the service provider doesn't guarantee QoS
    > or bandwidth. You are simply seeing that the cable network segment you
    > are attached to is more heavily used than that of your friend in NY -
    > the quality and performance of the cable network may well be identical.
    >
    > When your service provider introduces VoIP based telephony service they
    > will probably use the DOCSIS and PacketCable standards, which guarantee
    > quality of service. This does not run over a separate network however
    > would use a separate "slice" of bandwidth within the cable network that
    > is reserved for voice traffic.
    >
    > Alan
    > www.voiptroubleshooter.com
    >


    Listen to Alan; I think he is 100% correct.

    Sounds to me like a number of people think they can add VoIP all by
    themselves if they have broadband!-)
    Rick Merrill, Jan 29, 2005
    #4
  5. m

    m Guest

    Well what is it you would like to know.

    I am runing a DOCSIS modem toshiba PCX2500. residential connection 3
    meg. I have a Linksys wrt54gs modem runing the sveasoft firmware. My
    computer is a Linux debian runing sarge.

    I have a snome190 IP phone connected to a Debian asterisk server located
    in anouther part of ontario on a business sympatico connection static ip.
    -Linksys pap2-na (unlocked) runing line 1 fwd
    and a babytel.ca toronto DID line 2


    My gateway ping... as Of 10 pm
    --- 69.xxx.xxx.1 ping statistics ---
    101 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max = 31.8/117.7/1034.1 ms


    69.xxx.xxx.1
    traceroute to 69.xxx.xxx.1 (69.xxx.xxx.1), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.333 ms 0.241 ms 0.218 ms
    2 10.82.8.1 (10.82.8.1) 242.906 ms * *

    $ traceroute pbx.xxxxxx.com
    traceroute to pbx.xxxxxx.com (69.xxx.xxx.xxx), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.288 ms 0.240 ms 0.226 ms
    2 10.82.8.1 (10.82.8.1) 386.191 ms 41.839 ms 44.028 ms
    3 gw03.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.91.57) 45.018 ms 35.322
    ms 42.946 ms
    4 gw01.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.80.113) 82.108 ms
    38.346 ms 41.964 ms
    5 gw02.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.81.178) 50.546 ms
    127.915 ms 104.624 ms
    6 gw02.bloor.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.80.134) 55.020 ms
    33.813 ms 50.484 ms
    7 gw04.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com (66.185.83.134) 79.091 ms
    148.505 ms 61.982 ms
    8 p13-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.213) 69.097 ms
    174.042 ms 118.112 ms
    9 p15-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.61) 97.592 ms
    315.756 ms 244.772 ms
    10 bellnexxia.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.30) 69.565 ms
    75.906 ms 74.566 ms
    11 core2-chicago23-pos0-3.in.bellnexxia.net (206.108.103.126) 151.172
    ms 98.442 ms 100.596 ms
    12 core3-toronto63-pos6-3.in.bellnexxia.net (206.108.103.113) 83.558
    ms 83.920 ms 80.036 ms
    13 HSE-Sherbrooke-ppp98325.qc.sympatico.ca (64.230.220.226) 216.796 ms
    165.045 ms 90.561 ms
    14 64.230.xxx.xxx (64.230.xxx.xxx) 102.600 ms 109.520 ms 75.036 ms
    15 Quebec-HSE-pppxxxxxx.qc.sympatico.ca (69.xxx.xxx.xxx) 162.194 ms
    221.655 ms 171.654 ms
    16 Quebec-HSE-pppxxxxxx.qc.sympatico.ca (69.xxx.xxx.xxx) 106.090 ms
    132.482 ms 172.709 ms

    The last two repeat not sure why? Quebec-HSE-pppxxxxxx.qc.sympatico.ca
    (xxx for privacy of our static ip)




    Rick Merrill wrote:
    > Alan wrote:
    >
    >> It sounds as if the problem is that you are using a broadband
    >> connection to carry voip but the service provider doesn't guarantee QoS
    >> or bandwidth. You are simply seeing that the cable network segment you
    >> are attached to is more heavily used than that of your friend in NY -
    >> the quality and performance of the cable network may well be identical.
    >>
    >> When your service provider introduces VoIP based telephony service they
    >> will probably use the DOCSIS and PacketCable standards, which guarantee
    >> quality of service. This does not run over a separate network however
    >> would use a separate "slice" of bandwidth within the cable network that
    >> is reserved for voice traffic.
    >>
    >> Alan
    >> www.voiptroubleshooter.com
    >>

    >
    > Listen to Alan; I think he is 100% correct.
    >
    > Sounds to me like a number of people think they can add VoIP all by
    > themselves if they have broadband!-)
    m, Feb 2, 2005
    #5
  6. m

    m Guest

    In the early morning its a low ping, things seem fast. I can use the
    g711u - a no problem, and its not till just after 12 noon that I
    literly have to switch to gsm or g729a to maintain a call with out them
    asking me if I am still there.. and that i am cutting out.

    I was at a residence with a sympatico DSL connection last night that
    during 7pm-9pm I did pings to the gate way and they seemed steady flow
    all the way down the screen at 10ms and 11ms I think i had in a ping of
    50 1 12ms. Now everything on his connection was quick, no long pauses
    between web pages and stuff, not to mention the snom 190 test to the
    server everything was clear.. . Now why can't they tune up my side like
    that.

    Now I did a series of pings. now I know you say pings don't matter but
    look at this. On the fast decent connection (offices where I work that
    have fast connections they have steady pings. i do fwd.pulver.com on a
    rack we have based off a major connection.

    # ping fwd.pulver.com
    PING fwd.pulver.com (69.90.155.70) from 216.194.68.218 : 56(84) bytes of
    data.
    Warning: no SO_TIMESTAMP support, falling back to SIOCGSTAMP
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=58.3 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=58.1 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=58.2 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=58.1 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=58.2 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=11 ttl=52 time=57.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=12 ttl=52 time=58.5 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=13 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=14 ttl=52 time=57.7 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=15 ttl=52 time=58.4 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=16 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=17 ttl=52 time=58.2 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=18 ttl=52 time=57.7 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=19 ttl=52 time=58.3 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=20 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=21 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=22 ttl=52 time=57.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=23 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=24 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=25 ttl=52 time=58.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=26 ttl=52 time=57.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=27 ttl=52 time=57.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=28 ttl=52 time=58.6 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=29 ttl=52 time=57.9 ms

    --- fwd.pulver.com ping statistics ---
    29 packets transmitted, 29 received, 0% loss, time 28783ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 57.705/58.084/58.695/0.270 ms

    note the steady ness of the times in ms
    now here is anouther from the astrisk pbx off the business connection

    same idea steady

    pbx:~# ping fwd.pulver.com
    PING fwd.pulver.com (69.90.155.70) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=39.5 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=38.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=37.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=37.2 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=36.3 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=36.4 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=40.6 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=36.6 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=36.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=10 ttl=51 time=36.5 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=11 ttl=51 time=36.8 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=12 ttl=51 time=36.5 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=13 ttl=51 time=37.2 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=14 ttl=51 time=36.4 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=15 ttl=51 time=36.9 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=16 ttl=51 time=37.1 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=17 ttl=51 time=37.4 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=18 ttl=51 time=37.3 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=19 ttl=51 time=36.3 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=20 ttl=51 time=37.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=21 ttl=51 time=37.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=22 ttl=51 time=36.0 ms
    64 bytes from 69.90.155.70: icmp_seq=23 ttl=51 time=36.7 ms

    --- fwd.pulver.com ping statistics ---
    23 packets transmitted, 23 received, 0% packet loss, time 26354ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 36.016/37.199/40.637/1.074 ms
    pbx:~#

    Maybe the connection I have has issues with QOS on the DOCSIS. Possibly
    Rogers is allowing there networks to be overloaded.

    Rick Merrill wrote:
    > Alan wrote:
    >
    >> It sounds as if the problem is that you are using a broadband
    >> connection to carry voip but the service provider doesn't guarantee QoS
    >> or bandwidth. You are simply seeing that the cable network segment you
    >> are attached to is more heavily used than that of your friend in NY -
    >> the quality and performance of the cable network may well be identical.
    >>
    >> When your service provider introduces VoIP based telephony service they
    >> will probably use the DOCSIS and PacketCable standards, which guarantee
    >> quality of service. This does not run over a separate network however
    >> would use a separate "slice" of bandwidth within the cable network that
    >> is reserved for voice traffic.
    >>
    >> Alan
    >> www.voiptroubleshooter.com
    >>

    >
    > Listen to Alan; I think he is 100% correct.
    >
    > Sounds to me like a number of people think they can add VoIP all by
    > themselves if they have broadband!-)
    m, Feb 2, 2005
    #6
  7. m

    m Guest

    6:56 Am Eastern Time
    --- 69.192.132.1 ping statistics ---
    29 packets transmitted, 29 packets received, 0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max = 17.6/30.4/79.6 ms


    Rick Merrill wrote:
    > Alan wrote:
    >
    >> It sounds as if the problem is that you are using a broadband
    >> connection to carry voip but the service provider doesn't guarantee QoS
    >> or bandwidth. You are simply seeing that the cable network segment you
    >> are attached to is more heavily used than that of your friend in NY -
    >> the quality and performance of the cable network may well be identical.
    >>
    >> When your service provider introduces VoIP based telephony service they
    >> will probably use the DOCSIS and PacketCable standards, which guarantee
    >> quality of service. This does not run over a separate network however
    >> would use a separate "slice" of bandwidth within the cable network that
    >> is reserved for voice traffic.
    >>
    >> Alan
    >> www.voiptroubleshooter.com
    >>

    >
    > Listen to Alan; I think he is 100% correct.
    >
    > Sounds to me like a number of people think they can add VoIP all by
    > themselves if they have broadband!-)
    m, Feb 2, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Old

    Rogers or Sympatico

    Old, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    2,165
    Ionizer
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Brian
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    924
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Oct 2, 2005
  3. Charles Schuler

    Fred Rogers Public Data

    Charles Schuler, Jun 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    Charles Schuler
    Jun 13, 2004
  4. teddyli

    Rogers DVD Recorder DV-810R

    teddyli, Dec 22, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    613
    teddyli
    Dec 22, 2003
  5. Richard

    Rogers Video and DVD; Slim pickings

    Richard, Jan 19, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    Richard
    Jan 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page