mglc2ticl4 Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 I've had the DW6000 since Dec. 2003, and didn't have too many problems until about a week ago when I noticed that the browsing was very erratic (slow or not working sometimes for extended periods). When I check the system status, there are non-operational notes for TCP and Web Aceleration statuses. They sometimes clear on power cycling but the problem recurs. I called their tech department in India, but they made me waste 30 minutes doing useless things like bypassing my router, clearing the cache, etc. They transferred me to "advanced" tech support, who placed me on hold for over one hour. They had me re-register, and it did work for a while, but now I'm having the same problems again. They deny that the problem is at their end. Has anyone had any similar problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKrassler Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 yea, but ive only had direcway for a little over 2 days now. My big issue has been with spikes in the connection. It will be going at a semi decent speed (roughly 70-80 kb/s) then drop down to around 2-3 kb/s. I got ahold of the district manager of Direct TV (couldnt get through to direcway) and he said that if it is working and installed correctly, I should be able to anihilate the local Charter cable modems. Im doing good now to break 56k. Looks like im stuck though, my areas phone lines dont support a faster connection than 28.8k, the cable company has been trying to sell for the last 11 years, so they havent offered any sort of cable modems, and no DSL support. I either have to settle for Direcway or 28.8k dialup. By the way, I live in the mountains of West Virginia, and am secluded from any major city, so we get shafted when it comes to technological services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 I've had the DW6000 since Dec. 2003, and didn't have too many problems until about a week ago when I noticed that the browsing was very erratic (slow or not working sometimes for extended periods). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mglc2ticl4 Posted May 29, 2005 Author CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 Here are the results: Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C>ping -n 50 google.com Pinging google.com [216.239.39.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=1702ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=1018ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=982ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=978ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=961ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=921ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=933ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=920ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=932ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=899ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=898ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=886ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=879ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=857ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=853ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=840ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=2619ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=922ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=949ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=980ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=936ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=931ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=903ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=919ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=886ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=870ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=853ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=837ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=840ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=855ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=811ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=775ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=778ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=762ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=745ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=761ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=728ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=720ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=715ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=699ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=730ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=686ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=654ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=666ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=1636ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=966ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=951ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=947ms TTL=245 Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=887ms TTL=245 Ping statistics for 216.239.39.99: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 I am not as familiar with what's common for dial-up ping times, but those look really high to me....is there another computer in the home that can connect the same way? can you run the same tests on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mglc2ticl4 Posted May 29, 2005 Author CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 Here are the results from another computer networked. Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. >ping -n 50 google.com Pinging google.com [216.239.57.99] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1381ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=706ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1168ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1466ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1426ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1405ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=730ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1156ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1160ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=734ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1171ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=702ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1153ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=722ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1142ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=730ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1215ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1404ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=702ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1155ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=898ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=816ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=738ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1032ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=714ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=749ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=722ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=752ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=970ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=859ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1174ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=994ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=980ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=933ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=887ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1241ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1012ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=889ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=928ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=862ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=968ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=733ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1092ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=746ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1001ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=729ms TTL=244 Reply from 216.239.57.99: bytes=32 time=1359ms TTL=244 Ping statistics for 216.239.57.99: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 right, so very similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 I am not as familiar with what's common for dial-up ping times, but those look really high to me....is there another computer in the home that can connect the same way? can you run the same tests on it? thats not dialup... its called satellite... and thats a nice ping time... (relatively speaking...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FallowEarth Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 thats not dialup... its called satellite... and thats a nice ping time... (relatively speaking...) gotcha. ...useless things like bypassing my router... Are your pings and traceroutes any different with a direct connection? Try comparing them from after a powercycle to when the connection slows down. If they are the same in both instances, then it is likely software related, if they are noticably different then it is likely related to hardware, traffic or servers. Also, what are your advertised down/up speeds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
php Posted May 29, 2005 CID Share Posted May 29, 2005 I highly doubt the router is his problem...stuff like this is typical of direcway... advertised speed is 500/50 I think, but I have yet to see it on their website... Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1001ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1247ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=677ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=787ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1576ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1466ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=978ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=698ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=725ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=960ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=706ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=940ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=681ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1068ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=754ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=776ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1066ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1235ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=730ms TTL=46 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=747ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=764ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=1149ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=764ms TTL=45 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=798ms TTL=46 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 677ms, Maximum = 1576ms, Average = 920ms also... powercycling might help occasionally by getting him on a proxy that isn't as overloaded... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mglc2ticl4 Posted May 30, 2005 Author CID Share Posted May 30, 2005 My problem was finally resolved after hours on the phone (mostly on hold) with advanced support. They put me on a different transponder and had me register again as an installer. This worked. They couldn't really explain to my satisfaction why this problem started after 1 and a half years of trouble-free operation. The guy mumbled something about the fact that a trasnponder change may be necessary from time to time. Weird. (I can't wait till Verizon comes up with DSL in my neighborhood. I think that the fact that I live only 15 miles from the nation's capital and still can't get DSL or cable is obscene.) :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1002 Kbps about 1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 122 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (main) Test Time:: Sun May 29 11:34:17 EDT 2005 Bottom Line:: 18X faster than 56K 1MB download in 8.39 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 22.34 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-9DKZHO0XI Bottom Line:: 17X faster than 56K 1MB download in 8.75 sec Diagnosis: Looks Great : 16.75 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-0OXKZN67G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.