richard1980's profile

richard1980

New Contributor

 • 

5 Messages

Closed

RE: Slow internet speeds.

With the modem connected directly to the incoming line, here are the signal levels:

Downstream Frequency 837.000 MHz
Downstream SNR 37.9 dB
Downstream Power Level 0.7 dBmV
Upstream Frequency 383.000 MHz
Upstream Power Level

41.7 dB

My modem is directly connected to the PC via ethernet.  Here is a tracert to www.cox.net:


Tracing route to www.cox.net [68.99.123.161]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     8 ms     7 ms     8 ms  10.0.128.1
  2   420 ms    20 ms   621 ms  68.12.14.34
  3    12 ms     9 ms     9 ms  COX-68-12-8-48-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.48]
  4    10 ms     9 ms     9 ms  COX-68-12-8-8-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.8]
  5    34 ms    33 ms    34 ms  68.1.15.234
  6    37 ms    34 ms    35 ms  68.99.123.4
  7    34 ms    35 ms    37 ms  ww2.cox.com [68.99.123.161]

Trace complete.

As you can see, there is some latency at the 2nd hop (10.0.128.1 to 68.12.14.34).  So here is the result of pinging 68.12.14.34 with 100 packets:

Pinging 68.12.14.34 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=113ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=561ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=460ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=271ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=318ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=377ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=480ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=430ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=213ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=500ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=569ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=196ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=192ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=241ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=209ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=525ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=484ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=208ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=399ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=638ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=512ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=339ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=320ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=515ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=232ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=464ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=239ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=497ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.14.34: bytes=32 time=311ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 68.12.14.34:
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 638ms, Average = 178ms

Here is a tracert to www.twitter.com:

Tracing route to twitter.com [199.59.149.198]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    11 ms     9 ms     6 ms  10.0.128.1
  2   134 ms   376 ms   473 ms  COX-68-12-10-90-static.coxinet.net [68.12.10.90]
  3    10 ms     9 ms    13 ms  COX-68-12-8-50-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.50]
  4    12 ms    13 ms    11 ms  COX-68-12-8-12-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.12]
  5    14 ms    15 ms    14 ms  eqix-da1.twitter.com [206.223.118.139]
  6    57 ms    57 ms    59 ms  xe-0-0-0.sjc2-cr1.twttr.com [199.16.159.115]
  7    68 ms    66 ms    67 ms  ae50.smf1-er2.twttr.com [199.16.159.53]
  8    59 ms    59 ms    62 ms  www2.twitter.com [199.59.149.198]

Trace complete.

Again, the 2nd hop has some latency.  So here's the ping result for the 2nd IP:

Pinging 68.12.10.90 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=372ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=273ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=190ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=506ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=417ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=529ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=223ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=207ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=496ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=460ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=622ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=543ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=478ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=327ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=312ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=456ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=574ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=422ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=228ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=619ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=267ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=212ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=500ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=419ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=446ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=526ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=536ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=375ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=386ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=10ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=587ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=536ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=202ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=438ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=254
Reply from 68.12.10.90: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 68.12.10.90:
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 622ms, Average = 204ms

It is very clear that 10.0.128.1 has a problem connecting upstream.  And I can only assume that Cox owns whatever box has that IP, since it's not my box.

Discussions

 • 

Updated 

3.6K

6

0

0

R

richard1980

New Contributor

 • 

5 Messages

I have a similar problem in Oklahoma City.  I'm currently paying for "up to" 25 Mbps down and I routinely get as low as 3 or 4 Mbps down in the evening.  I have called Cox several times about this, only to be given the same answer each time:  "We need to send a technician to your location."  And when the technician gets here, he measures the signal level and reports that everything is good (which I already know to be true...I happen to know a thing or two about cable signal strength/quality measurements.)  It was clear to me from the beginning that the problem resides in the Cox network, but nobody would listen to me....until earlier today when I called to cancel.  The guy I spoke with insisted that he could get someone that actually knew something about IT to call me within 24 hours.  It would have been nice if someone would have exercised that option earlier, since that is exactly what I said I wanted on both of my first calls (I am an IT Analyst and I know very well that I can't speak "techie" to a "non-techie"...I need to speak with someone that actually understands what I'm saying.)

I'll give them 24 hours from the time I speak with whomever is going to call me.  If they can't resolve the issue, I'll move on.

On a side note, I performed 2 speed tests on the Cox website a bit ago.  The tests were performed about 5 minutes apart.  The first test resulted in 4 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up.  The second test resulted in 3 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up.

0

0

R

richard1980

New Contributor

 • 

5 Messages

Health Edge said:
I also notice it looks like your on a Cox Business connection using a static IP?

No, it's a home connection.  That DNS entry you highlighted just means that's one of the routers in the path between my system and the destination.  There are two routers between me and the one you highlighted.

Although your comment gave me a good idea.  I remotely connected to my work PC and performed a tracert to 68.12.14.34.  Here are the results:

Tracing route to 68.12.14.34 over a maximum of 30 hops

  1     7 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.0.1
  2    29 ms    23 ms    23 ms  10.8.0.1
  3    33 ms    27 ms    23 ms  COX-68-12-10-22-static.coxinet.net [68.12.10.22]
  4    36 ms    31 ms    22 ms  COX-68-12-10-82-static.coxinet.net [68.12.10.82]
  5    34 ms    30 ms    33 ms  ge-1-0-5.101-jun04.mtc3.okc.ok.cox.net [68.12.8.9]
  6    91 ms   414 ms   135 ms  68.12.14.34

Trace complete.

Since the tracert shows latency on the same IP while taking a different path, I have to rule out my earlier theory that the problem resides with 10.0.128.1.  Either there is some congestion at the two routers I tried to ping or the latency that I observe is just a function of the way those specific routers work.  At this point, there is not enough data available for me to determine which is correct.  I've got quite a bit of evidence of slow speed, but not enough data to pinpoint exactly where the problem is.

0

0

H

Health_Edge

+5 more

Valued Contributor III

 • 

4.2K Messages

Signal levels look decent. I would agree issue looks like upstream from your head end. I also notice it looks like your on a Cox Business connection using a static IP? If so, this is relevant since that might have a effect on the route. It would also allow for different support options.

richard1980 said:
Tracing route to www.cox.net [68.99.123.161]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     8 ms     7 ms     8 ms  10.0.128.1
  2   420 ms    20 ms   621 ms  68.12.14.34
  3    12 ms     9 ms     9 ms  COX-68-12-8-48-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.48]
  4    10 ms     9 ms     9 ms  COX-68-12-8-8-static.coxinet.net [68.12.8.8]

richard1980 said:
And I can only assume that Cox owns whatever box has that IP, since it's not my box.

I would agree, just to isolate, try a ping -n 50 192.168.100.1 when your seeing the latency just to rule out a modem issue. 

0

0

E

EdwardH

Valued Contributor

 • 

755 Messages

Separated the posts as different issues, though the forums though the formatting seems to be off on the order, having to take a look at that.

I am curious what the router Ip comes back for pings as the results seem to be somewhat random. But if that comes back stable we can go from there on what could be effecting the routing there.

---

0

0

R

richard1980

New Contributor

 • 

5 Messages

If you mean the pings to my modem, they are fine (consistently 1 ms).

0

0

C

ChrisL

Former Moderator

 • 

7.1K Messages

It may be necessary at this point to arrange for a technician to come out and troubleshoot further.  From what you've posted I'd say there's most likely a signal or equipment issue.

0

0

Recent Discussions