- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Is there anyone I can speak to about routing/latency issues? I recently switched to fios and since have had nothing but terrible lag issues when gaming. The issues occur just a hop or 2 off the verizon network. I can provide traceroutes, but primarily I am looking to speak with someone other than the tier1 folks answering the phones.
Solved! Go to Correct Answer
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@chzoom wrote:You know what the best part about this issue is? We are months into this thread, nearly 80 posts in with reports for several different games, from several different regions of the country and yet not a single person with half a brain from Verizon has replied.
Verizon you should be ashamed, your customer service is extremely poor and your higher tiered techs are just as bad. If I provided this level of customer service to my customers I would be fired.
WAKE UP and help your customers that keep your business floating. I am almost out of my contract and as soon as I am done I will be taking my business back to Cox, at least I never had these issues in the 10 years I had their service.
/rant
I think perhaps you are a bit confused. This is a peer-to-peer support forum. Posters are fellow end-users like you unless noted as a Verizon Employee via rank and/or avatar.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I just wanted to bump this with my own new latency issue.
In the NJ area, on FiOS and have had a recent jump.
My specific test case is a game called Mechwarrior Online. The game servers are located in eastern Canada.
Average ping for the past 6 months has been steady between 40-60ms.
Now average ping is consistenly 120-130. This is within the week around Christmas as many other reported.
This was tested with two machines inside the home one via WiFi one via CAT6.
Happy to conduct and post tracert's but It seems that further verifying the issue is not whats needed at this point.
if anyone wants me run one to a specific server as another datapoint let me know.
Thanks, and happy to be of assistance to this cause.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Unfortunately I doubt we are going to get any further help with the issue since of course this is a community driven board. Getting Verizon to recognize the issue and try and assist their customers is like pulling teeth. I explained the issue to probably 5+ different people and spent countless hours on the phone to be called and given a 15 second answer that basically told me to pound sand 🙂
I assume one day it will just magically go away and start working as it used to around xmas time.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
While you're probably right I figured i'd toss up one trace, just for the heck of it.
Look familiar? 🙂
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 8 ms 6 ms 14 ms L100.NWRKNJ-VFTTP-94.verizon-gni.net [98.109.1291] 3 11 ms 12 ms 13 ms 130.81.185.116
4 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms ae0-0.NWRK-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.12] 5 10 ms 9 ms 12 ms xe-6-1-1-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.8123.230] 6 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms 0.so-4-0-0.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.9.249]
7 15 ms 16 ms 13 ms TenGigE0-7-2-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.129 8 106 ms 108 ms 109 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
9 164 ms 131 ms 127 ms xe-4-3-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.110]
10 146 ms 142 ms 136 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.71.62]
11 137 ms 136 ms 142 ms border1.te9-1-bbnet2.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.16] 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
honestly, i think when we see 'tinet-gw.customer' that infers that they themselves are a customer of mci business or verizon business and bought that connection. that means they probably bought X amount of bandwidth and are getting hammered. they likely need to upgrade that connection to something beefier. I used to work in a NOC and we saw that all the time. If a customer of ours was being saturated with bandwidth, the best we could do was call them, notify them and ask if they wanted to buy more bandwidth. If it's nearing 100% useage, there is only a few ways to go, get more bandwidth, employ better load balancing among their routers, or live with it.
So double check with them if that;s their ckt they are leasing, if it is see if they can tell if it;s being saturated. If they are leasing it, then they are verizon's customer on that connection, and they will have to get that info. for anti competitive reasons I couldn't share that kind of intimate detail with anyone but the customer.
There was another user here named smith, that shared that the GW-customer, meant that it was a leased line from Verizon.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
thats for sharing that info!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
for my edification, what fps are you guys running at? (frames per second)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
"01-23-2013 01:00 PM - edited 01-23-2013 01:08 PM
I just wanted to bump this with my own new latency issue.
In the NJ area, on FiOS and have had a recent jump.
My specific test case is a game called Mechwarrior Online. The game servers are located in eastern Canada.
Average ping for the past 6 months has been steady between 40-60ms.
Now average ping is consistenly 120-130. This is within the week around Christmas as many other reported.
This was tested with two machines inside the home one via WiFi one via CAT6.
Happy to conduct and post tracert's but It seems that further verifying the issue is not whats needed at this point.
if anyone wants me run one to a specific server as another datapoint let me know.
Thanks, and happy to be of assistance to this cause."
I'm from NJ (South Jersey) and I have the exact same problemas GYOCHUM. By chance did you figure out what is causing this? I'm assuming it's 100% on Verizon's end.
How would I go about running a tracert so I can help provide some sort of statistic as well?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
if you can find the name of the server your game is hosted on, open command prompt and type "tracert 'server name'"
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Right now, 2:30am EST, pings are normal and as they should be. But throughout the day and evening they increase to about 35-45% higher than what they should be. It only recently (a month ago) started doing this.
What do you mean find the name of the server my game is hosted on?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I wish it was only 50% higher than it should be. 200% during primetime for many of us.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
A majority of the time it's 50% but it also spikes to 150% higher as well at times.
Somethings wrong and I'm hoping this can get sorted soon.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
FYI - other forums have a similiar issue, a senior member states
tinet-gw.customer
Thats a peering point, its not Verizon's issue but the games ISP isn't paying for the bandwidth there customers are trying to consume
tinet comes up allot on people complaining about bad pings, if your paying for that game service, complain, its their issue, not Verizons
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Seems to be the same issue im having, xfactor. Good find.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Tracing route to 70.42.29.65 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [xxxxx]
2 6 ms 5 ms 5 ms L100.PITBPA-VFTTP-03.verizon-gni.net [xxxxx]
3 6 ms 5 ms 8 ms G0-1-1-5.PITBPA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net [130.81.191.196]
4 12 ms 12 ms 14 ms xe-19-0-8-0.RES-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.74]
5 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 0.so-7-1-0.XT1.DCA6.ALTER.NET [152.63.39.169]
6 48 ms 22 ms 20 ms 0.xe-0-0-0.XL3.IAD8.ALTER.NET [152.63.32.214]
7 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms GigabitEthernet6-0-0.GW8.IAD8.ALTER.NET [152.63.33.13]
8 18 ms 19 ms 20 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.50.30]
9 40 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-3-3-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.110.9]
10 43 ms 65 ms 45 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.71.62]
11 42 ms 42 ms 43 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
12 40 ms 40 ms 40 ms 70.42.29.65
Trace complete.
C:\Windows\System32>
Primetime on saturday. Turned my router off for about an hour this evening, my routing is different now. Hope it stays like this. Not sure if anything changed at tinet or not.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Routing changed for me as well...
As you can see its still not ideal and somewhere on alter.net is always the root cause.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms L100.NWRKNJ-VFTTP-94.verizon-gni.net [98.109.129.1]
3 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms G0-5-4-7.NWRKNJ-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.183.183]
4 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms so-6-1-0-0.NWRK-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.199.16]
5 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms 0.ge-0-3-0.XL4.EWR6.ALTER.NET [152.63.5.225]
6 94 ms 95 ms 97 ms 0.ge-6-1-0.XL4.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.113.170]
7 95 ms 99 ms 94 ms POS7-0-0.GW3.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.109]
8 93 ms 89 ms 88 ms internapGIGE-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.236.110]
9 90 ms 90 ms 89 ms border1.te3-1-bbnet1.lax015.pnap.net [216.52.255.56]
10 80 ms 81 ms 82 ms oversee-3.lax015.pnap.net [63.251.209.150]
11 86 ms 84 ms 86 ms 208.73.208.10
12 83 ms 81 ms 82 ms host204-13-160-107.oversee.net [204.13.160.107]
As far as my tests, I have actually been in contact with members of the games support team. They confirmed that tracing to their website www.mwomercs.com will yield the same results as a game session (same data center).
To anyone who wants to help push this along, I do have an open case to verizon, not bound to my account name.
You can actually use the online chat support option just to bump the case, and help it get more attention if you are so inclined.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@gyochum wrote:Routing changed for me as well...
As you can see its still not ideal and somewhere on alter.net is always the root cause.
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms L100.NWRKNJ-VFTTP-94.verizon-gni.net [98.109.129.1]
3 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms G0-5-4-7.NWRKNJ-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net [130.81.183.183]
4 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms so-6-1-0-0.NWRK-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.199.16]
5 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms 0.ge-0-3-0.XL4.EWR6.ALTER.NET [152.63.5.225]
6 94 ms 95 ms 97 ms 0.ge-6-1-0.XL4.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.113.170]7 95 ms 99 ms 94 ms POS7-0-0.GW3.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.109]
8 93 ms 89 ms 88 ms internapGIGE-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.236.110]
9 90 ms 90 ms 89 ms border1.te3-1-bbnet1.lax015.pnap.net [216.52.255.56]
10 80 ms 81 ms 82 ms oversee-3.lax015.pnap.net [63.251.209.150]
11 86 ms 84 ms 86 ms 208.73.208.10
12 83 ms 81 ms 82 ms host204-13-160-107.oversee.net [204.13.160.107]As far as my tests, I have actually been in contact with members of the games support team. They confirmed that tracing to their website www.mwomercs.com will yield the same results as a game session (same data center).
To anyone who wants to help push this along, I do have an open case to verizon, not bound to my account name.
You can actually use the online chat support option just to bump the case, and help it get more attention if you are so inclined.
You're jumping from Newark, New Jersey to Los Angeles, CA in that trace. While Verizon's backbone may not route the best in regards to latency (I can get 55-60ms at work from New York to Los Angeles) but that's about typical for a coast to coast jump in many providers around here. Did you ask the owner where their server is located?
The trace also looks consistent beyond the alter.net hops but it certainly doesn't mean it is okay to blow off the alter.net hops as a problem. They do have ICMP traffic on low priority though which is common across many backbone routers.
Also keep in mind that ANYTHING labeled company-gw.customer.alter.net such as tinet-gw.customer.alter.net is a peering point. If you see high latency at these, the person on the other end either did not purchase enough capacity from Verizon or the router being used is underpowered for the job it's taking on, it's having a problem, or it's set up to place ping requests on low priority. As to who is or what is at fault is unknown since you'd have to research the peering agreements between the two companies. The higher speeds are certainly not helping anything though, since companies tend to drag their feet in upgrades.
This is from a 5Mbps DSL connection with Verizon.
Tracing route to host204-13-160-107.oversee.net [204.13.160.107]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.3.1
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 10.41.15.1
3 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms P1-0.BFLONY-LCR-01.verizon-gni.net [130.81.195.144]
4 17 ms 16 ms 17 ms so-6-3-0-0.NWRK-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net [130.81.28.138]
5 17 ms 17 ms 31 ms 0.xe-6-0-4.XL3.EWR6.ALTER.NET [152.63.4.77]
6 98 ms 98 ms 98 ms 0.xe-6-1-0.XL3.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.146]
7 99 ms 99 ms 99 ms POS6-0-0.GW3.LAX15.ALTER.NET [152.63.112.105]
8 119 ms 114 ms 112 ms internapGIGE-gw.customer.alter.net [157.130.236.110]
9 116 ms 116 ms 117 ms border1.te4-1-bbnet2.lax015.pnap.net [216.52.255.120]
10 87 ms 88 ms 88 ms oversee-3.lax015.pnap.net [63.251.209.150]
11 93 ms 93 ms 93 ms 208.73.208.10
12 92 ms 92 ms 92 ms host204-13-160-107.oversee.net [204.13.160.107]
Ping to the same server (shows congestion is not abound for the route)
Pinging 204.13.160.107 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Reply from 204.13.160.107: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=244
Ping statistics for 204.13.160.107:
Packets: Sent = 45, Received = 45, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 92ms, Maximum = 93ms, Average = 92ms
The above is of course, for an advertising network so I have no clue where that came from there. I just ran traces to it 🙂 .
Now when I go to trace the domain mentioned, this is where I see a problem since a quick look suggests we're going to Toronto from New York, which is literally an hour drive from here and I can ping 3ms to that server from Work. A 100ms jump is AWFUL. So here's a case where the peering between Verizon and Inteliquent has something wrong. 40ms juump in latency between Verizon's backbone and the peering router (which is where? Probably in NYC, an expensive place to peer) and then an additional 40-50ms between where the peering router is and Toronto.
Tracing route to mwomercs.com [70.42.29.74]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.3.1
2 8 ms 6 ms 7 ms 10.41.15.1
3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms P1-0.BFLONY-LCR-02.verizon-gni.net [130.81.195.222]
4 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms so-3-0-0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.28.136]
5 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms 0.so-4-0-0.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.9.249]
6 32 ms 21 ms 20 ms TenGigE0-5-1-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.73]
7 67 ms 67 ms 66 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
8 110 ms 112 ms 111 ms xe-4-3-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [89.149.184.110]
9 112 ms 112 ms 115 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.71.62]
10 110 ms 110 ms 110 ms border1.te9-1-bbnet2.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.196]
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * ^C
I am able to reach the site despite being unable to trace or ping it. It IS loading up quickly for me. A repeated ping of a;; of the hops after the tinet-gw.customer.alter.net shows wide variances in latency of at least 10ms. So, definitely broke as many have stated.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Having similar issues in Upstate NY (Syracuse Area)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
in most cases I would agree with you that it is the 'gaming' companies responsbility. However, as stated in this thread we are talking about SEVERAL different games here. Its not just 1 game or 1 company that is having this issue, its anything traversing the tinet router during primetime and for me almost anytime. This doesn't seem like something I should have to chase down the game provider to fix, there is a bigger issue here
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I'm having the same issues with gaming latency, granted it isn't as high as some I've seen, but i'm paying for 75/35 and I should be sitting at about 30 to 40ms but I'm at 95 to 102ms. Verizon's tech support is horrible and they obviously don't have a clue, or better yet don't care to resolve these issue's. This issue needs to be fixed! Why aren't they doing anything about this?
Tracing route to 12.129.209.68 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [xxx.xxx.x.x]
2 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms L100.NRFLVA-VFTTP-14.verizon-gni.net [96.225.172.1]
3 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms G0-2-5-2.NRFLVA-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net [130.81.97.128]
4 33 ms 21 ms 19 ms xe-19-0-2-0.RES-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.46]
5 20 ms 21 ms 20 ms 0.xe-5-3-0.BR1.IAD8.ALTER.NET [152.63.37.49]
6 22 ms 22 ms 22 ms 192.205.36.141
7 94 ms 95 ms 95 ms cr2.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.81.250]
8 94 ms 96 ms 95 ms cr1.cgcil.ip.att.net [12.122.18.21]
9 96 ms 95 ms 95 ms cr2.dvmco.ip.att.net [12.122.31.85]
10 95 ms 95 ms 95 ms cr1.slkut.ip.att.net [12.122.30.25]
11 95 ms 95 ms 96 ms cr2.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.30.30]
12 92 ms 93 ms 92 ms gar29.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.129.241]
13 93 ms 93 ms 94 ms 12-122-254-238.attens.net [12.122.254.238]
14 93 ms 92 ms 93 ms mdf001c7613r0003-gig-12-1.lax1.attens.net [12.129.193.254]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 * * * Request timed out.
26 * * * Request timed out.
27 * * * Request timed out.
28 * * * Request timed out.
29 * * * Request timed out.
30 * * * Request timed out.
Trace complete.
Just a side note: I do competitive Arena and RBG's and I CAN tell a huge difference in 30ms over 95ms.
Is Verizon doing something about this? Any Admin's going to post to these?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Happening again! THIS IS FUN! Something needs to be done, who should I contact?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi treykaws,
If you are having an issue with your Verizon service, you can use the Verizon Troubleshooter to fix and report issues with your Verizon Phone, FiOS TV, or Internet Service, as well as to schedule a repair, here is the link: http://www.verizon.com/repair
You can find tools on the Verizon Residential Support page that may help you diagnose your issue: http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp
Regards,
AnnieS