Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed
3 Pages  1 2 3 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 [Solved]Sh*t TmNet Unifi Connection - High Ping MS, Expensive internet yet lowsy service.

Agree?
 
Yes [ 49 ] ** [79.03%]
No [ 8 ] ** [12.90%]
I don't know [ 3 ] ** [4.84%]
Prefer not to answer. [ 2 ] ** [3.23%]
Total Votes: 62
Guests cannot vote 
views
     
TSgame333
post Jun 16 2016, 11:42 PM, updated 10y ago

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
This TMNet s*cks!!!

The image here it's a testing ping rate to the router and google.
Basically the returning of a connection from the router lag between every 10th to 12th second.

Each line = 1 second.
1,000 ms = 1 second.
1 ms = 0.001 second

I made a test and wondering why there are always lag on let's say gaming, running a server and so on stuff.
It's TMNET problem now, as soon as I called them up asked them about the ping rate stuff, they would just give some excuses enough to close the ticket.

I don't think there are any solution since there are only limited ISP on MY.

If you want to try it yourself, click Start and type cmd.exe
A command box will popped up and type this
ping google.com -t
ping 192.168.0.1 -t

Look if the ms rate is high, possibly TMNet lag spike your connection, making me angry with those expensive rate yet cheap service. It has been happening like since months now and no solution, changed the router and wireless card still the same.

user posted image

Share your screenshot here mate.

Solved, refer this post.
https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...40&p=80890853&#

This post has been edited by game333: Jul 21 2016, 02:28 AM
TSgame333
post Jun 16 2016, 11:57 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
Confirmed, tested with 3 PC, same thing!
iLemonx
post Jun 17 2016, 12:01 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
153 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
From: Kuala Lumpur
I'm getting constant 1500ms, pinging to yahoo.com.
soonwai
post Jun 17 2016, 02:34 AM


********
All Stars
11,459 posts

Joined: Oct 2007
From: KL
This is mine to my router.
CODE
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=40 ttl=64 time=0.327 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=41 ttl=64 time=0.312 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=42 ttl=64 time=0.318 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=43 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=44 ttl=64 time=0.405 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=45 ttl=64 time=0.359 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=46 ttl=64 time=0.364 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=47 ttl=64 time=0.359 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=48 ttl=64 time=0.363 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=49 ttl=64 time=0.242 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=50 ttl=64 time=0.326 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=51 ttl=64 time=0.346 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=52 ttl=64 time=0.339 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=53 ttl=64 time=0.332 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=54 ttl=64 time=0.236 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=55 ttl=64 time=0.245 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=56 ttl=64 time=0.256 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=57 ttl=64 time=0.347 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=58 ttl=64 time=0.701 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=59 ttl=64 time=0.351 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=60 ttl=64 time=0.457 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=61 ttl=64 time=0.238 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=62 ttl=64 time=0.289 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=63 ttl=64 time=0.240 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=64 ttl=64 time=0.340 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=65 ttl=64 time=0.255 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=66 ttl=64 time=0.259 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=67 ttl=64 time=0.408 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=68 ttl=64 time=0.376 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=69 ttl=64 time=0.294 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=70 ttl=64 time=2.864 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=71 ttl=64 time=0.261 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=72 ttl=64 time=0.361 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=73 ttl=64 time=0.393 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=74 ttl=64 time=0.412 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=75 ttl=64 time=0.426 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=76 ttl=64 time=0.291 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=77 ttl=64 time=0.430 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=78 ttl=64 time=0.346 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=79 ttl=64 time=0.347 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=80 ttl=64 time=0.468 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=81 ttl=64 time=0.273 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=82 ttl=64 time=0.270 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=83 ttl=64 time=0.243 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=84 ttl=64 time=0.259 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=85 ttl=64 time=0.345 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=86 ttl=64 time=0.291 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=87 ttl=64 time=0.311 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=88 ttl=64 time=0.232 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=89 ttl=64 time=0.230 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=90 ttl=64 time=0.249 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=91 ttl=64 time=0.327 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=92 ttl=64 time=0.683 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=93 ttl=64 time=0.360 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=94 ttl=64 time=0.248 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=95 ttl=64 time=0.382 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=0.260 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.1.1: icmp_seq=97 ttl=64 time=0.316 ms
^C
--- 10.0.1.1 ping statistics ---
98 packets transmitted, 98 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.226/0.392/3.429/0.417 ms


Why would TM's incompetence affect your LAN?

This is ping to google.com.
CODE
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=40 ttl=57 time=4.258 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=41 ttl=57 time=4.525 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=42 ttl=57 time=4.636 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=43 ttl=57 time=4.453 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=44 ttl=57 time=4.902 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=45 ttl=57 time=4.341 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=46 ttl=57 time=4.692 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=47 ttl=57 time=5.139 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=48 ttl=57 time=4.444 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=49 ttl=57 time=5.009 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=50 ttl=57 time=4.319 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=51 ttl=57 time=4.637 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=52 ttl=57 time=5.150 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=53 ttl=57 time=4.615 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=54 ttl=57 time=4.328 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=55 ttl=57 time=5.093 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=56 ttl=57 time=5.273 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=57 ttl=57 time=4.808 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=58 ttl=57 time=5.420 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=59 ttl=57 time=4.315 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=60 ttl=57 time=3.965 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=61 ttl=57 time=4.631 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=62 ttl=57 time=4.565 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=63 ttl=57 time=4.516 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=64 ttl=57 time=4.506 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=65 ttl=57 time=4.245 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=66 ttl=57 time=4.670 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=67 ttl=57 time=4.585 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=68 ttl=57 time=4.627 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=69 ttl=57 time=5.059 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=70 ttl=57 time=4.608 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=71 ttl=57 time=4.440 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=72 ttl=57 time=3.821 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=73 ttl=57 time=4.486 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=74 ttl=57 time=3.999 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=75 ttl=57 time=4.790 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=76 ttl=57 time=5.175 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=77 ttl=57 time=3.767 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=78 ttl=57 time=4.748 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=79 ttl=57 time=4.656 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=80 ttl=57 time=4.532 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=81 ttl=57 time=4.720 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=82 ttl=57 time=4.684 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=83 ttl=57 time=4.601 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=84 ttl=57 time=5.088 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=85 ttl=57 time=4.364 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=86 ttl=57 time=4.698 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=87 ttl=57 time=4.370 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=88 ttl=57 time=4.442 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=89 ttl=57 time=4.217 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=90 ttl=57 time=4.652 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=91 ttl=57 time=4.711 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=92 ttl=57 time=4.962 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=93 ttl=57 time=4.419 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=94 ttl=57 time=4.730 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=95 ttl=57 time=4.567 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=96 ttl=57 time=4.499 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=97 ttl=57 time=4.615 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=98 ttl=57 time=5.325 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=99 ttl=57 time=4.618 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.24.238: icmp_seq=100 ttl=57 time=5.011 ms
^C
--- google.com ping statistics ---
101 packets transmitted, 101 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.767/4.590/5.420/0.343 ms


Maybe I'm missing your point.
faizrs
post Jun 17 2016, 02:46 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
113 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
that lag spikes are from your wireless connection.
Icehart
post Jun 17 2016, 02:50 AM

72.55.191.6
********
All Stars
14,899 posts

Joined: Apr 2005
From: Kuala Lumpur & Selangor
The lag spike is from your router. Consider checking it first lol.
soonwai
post Jun 17 2016, 03:00 AM


********
All Stars
11,459 posts

Joined: Oct 2007
From: KL
TS, what router are you using? And what was the one before it?
TSgame333
post Jun 17 2016, 03:48 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
The router was replaced by UniFi like last month only since the upgrade.

It happen high ms rate as well before this, so I don't think it's router as we've already tried like 3 different router which first DLink D615 x2, and this latest router's brand was sealed and known as UniFi router. or Innacomm

So I cannot said that it's the router problem, it's more on ISP.
Since 3 testing pointed out the same result, how can you explain then?
rioven
post Jun 17 2016, 04:44 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
975 posts

Joined: Sep 2004
From: Setapak
that's weird, if the sudden bad latency from computer to router, u may check connection from computer to router first, rather than check latency from router to internet (if the a high ping in LAN, its also affected to WAN/Internet)
1. if using wifi, please test with cat5/cat6 aka LAN cable (the most reliable method..there a quite issue that cause slowdown/jitter/latency in wifi).
2. if the result is the same, may consider a better router (some of the model provided by TMNet is well known by its "performance" tongue.gif )
the even weird is, the latency repeat itself on each 11th ping reply hmm.gif (the ping reply from google is good already, again the problem is the sudden 1 delay ping..periodically)


(edit+add some info)

This post has been edited by rioven: Jun 17 2016, 06:16 AM
nymerine
post Jun 17 2016, 07:49 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
920 posts

Joined: May 2010
QUOTE(game333 @ Jun 17 2016, 03:48 AM)
The router was replaced by UniFi like last month only since the upgrade.

It happen high ms rate as well before this, so I don't think it's router as we've already tried like 3 different router which first DLink D615 x2, and this latest router's brand was sealed and known as UniFi router. or Innacomm

So I cannot said that it's the router problem, it's more on ISP.
Since 3 testing pointed out the same result, how can you explain then?
*
It is not router problem but rather the wifi problem, it's shit. Get wired for stable latency.
soonwai
post Jun 17 2016, 12:10 PM


********
All Stars
11,459 posts

Joined: Oct 2007
From: KL
TS, the screenshot in your OP, is that result from testing on wired?

Below is at local coffee shop, not busy. Test from MBPR 13" to RGX4400 on 5GHz AC.
CODE
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=50 ttl=64 time=1.809 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=51 ttl=64 time=2.398 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=52 ttl=64 time=2.397 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=53 ttl=64 time=3.057 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=54 ttl=64 time=2.995 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=55 ttl=64 time=3.765 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=56 ttl=64 time=1.735 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=57 ttl=64 time=2.221 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=58 ttl=64 time=2.391 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=59 ttl=64 time=2.453 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=60 ttl=64 time=2.251 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=61 ttl=64 time=3.065 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=62 ttl=64 time=2.921 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=63 ttl=64 time=2.318 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=64 ttl=64 time=2.351 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=65 ttl=64 time=2.374 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=66 ttl=64 time=1.454 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=67 ttl=64 time=3.738 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=68 ttl=64 time=5.389 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=69 ttl=64 time=5.110 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=70 ttl=64 time=3.263 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=71 ttl=64 time=4.931 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=72 ttl=64 time=5.065 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=73 ttl=64 time=4.332 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=74 ttl=64 time=5.285 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=75 ttl=64 time=4.371 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=76 ttl=64 time=4.369 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=77 ttl=64 time=4.966 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=78 ttl=64 time=6.185 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=79 ttl=64 time=4.810 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=80 ttl=64 time=4.579 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=81 ttl=64 time=3.010 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=82 ttl=64 time=3.633 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=83 ttl=64 time=2.301 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=84 ttl=64 time=2.454 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=85 ttl=64 time=3.038 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=86 ttl=64 time=2.328 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=87 ttl=64 time=2.457 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=88 ttl=64 time=2.986 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=89 ttl=64 time=3.128 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=90 ttl=64 time=2.439 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=91 ttl=64 time=2.954 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=92 ttl=64 time=3.043 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=93 ttl=64 time=2.243 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=94 ttl=64 time=2.354 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=95 ttl=64 time=2.457 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=2.985 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=97 ttl=64 time=1.907 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=98 ttl=64 time=2.364 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=99 ttl=64 time=3.027 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=100 ttl=64 time=1.730 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=101 ttl=64 time=2.536 ms


This post has been edited by soonwai: Jun 17 2016, 02:02 PM
Azusa_San
post Jun 17 2016, 04:14 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
309 posts

Joined: Mar 2015
using wifi with tm router here, no such problem happen.

ts how u connect to the internet? by wired or wireless? try using wired connection with the ethernet cable provided.
TSgame333
post Jun 17 2016, 04:27 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
QUOTE(rioven @ Jun 17 2016, 04:44 AM)
that's weird, if the sudden bad latency from computer to router, u may check connection from computer to router first, rather than check latency from router to internet (if the a high ping in LAN, its also affected to WAN/Internet)
1. if using wifi, please test with cat5/cat6 aka LAN cable (the most reliable method..there a quite issue that cause slowdown/jitter/latency in wifi).
2. if the result is the same, may consider a better router (some of the model provided by TMNet is well known by its "performance"  tongue.gif )
the even weird is, the latency repeat itself on each 11th ping reply  hmm.gif (the ping reply from google is good already, again the problem is the sudden 1 delay ping..periodically)
(edit+add some info)
*
Will try the wired soon, I was told that some expertise tech guy, telling me to scan the port and pass him the log, so he can read what connection is constantly at 11th being blocked.

Will post the result soon.
TSgame333
post Jun 17 2016, 04:29 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
QUOTE(nymerine @ Jun 17 2016, 07:49 AM)
It is not router problem but rather the wifi problem, it's shit. Get wired for stable latency.
*
You know TMNet sneakly locked the Router options, there fore I can't do much than reset and change the router ID or something. Trying wired soon.
TSgame333
post Jun 17 2016, 04:34 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
QUOTE(soonwai @ Jun 17 2016, 12:10 PM)
TS, the screenshot in your OP, is that result from testing on wired?

Below is at local coffee shop, not busy. Test from MBPR 13" to RGX4400 on 5GHz AC.....
*
QUOTE(Azusa_San @ Jun 17 2016, 04:14 PM)
using wifi with tm router here, no such problem happen.

ts how u connect to the internet? by wired or wireless? try using wired connection with the ethernet cable provided.
*
Yes I was using wireless during the test, test it with another PC and the result was the same, trying to test wire later.

Just wondering, if the router was changed like 3 times, should be ISP problem, not confirm yet until trying.
JinXXX
post Jun 17 2016, 05:20 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,516 posts

Joined: Feb 2007
From: Uarla Umpur
use better router la.. eg mikrotik...

dont use the chekai tm provide one
soonwai
post Jun 17 2016, 06:17 PM


********
All Stars
11,459 posts

Joined: Oct 2007
From: KL
QUOTE(game333 @ Jun 17 2016, 04:34 PM)
Yes I was using wireless during the test, test it with another PC and the result was the same, trying to test wire later.

Just wondering, if the router was changed like 3 times, should be ISP problem, not confirm yet until trying.
*
Do you know Occam's Razor? Use that to troubleshoot. I suggest first thing is to disconnect the cable to your router's WAN port.
TSgame333
post Jun 18 2016, 03:10 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
Weird, after making this thread the connection been okay itself now.

user posted image

? They noticed this?
Azusa_San
post Jun 18 2016, 07:39 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
309 posts

Joined: Mar 2015
QUOTE(game333 @ Jun 18 2016, 03:10 AM)
Weird, after making this thread the connection been okay itself now.

user posted image

? They noticed this?
*
WiFi?
TSgame333
post Jun 19 2016, 04:12 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
388 posts

Joined: Jul 2009
From: Some Random Place
Very heavy down time, restart the IP thru admin platform, and still the same.

user posted image

Any solution other than complain?
« Next Oldest · Networks and Broadband · Next Newest »
 

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Top
Add ReplyOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0549sec    0.38    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 16th December 2025 - 04:53 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.