Cool Ideas Fibre ISP - Feedback

[ArtyLoop]

So as I see it we have the following issues that unfortunately CISP is caught in the middle with

1. FTTH providers and flaky (cheap) equipment- Yes Octotel, you and your DASAN ONT and its iffy WAN port
2. Flaky FTTH providers (Frogfoot, and it appears, VUMA)

 

[alwaysthankful]

So as I see it we have the following issues that unfortunately CISP is caught in the middle with

1. FTTH providers and flaky (cheap) equipment- Yes Octotel, you and your DASAN ONT and its iffy WAN port
2. Flaky FTTH providers (Frogfoot, and it appears, VUMA)

I took your advice and used a microtik router to test. Nothing changed. The tests are identical. Slow international upload speed all the time, 10 percent of what my line speed should be.

 

[wingnut771]

I took your advice and used a microtik router to test. Nothing changed. The tests are identical. Slow international upload speed all the time, 10 percent of what my line speed should be.

You would think an Octotel rep would have been to your premises by now with his own test equipment.
Why is it on the customer to try solve the problem?

 

[alwaysthankful]

You would think an Octotel rep would have been to your premises by now with his own test equipment.
Why is it on the customer to try solve the problem?

I have asked many times that they send someone here to come and do the tests themselves. I have done these tests so many times already. I have used different routers, different computers. I have done the tests directly to the ont. Iperf after iperf. I am at a loss what steps to take now. I have contacted Octotel directly and was told the problem is with the ISP. I changed to Cool Ideas and the problems are exactly the same.

 

[ArtyLoop]

I took your advice and used a microtik router to test. Nothing changed. The tests are identical. Slow international upload speed all the time, 10 percent of what my line speed should be.

Did you create a new PPPoE connection in the router specifically to open a session? Because on mine, there was a span of parameters I had to get correct before it worked correctly. Assuming all of that is correct, then we need to start looking at the ONT as the probable cause.

This is mine:

 

[alwaysthankful]

Did you create a new PPPoE connection in the router specifically to open a session? Because on mine, there was a span of parameters I had to get correct before it worked correctly. Assuming all of that is correct, then we need to start looking at the ONT as the probable cause.

Yes, I did. Factory reset the Mikrotik before.

 

[Side Effect]

So as I see it we have the following issues that unfortunately CISP is caught in the middle with

1. FTTH providers and flaky (cheap) equipment- Yes Octotel, you and your DASAN ONT and its iffy WAN port
2. Flaky FTTH providers (Frogfoot, and it appears, VUMA)

This sucks to hear. Got a letter in the post yesterday from Frogfoot stating that they will start with the trenching etc soon - got excited because had to move from Fibre to DSL. So I guess it will be 6+ months before it's live etc.

The pricing with CISP and Frogfoot seems decent.

Hope they sort out any issues by then. Hellopeter has some angry okes on there - The main complaint seems to be damage to property.

What are the main issues that are currently on the Frogfoot network? Speeds not living up to the advertising? High latency? Packet loss? All of the above? Some research indicates customer service is non-existent.

Previously had a 20/10 line (Aerial and not trenched) with Openserve/CISP before relocating - Had no issues at all with them (Or this combination). Like no issues at all. It was 100% from day 1.

It would suck to go from a stable DSL line (Current internet on premises) to a sucky fibre line.

Anybody using the 100/100 package from CISP on the Frogfoot network? Would like to hear from you guys.

 

[ArtyLoop]

This sucks to hear. Got a letter in the post yesterday from Frogfoot stating that they will start with the trenching etc soon - got excited because had to move from Fibre to DSL. So I guess it will be 6+ months before it's live etc.

The pricing with CISP and Frogfoot seems decent.

Hope they sort out any issues by then. Hellopeter has some angry okes on there - The main complaint seems to be damage to property.

What are the main issues that are currently on the Frogfoot network? Speeds not living up to the advertising? High latency? Packet loss? All of the above? Some research indicates customer service is non-existent.

Previously had a 20/10 line (Aerial and not trenched) with Openserve/CISP before relocating - Had no issues at all with them (Or this combination). Like no issues at all. It was 100% from day 1.

It would suck to go from a stable DSL line (Current internet on premises) to a sucky fibre line.

Anybody using the 100/100 package from CISP on the Frogfoot network? Would like to hear from you guys.

Frogfoot I believe, the customer service is shoddy- I remember I approached them for FTTH when I lived elsewhere, they didn't give one flying toss about me, ignored me until I eventually phoned the crap out of them, and they then told me they cannot help me.

 

[Praeses]

Frogfoot I believe, the customer service is shoddy- I remember I approached them for FTTH when I lived elsewhere, they didn't give one flying toss about me, ignored me until I eventually phoned the crap out of them, and they then told me they cannot help me.

My experience with Frogfoot was the opposite. I told them SADV was useless and never pitched to even do a site survey at the townhouse complex. They literally arranged a meeting with me and the HOA chairperson for the next day, showed up and everything went smooth from thereon.

Only issue now is the slow international speeds with Frogfoot + CISP which is apparently being attended to.

 

[Side Effect]

Frogfoot I believe, the customer service is shoddy- I remember I approached them for FTTH when I lived elsewhere, they didn't give one flying toss about me, ignored me until I eventually phoned the crap out of them, and they then told me they cannot help me.

Okay, cool. Thanks, @ArtyLoop for the response, I appreciate it.

It seems I will have to tread with some caution before taking the leap. I can deal with customer service - I mean I had to cancel a telephone line with Telkom and have a new one installed for the new property. And they blocked our account and a whole bunch of other stuff too because they were (apparently) between a new system and an old one and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

My experience with Frogfoot was the opposite. I told them SADV was useless and never pitched to even do a site survey at the townhouse complex. They literally arranged a meeting with me and the HOA chairperson for the next day, showed up and everything went smooth from thereon.

Only issue now is the slow international speeds with Frogfoot + CISP which is apparently being attended to.

This is also some good news. Thank you for the information. I rate by the time the area is live it should be sorted out.

Ty guys

Some hope has been restored.

 

[ld13]

I asked if any ISP in SA supported it but didn't get a response. I would assume no.

Cape Connect claims to support IPv6: https://cape-connect.com/ipv6.html
Even with their fibre product: https://cape-connect.com/frogfootfibre.html

 

[ArtyLoop]

Here's what I will say. As long as you have Paul here in the thread, you'll be OK. Sure there will be periods of inconvenience, but he will eventually apply hydraulic press scale pressure to the FISP.

Octotel have their issues.. occasionally I see a drop in connection i.e. a burst of packet loss, but for the most part its been EXCELLENT, I am from now on going to reboot routers, and thoroughly check the line before I post here, when I encounter issues.

 

[Tinuva]

I took your advice and used a microtik router to test. Nothing changed. The tests are identical. Slow international upload speed all the time, 10 percent of what my line speed should be.

Did you make sure that the WAN port connected to the ONT is connecting at 1Gbps and not 100Mbps?
I had a bad network cable, that would connect at 100Mbps. When I replaced it with a proper shielded CAT6 cable, all my problems went away and it connected at 1Gbps.

 

[alwaysthankful]

Did you make sure that the WAN port connected to the ONT is connecting at 1Gbps and not 100Mbps?
I had a bad network cable, that would connect at 100Mbps. When I replaced it with a proper shielded CAT6 cable, all my problems went away and it connected at 1Gbps.

Brand new cable. I have gone through all the steps a thousand times already.

 

[Tinuva]

Brand new cable. I have gone through all the steps a thousand times already.

Doesnt matter if its new or not. If its not shielded, there is a chance for interference. Only way to check, is to confirm if the wan port is connected at 1Gbps instead of 100Mbps.

 

[sand_man]

Almost 3 months now....

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17763.195]
(c) 2018 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>iperf3.exe -R -u -b 160M -p 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host queen.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.105 port 57473 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.81 MBytes 15.2 Mbits/sec 0.231 ms 2292/2524 (91%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 792 KBytes 6.49 Mbits/sec 0.262 ms 2342/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.55 Mbits/sec 0.154 ms 2342/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.56 Mbits/sec 0.114 ms 2341/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 792 KBytes 6.49 Mbits/sec 0.272 ms 2342/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.55 Mbits/sec 0.221 ms 2342/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.55 Mbits/sec 0.390 ms 2341/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.55 Mbits/sec 0.938 ms 2342/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.56 Mbits/sec 0.352 ms 2341/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 800 KBytes 6.55 Mbits/sec 0.243 ms 2341/2441 (96%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 0.439 ms 23741/24887 (95%)
[ 4] Sent 24887 datagrams

iperf Done.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>iperf3.exe -u -b 160M -p 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
[ 4] local 192.168.1.105 port 57808 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 18.3 MBytes 153 Mbits/sec 2337
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 19.0 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec 2437
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 19.2 MBytes 161 Mbits/sec 2461
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 18.8 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec 2405
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 19.1 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec 2439
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 19.2 MBytes 161 Mbits/sec 2459
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 18.9 MBytes 158 Mbits/sec 2418
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 19.4 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 2483
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 18.7 MBytes 157 Mbits/sec 2399
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 19.7 MBytes 165 Mbits/sec 2523
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 190 MBytes 160 Mbits/sec 1.088 ms 21121/24351 (87%)
[ 4] Sent 24351 datagrams

iperf Done.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>iperf3.exe -R -b 160M -p 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host queen.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.105 port 59654 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 827 KBytes 6.77 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.20 MBytes 10.1 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 13.0 MBytes 10.9 Mbits/sec 0 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 11.9 MBytes 9.97 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>iperf3.exe -b 160M -p 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
[ 4] local 192.168.1.105 port 59672 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 384 KBytes 3.15 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.25 MBytes 10.5 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.50 MBytes 12.6 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 13.4 MBytes 11.2 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 13.4 MBytes 11.2 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>

Today's iperf...

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17763.195]
(c) 2018 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>iperf3.exe -R -u -b 160M -p 17001 -c queen.cisp.co.za
Connecting to host queen.cisp.co.za, port 17001
Reverse mode, remote host queen.cisp.co.za is sending
[ 4] local 192.168.1.105 port 52349 connected to 62.233.65.195 port 17001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.77 MBytes 14.8 Mbits/sec 1.113 ms 2287/2513 (91%)
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 736 KBytes 6.03 Mbits/sec 0.913 ms 2350/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 760 KBytes 6.23 Mbits/sec 0.825 ms 2346/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 760 KBytes 6.22 Mbits/sec 0.522 ms 2347/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 784 KBytes 6.43 Mbits/sec 0.795 ms 2343/2441 (96%)
iperf3: OUT OF ORDER - incoming packet = 12665 and received packet = 12694 AND SP = 4
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 784 KBytes 6.42 Mbits/sec 1.014 ms 2345/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 784 KBytes 6.42 Mbits/sec 0.522 ms 2343/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 784 KBytes 6.43 Mbits/sec 0.536 ms 2343/2441 (96%)
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 776 KBytes 6.35 Mbits/sec 0.447 ms 2345/2442 (96%)
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 784 KBytes 6.43 Mbits/sec 0.400 ms 2343/2441 (96%)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Jitter Lost/Total Datagrams
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 195 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec 0.593 ms 23790/24901 (96%)
[ 4] Sent 24901 datagrams
[SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 1 datagrams received out-of-order

iperf Done.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>

 

[alwaysthankful]

Doesnt matter if its new or not. If its not shielded, there is a chance for interference. Only way to check, is to confirm if the wan port is connected at 1Gbps instead of 100Mbps.

yes it is.

 

[stefan9]

This sucks to hear. Got a letter in the post yesterday from Frogfoot stating that they will start with the trenching etc soon - got excited because had to move from Fibre to DSL. So I guess it will be 6+ months before it's live etc.

The pricing with CISP and Frogfoot seems decent.

Hope they sort out any issues by then. Hellopeter has some angry okes on there - The main complaint seems to be damage to property.

What are the main issues that are currently on the Frogfoot network? Speeds not living up to the advertising? High latency? Packet loss? All of the above? Some research indicates customer service is non-existent.

Previously had a 20/10 line (Aerial and not trenched) with Openserve/CISP before relocating - Had no issues at all with them (Or this combination). Like no issues at all. It was 100% from day 1.

It would suck to go from a stable DSL line (Current internet on premises) to a sucky fibre line.

Anybody using the 100/100 package from CISP on the Frogfoot network? Would like to hear from you guys.

I am on Cisp 100/100 on frogfoot, lynwood pta.

Only issue I have is single threaded download speeds international. Sadly an issue that isn't isolated to me, paul is on it with a few of us in this thread. Sadly FF has been extremely slow to rectify it.

For gaming,streaming,ect I have had no issues. Have hardly had a minutes down time since they installed july last year.

 

[tardomatic]

Anybody using the 100/100 package from CISP on the Frogfoot network? Would like to hear from you guys.

I am on FrogFoot, Cisp 100/100 in CT.

When i first got things set up, I was with WebAfrica, and the line performed like a complete dog. Constant buffering on youtube, netflix, etc with _horrible_ support.

After switching to CISP, streaming on all major platforms (netflix, youtube, amazon) works flawlessly. Steam downloads max out the line. I don't game much, but my kids do, and they haven't complained more than usual about the performance.

My issue is with single threaded downloads. Downloading a file using chrome / other browser which as far as I know doesn't do multithread is dreadful. never seem to get better than 10mbps (1MB/s), and it is often way less than that (300KB/s). I'm not sure if it's related, but downloads / uploads from things like Google Drive and Dropbox are also slow. Max upload speed I've seen is 4mbps (400KB/s), and downloads suffer the same fate as browser downloads.

The single threaded performance also has an impact on online installers (things like Visual Studio installation, or really any program that requires download during install does it single-threaded it seems, which means the experience sucks). If you are like me and spend time on github, that is affected as well - pulling / pushing to repos is painful. Same goes for windows updates / apt-get on linux. never seen those exceed a few mbps.

Speedtests are also not what they should be. to local servers in Cape Town i get full speed (>95mbps upload and download). to johannesburg, download never exceeds 60mbps, but uploads are great (>90Mbps). speedtests to the uk (coreix) and the states, download is dismal. 3mbps to 30mbps depending on how lucky your are. uploads are better at >60mbps .

All in all, it works, and it is an improvement over the 10Mb ADSL I used to have, but the issues above make me suspect that something isnt quite right somewhere.

 

[Sinbad]

Switching the NNI out for a new device resolved this issue with Crystal Web and Vuma a year or two ago, so hopefully it will fix the frogfoot issue as well