Cybersmart - help needed

prod

prod

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
8,861
Reaction score
7,228
Location
Cape Town
So I got myself a Cybersmart account today. Aaaand its totally not unshaped.
Its on my telkom 512 circuit. Since their online adsl thingy (where you login etc) is totally crap and not very user friendly, can any help as to how to upgrade my acc to an unshaped? Im getting really high pings and latency as opposed to my previous ISP's unshaped. I thought their standard 384/512 acc's were all unshaped? Any help would be appreciated thanks.
 
Last edited:
I know their 1Mb / 4Mb is unshaped. Dunno about the slower lines. Why don't you email their support desk. They're pretty good, although somtimes a bit slow.
 
prOd said:
So I got myself a Cybersmart account today. Aaaand its totally not unshaped.
Its on my telkom 512 circuit. Since their online adsl thingy (where you login etc) is totally crap and not very user friendly, can any help as to how to upgrade my acc to an unshaped? Im getting really high pings and latency as opposed to my previous ISP's unshaped. I thought their standard 384/512 acc's were all unshaped? Any help would be appreciated thanks.
Click to expand...

Only their one price accounts are shaped. Standard accounts aren't shaped, but you could always give them a call and ask them to switch your account over to an unshaped one, will cost you extra but will do it for you.
 
Nerfherder said:
Why do you say its shaped ?
Click to expand...

prOd said:
Im getting really high pings and latency as opposed to my previous ISP's unshaped.
Click to expand...

And its not something to do with the line, I logged on the old ISP and pings were about +100ms lower. I cant think that this is (if it is indeed unshaped) their speed? I heard only good things about 'em, but really :erm:

I did send an email to their support desk, its been a few hours so. Guess I'm just being impatient. I also (lol) accidentally topped up my account with 3GB >_< and asked them to revert that. I reaaallly hope they do, else fml.
 
Nerfherder said:
Thats got nothing to do with shaping.

You can have a great ping and be shaped. Shaping affects your max speed.
Click to expand...

So i.e; Shaped = slower
Unshaped = faster

Yes? Would it be safe to say then, since I have "slow" internet with that Cybersmart account it's either shaped or (pardon) their speeds are just generally crap?
 
prOd said:
So i.e; Shaped = slower
Unshaped = faster

Yes? Would it be safe to say then, since I have "slow" internet with that Cybersmart account it's either shaped or (pardon) their speeds are just generally crap?
Click to expand...

Its not shaped.

Its Is BTW so might be the reason the speed sucks.
 
Nerfherder said:
Its not shaped.

Its Is BTW so might be the reason the speed sucks.
Click to expand...



The oneprice accounts are all unshaped. Off a 512Kb line in jhb

Macintosh-5:~ laurie$ ping www.bbc.co.uk
PING www.bbc.net.uk (212.58.251.197): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=0 ttl=119 time=186.411 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=186.762 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=187.889 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=187.342 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=187.491 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=5 ttl=119 time=185.925 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=6 ttl=119 time=186.349 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.251.197: icmp_seq=7 ttl=119 time=185.812 ms


http://www.speedtest.net/result/628771738.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/628774524.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/628777285.png

The ping results on speedtest.net are unreliable, they can fluctuate by hundreds of ms for no apparent reason. (maybe that is why they are introducing pingtest.net) If you want to check the latency use the command line. If you are not getting similar download speeds, then chances are there is a configuration problem somewhere. There is a escalation procedure documented on the ticket if you do not get help in a respectable timeframe, alternatively you can email me at [email protected] and I will have a look for you. I tried to find your ticket, but that is the problem with posting under a pseudonym.

You are unlikely to get these results between 2pm and 6pm because that is our peak time and although this is a unshaped service it is contended. Any other time you should get similar results to above. So, please show me speedtests and latencies from other ISPs that "SUCK" as much as above.

You will also note that we do not NAT

traceroute to www.bbc.net.uk (212.58.253.68), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 1.531 ms 2.001 ms 0.570 ms
2 1.11.177.41-get-oneprice-adsl-for-only-R169.cybersmart.co.za (41.177.11.1) 26.881 ms 11.354 ms 12.590 ms
3 196.6.121.38-backbone.cybersmart.co.za (196.6.121.38) 46.233 ms 37.732 ms 37.820 ms
4 if-3-3-0.core4.LDN-London.as6453.net (195.219.195.225) 182.704 ms 183.111 ms 182.677 ms
5 Vlan52.icore1.LDN-London.as6453.net (80.231.76.2) 194.016 ms 194.679 ms 182.120 ms
6 bbc-gw0-linx.prt0.thdoe.bbc.co.uk (195.66.224.103) 184.156 ms 183.789 ms 183.839 ms
7 212.58.238.153 (212.58.238.153) 184.191 ms 183.304 ms 182.769 ms
8 te12-1.hsw1.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk (212.58.239.234) 184.963 ms 186.045 ms 185.820 ms

Furthermore you do not run through a proxy so you will not have problems with rapidshare and all other sites that monitor the connections per ip.

Regards

Laurie
 
Hey hey. Thanks for actually repsonding to this. So I made a few ping tests from cmd:

Old ISP(Imaginet):

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.197] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.197:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 224ms, Maximum = 246ms, Average = 239ms

Cybersmart:

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.197] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.197:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 307ms, Maximum = 308ms, Average = 307ms

From these alone its average 68ms difference, now before anyone shouts "ITS JUST 68 Q.Q", I play WoW most of the time, so a 68ms difference is kinda something of concern, its the difference between 240ms and 300+ms in-game.
Edit: I'm using dailup at the moment (bridge mode), I had some difficulty setting it up as PPPOE - it just didn't seem to work oO? Don't know if this would have something to do with it.
I'm actually more concerned about the 3GB extra cap I accidentally bought :(
If you want Laurie, I can just copy/paste my ticket and email it to you.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
prOd said:
Hey hey. Thanks for actually repsonding to this. So I made a few ping tests from cmd:

Old ISP(Imaginet):

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.197] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=246ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=114
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=243ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.197:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 224ms, Maximum = 246ms, Average = 239ms

Cybersmart:

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.251.197] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=308ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111
Reply from 212.58.251.197: bytes=32 time=307ms TTL=111

Ping statistics for 212.58.251.197:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 307ms, Maximum = 308ms, Average = 307ms

From these alone its average 68ms difference, now before anyone shouts "ITS JUST 68 Q.Q", I play WoW most of the time, so a 68ms difference is kinda something of concern, its the difference between 240ms and 300+ms in-game.
Edit: I'm using dailup at the moment (bridge mode), I had some difficulty setting it up as PPPOE - it just didn't seem to work oO? Don't know if this would have something to do with it.
I'm actually more concerned about the 3GB extra cap I accidentally bought :(
If you want Laurie, I can just copy/paste my ticket and email it to you.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...



There is something wrong, email me your ticket reference

Last login: Fri Nov 20 22:39:27 on ttys009
pMacintosh-5:~ laurie$ ping www.bbc.net.uk
PING www.bbc.net.uk (212.58.253.68): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=0 ttl=119 time=187.325 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=187.418 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=188.514 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=187.688 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=188.072 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=5 ttl=119 time=186.549 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=6 ttl=119 time=186.969 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=7 ttl=119 time=188.137 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.253.68: icmp_seq=8 ttl=119 time=190.025 ms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X