Screamer WiMax

I find packetloss to cause more problems with Gamemax via Putty than without - i.e. if I have a lot of packetloss then I don't use Gamemax.

Screamer acknowledge the problem and are working with Neotel to resolve ... patience I guess ...
 
"Dear screamer client we currently experiencing unexpected technical problems in your area and our technicians are working on it." received 13:39 2009-09-15

It is now 18:15 and my router has finally re-established connection....

Tracing route to www.l.google.com [209.85.227.104]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.254.2
2 310 ms 239 ms * 10.0.64.253
3 110 ms 100 ms 129 ms 172.11.11.1
4 * 127 ms 125 ms 10.254.253.254
5 835 ms * 292 ms 172.17.0.1
6 * 192 ms * 172.17.0.159
7 119 ms 114 ms 140 ms 41.154.7.32
8 134 ms 219 ms 130 ms firewall2.vlan15.jnb1.gp-online.net [41.154.0.27
]
9 585 ms * * 41.161.56.1
10 609 ms 985 ms 463 ms 41.160.0.244
11 118 ms 124 ms 125 ms if-1-8.bb1.JSO-Johannesburg.as6453.net [216.6.55
.41]
12 * 446 ms 334 ms if-3-7.core2.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.184.
13]
13 323 ms 289 ms * if-9-1.mcore3.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.195
.5]
14 524 ms 324 ms * Vlan1254.icore1.LDN-London.as6453.net [195.219.1
95.90]
15 294 ms 330 ms 294 ms xe-10-2-0-edge3.london1.level3.net [4.68.63.105]

16 * 310 ms 304 ms ae-21-52.car1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.98]
17 * 314 ms * 195.50.118.210
18 343 ms 394 ms * 209.85.255.76
19 549 ms 329 ms 310 ms 72.14.232.134
20 315 ms 384 ms 499 ms 209.85.252.83
21 327 ms 414 ms 314 ms 209.85.243.89
22 293 ms * 1079 ms wy-in-f104.google.com [209.85.227.104]

Trace complete.

Pinging 172.17.0.159 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=415ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=118ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=712ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=248ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=120ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=60
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=60
Request timed out.
Reply from 172.17.0.159: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=60

Ping statistics for 172.17.0.159:
Packets: Sent = 78, Received = 50, Lost = 28 (35% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 79ms, Maximum = 712ms, Average = 130ms


I can only hope that they are still working on it.... tick tock tick tock
 
Ok well, yesterday morning things were up and running again. I am now experiencing 2% packet loss after running the test for quite some time. Sending 100,000 packets.

This results in my WoW latency sitting around 700ms which is SUPER annoying.
 
I was away for a couple of days - returned last night and had the a fantastic connection.

Close to 0% packet loss and played Wow with approx 280 ms latency (not using Gamemax but I am using the so called registry hack)

I can only guess you are getting some signal interference - I know that "cda" had a similar problem.
 
I am sure there is a capacity issue on the network or tower as I checked at lunch time today and the packet loss was about 4%. Further investigation into signal quality (on the CPE) shows a near perfect signal with no interference.

Luckily for me I seldom use the network during the day or during peak business hours but my wife is less impressed.
 
Upstream is poor atm .... guess a lot of people contending for the available bandwidth.

Ping statistics for 209.85.227.99:
Packets: Sent = 627, Received = 549, Lost = 78 (12% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 258ms, Maximum = 620ms, Average = 275ms

No doubt it will improve within an hour or two.

However, there is nowhere in the world where this can be counted as acceptable.
 
Last edited:
wow4life said:
Upstream is poor atm .... guess a lot of people contending for the available bandwidth.

Ping statistics for 209.85.227.99:
Packets: Sent = 627, Received = 549, Lost = 78 (12% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 258ms, Maximum = 620ms, Average = 275ms

No doubt it will improve within an hour or two.

However, there is nowhere in the world where this can be counted as acceptable.
Click to expand...

Normalised at approx 21:30 if anyone is interested *sigh*
 
I must say my connection has been running great lately.

Even raiding Ulduar 25 last week was perfect, a lot of other people in the group disconnecting every time we pulled but my connection stayed solid throughout.
 
SliverZA said:
I must say my connection has been running great lately.

Even raiding Ulduar 25 last week was perfect, a lot of other people in the group disconnecting every time we pulled but my connection stayed solid throughout.
Click to expand...

I monitor the connection closely - the issue isn't within Screamer's network but the upstream Neotel connection. Some days its perfect and others it is really poor.

So I can't understand how we have a different experience unless I am being "throttled".

btw: By 23:00 last night it was perfect'ish.
 
I've been testing Screamer for a month now... I'm sad to say that their service is beyond HORRIBLE, I have never experienced such slow speeds before.


Sometimes I have to plug in my cellphone for internet, that is how bad it is. Can't believe I'm paying R630 a month for this crap.

After 23:00 in the evenings the speed is OK, but any other time of the day I would be lucky to get 20kb/s download speed, on average 10kb/s.

My location: Potchefstroom

Screamer, please sort this out, if it is not you , but the people in Potchefstroom, sort them out!!

The funniest part of it is I still have to pay for 512kb/s although I'd prefer dial-up over my connection at the moment. Capitalism at its best!
 
Last edited:
Update:
Spoke to Screamer this morning and they confirm the problem with their upstream provided by Neotel. Neotel have been monitoring the link all weekend and feedback (to Screamer) is expected shortly.

And to illustrate the problem:

(A) Ping to Screamer DNS
Ping statistics for 172.17.0.159:
Packets: Sent = 1541, Received = 1534, Lost = 7 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 33ms, Maximum = 76ms, Average = 41ms

(B) Ping to Google
Ping statistics for 209.85.227.147:
Packets: Sent = 1546, Received = 1360, Lost = 186 (12% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 213ms, Maximum = 403ms, Average = 228ms
 
Last edited:
hmm this is weird

wife is at home on the net doing facebook crap.
gets 3 emails for my BW utilization of 80 . 90 and then suddenly my cap is all used up email.

wtf...
 
Darksun said:
hmm this is weird

wife is at home on the net doing facebook crap.
gets 3 emails for my BW utilization of 80 . 90 and then suddenly my cap is all used up email.

wtf...
Click to expand...

I would love to have access to their bandwidth monitor - it was promised but yet to be delivered.
 
Can't believe I am stuck with Screamer, Telkom please give me a line!

You guys who are able to get adsl, why do you use this wireless crap? It is not cheaper, faster, or more stable compared to adsl.

I'm paying R630 a month for 512kb/s 3gb cap. Don't tell me that is NOT expensive
 
Look at this:

Ping statistics for 209.85.227.104:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 284ms, Maximum = 453ms, Average = 349ms


Haha bloody hillarious
 
wow4life said:
Update:
Spoke to Screamer this morning and they confirm the problem with their upstream provided by Neotel. Neotel have been monitoring the link all weekend and feedback (to Screamer) is expected shortly.
Click to expand...

Pity you can't just connect to a different ISP, like you can with Telkom's Wimax.... if an upstream provider gives me **** I just switch my ISP... aaaah the lovely wonder of wireless companies...
 
Saidar said:
Can't believe I am stuck with Screamer, Telkom please give me a line!

You guys who are able to get adsl, why do you use this wireless crap? It is not cheaper, faster, or more stable compared to adsl.

I'm paying R630 a month for 512kb/s 3gb cap. Don't tell me that is NOT expensive
Click to expand...

Telkom's Wimax is far superior than Screamer's in terms of choice, especially at times like these. I'm more than happy with ONLY getting 512kbps because I know it can go faster and an upgrade might be on the cards soon for faster speeds AND I have the choice in who provides me bandwidth.

R240 per month with no upfront buying of equipment or signing 24 month contracts and I can take my business to any ADSL ISP out there I want to, even Telkom's ISP, and get free local and what not...
 
AcidRaZor said:
Telkom's Wimax is far superior than Screamer's in terms of choice, especially at times like these. I'm more than happy with ONLY getting 512kbps because I know it can go faster and an upgrade might be on the cards soon for faster speeds AND I have the choice in who provides me bandwidth.

R240 per month with no upfront buying of equipment or signing 24 month contracts and I can take my business to any ADSL ISP out there I want to, even Telkom's ISP, and get free local and what not...
Click to expand...

Exactly my thougts... Too bad Telkom won't install a line where I live, although it is extremely easy to do so. I really don't understand this world, can't even get decent internet :eek:
 
Been poking my head into the Neotel thread - seems like they are having their fair share of problems.

As my investigations have shown the problems aren't within Screamer's network (at least not for me) but with Neotel.

Are we truly left with Telkom/Saix as the only real option for international backhaul?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X