Brutal latency/ping Recently

[t27c]

I am wired, with the gigabit package and all of the sudden have gotten constant ping spikes for over the last few days. I haven't been able to play any games online because the crazy ping spikes and latency make it completely unplayable. My speeds are what they are expected to be, no issues there. I have tried hard wiring straight into the modem but alas, the issue still persists. I have tried switching cables, power cycling my devices, factory resetting my devices. The issue still persists. I have called and contacted Rogers multiple times and they say everything seems fine on their end. But still, the issue persists and is steady. resulting in me not able to use any of my gaming devices due to the brutal and constant ping spikes. It's frustrating paying over $100 a month for internet I cant use for the things I want it for. Any help or suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Thank you

*** Edited Labels ***

[Datalink]

@pmakshou that is the usual routine, contractor tech first, followed by a senior (real Rogers) tech if necessary.  I don't believe that contractor techs are allow to so anything to the local tap, except connect and disconnect house services.  If there is an issue with the local tap (pedestal or utility pole mounted), then a senior tech or maintenance crew is required.  

[pmakshou]

But they specifically said they were sending a "Senior Technician" when I spoke to them? So why lie about it? They patched me to a "manager" and that's exactly what they said.

At this point this is getting a bit ridiculous.

[Mcgronow]

I’m in the Kitchener area, and I’m having the same ping/lag spike issue while gaming. It’s been happening for around two weeks now.

However I’m not using Rogers directly, I was using TekSavvy cable and then recently switched to Fido cable a few days ago to see if that would resolve it. Unfortunately the issue persists and seems to be the same on both ISPs. I’m guessing it’s because they both use the Rogers infrastructure?

Tried replacing modems (with Teksavvy was using Hitron CGN3 and SmartRG SR808ac, and then with Fido using the white Coda 4582u), rebooting, factory resets, disconnecting all devices and so many other things. Must be a Rogers issue. Hopefully there’s a fix soon...

[Mcgronow]

Here’s an example of a ping test I did with Teksavvy - packet loss never exceeded 0.5% so they said they couldn’t escalate with Rogers.

I also had someone come from Rogers to check the signal and line and they said everything looked fine.

PING google.ca (172.217.164.227): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=15.315 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=14.064 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=11.536 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=12.398 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=14.940 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=13.019 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=12.597 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=12.045 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=13.100 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=11.592 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=11.904 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=12.543 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=11.640 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=11.980 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 14
Request timeout for icmp_seq 15
Request timeout for icmp_seq 16
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=3023.288 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=15 ttl=54 time=2020.871 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=16 ttl=54 time=1018.339 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=17 ttl=54 time=14.363 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=18 ttl=54 time=11.845 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=19 ttl=54 time=12.088 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=20 ttl=54 time=11.434 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=21 ttl=54 time=10.892 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=22 ttl=54 time=12.511 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=23 ttl=54 time=12.089 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=24 ttl=54 time=11.420 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=25 ttl=54 time=13.113 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=26 ttl=54 time=12.765 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=27 ttl=54 time=12.649 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=28 ttl=54 time=21.097 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=29 ttl=54 time=12.413 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=30 ttl=54 time=10.323 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=31 ttl=54 time=12.733 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=32 ttl=54 time=2948.645 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=33 ttl=54 time=1946.761 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=34 ttl=54 time=945.039 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=35 ttl=54 time=13.281 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=36 ttl=54 time=1799.415 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=37 ttl=54 time=798.857 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=38 ttl=54 time=10.741 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=39 ttl=54 time=11.942 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=40 ttl=54 time=13.145 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=41 ttl=54 time=13.601 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=42 ttl=54 time=19.808 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=43 ttl=54 time=13.643 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=44 ttl=54 time=12.239 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=45 ttl=54 time=13.683 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=46 ttl=54 time=12.005 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=47 ttl=54 time=13.075 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=48 ttl=54 time=10.985 ms
64 bytes from 172.217.164.227: icmp_seq=49 ttl=54 time=19.554 ms

--- google.ca ping statistics ---
50 packets transmitted, 50 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 10.323/300.987/3023.288/734.745 ms

Traceroute

1 hitronhub.home (192.168.0.1) 2.372 ms 1.702 ms 3.650 ms
2 24-246-28-129.cable.teksavvy.com (24.246.28.129) 9.877 ms 19.327 ms 13.957 ms
3 kitchener.rcable-tsi.tor.teksavvy.com (104.195.128.70) 16.492 ms 13.381 ms 13.959 ms
4 kitchener.tsi-rcable.tor.teksavvy.com (104.195.128.69) 19.574 ms 19.245 ms 17.648 ms
5 ae2-0-bdr01-tor2.teksavvy.com (206.248.155.17) 16.070 ms 18.776 ms
ae4-0-bdr01-tor.teksavvy.com (206.248.155.94) 20.137 ms
6 72.14.212.134 (72.14.212.134) 21.830 ms
72.14.211.14 (72.14.211.14) 19.248 ms 18.583 ms
7 74.125.244.145 (74.125.244.145) 16.258 ms
72.14.212.134 (72.14.212.134) 16.246 ms
74.125.244.161 (74.125.244.161) 16.640 ms
8 216.239.41.247 (216.239.41.247) 15.479 ms
74.125.244.145 (74.125.244.145) 18.838 ms
216.239.41.247 (216.239.41.247) 19.612 ms
9 216.239.42.61 (216.239.42.61) 18.006 ms
yyz12s05-in-f3.1e100.net (172.217.164.227) 14.955 ms
216.239.41.247 (216.239.41.247) 16.052 ms

[Datalink]

@pmakshou Rogers wasn't lying.  The tech that was at your house was most likely a contractor tech, even if he was driving a "Rogers" van.  The first tech visit, will usually be a contractor tech.  Maybe even the second.  However, in the event that there is an issue that the contractor tech can't handle, due to Rogers restrictions on what they are allowed to do, then the tech should elevate the problem to the next level tech, which will be a senior (real Rogers) tech who has the experience and equipment necessary to determine the problem.  Beyond that it would be time for a maintenance crew. 

[RogersCorey]

If you haven't yet reached out to us via PM to @CommunityHelps and you're impacted by this issue, I invite you to do so now. If you're not familiar with our PMing process, you can find instructions here.

We can't be certain that all these cases are related unless we troubleshoot first. Some of these cases have easily identifiable issues that could be causing the latency, such as noise.

So please reach out to us so that we can continue to build our case and find an ultimate fix.

Regards,

RogersCorey

[slcfam]

Just letting everyone know it's happening to me - Brampton area.  Let's see where this PM issue goes...

Monitoring with pingplotter.

[GR4230543]

@Datalink @slcfam and others I think it's good we're able to look at getting some more info on our individual issues. I also think it'd be really great to see continued dialogue here, so that the public (and we as a group) know what's going on. Please post any important info about your issue here.

[Swifty00]

It is very unlikely that latency jitter is a noise problem.   Noise tends to manifest itself in packet loss, but if the packet is not damaged by noise its ping speed does not vary significantly.  The only reason that they bear any similarity is that they can both cause packet loss.

Latency is not monitored by Rogers and high latency jitter I don't believe is covered by their internal Terms of Service procedures, so it isn't seen as a problem unless it becomes extreme enough to affect throughput, by causing packet loss.

I also suspect that there are multiple issues, but basically anything that results in the network being stressed may result in high latency, because the whole of Rogers infrastructure is tuned without latency in mind.  Whether it is QoS, tunneling or network segmentation, at the point capacity becomes an issue, whether it is DDoS, reduced capacity due to hardware failure, or even just inefficient routing, the resultant automated QoS or other remedial action will bump throughput over consistent packet latency.

The thing we have to convince Rogers of, is that Jitter is a problem, in and of itself, and that they cannot advertise Ignite products as good for gaming, unless they meet a standard of consistent, relatively low latency.

[geokilla007]

Here's an update on my end:

Ping statistics for 172.217.1.3:
Packets: Sent = 3600, Received = 3557, Lost = 43 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 3591ms, Average = 85ms

Ping statistics for 99.241.70.1:
Packets: Sent = 3600, Received = 3556, Lost = 44 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 3ms, Maximum = 3593ms, Average = 84ms

Ping statistics for 64.71.255.204:
Packets: Sent = 3600, Received = 3558, Lost = 42 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3592ms, Average = 87ms

[ComAcct]

Same issues with me as well. Internet has been highly unstable for over a week now. 

[pmakshou]

@Datalink- They did lie. The manager specifically said and I quote.

"We will send one of our senior techs to find out what's happening. When are you available."

If that wasn't lying then what is? They could have said "We're sending someone over and if it's a larger issue or outside your house then we will have a senior tech look at the nodes around your area."

Is that too hard to say? I don't understand...this isn't hard. Just keep your customers updated and we won't be so  upset. . . Let us know something is happening and that you're aware and looking into it. 

[Datalink]

?? I really don't understand your opinion on Rogers staff lying to you, and I'm not defending Rogers here, and I'm also not a Rogers employee.  The "We will send one of our senior techs to find out what's happening. When are you available." to me sounds like a normal question.  The tech rep was or is prepared to dispatch a senior tech and was simply asking when you're going to be home, presumably for the purpose of checking with you in the event that the tech replaced the local tap in its entirety or possibly some other component.  The tech would want to know at that point whether or not the maintenance action had resulted in any improvement in your internet performance.  If not then the next step would be to call in a maintenance crew, looking for other faulty equipment. 

Yes, the tech could have come and gone, without you ever knowing that he was in the neighbourhood, and you might have reacted negatively to that action simply by not knowing what if anything had occurred.  Instead, it would appear that the tech rep was trying to accommodate your schedule so that the senior tech could check in with you either before or after any maintenance action.  

As I said above, not defending Rogers here, but I simply don't understand the opinion about lying.  Understandably you're frustrated, but please let the maintenance staff do their work and if required, allow them to check in with you during that process. 

[Swifty00]

I think it is because we all know it has nothing to do with noise, or localized connections.  Nothing about this problem requires us to be available.

If it was about this, it would be fixed by now. I have been on the other side of this kind of thing all my life, working in IT.  I don't think Rogers are bad people.  They just made some assumptions and poor network design decisions.

It isn't going to be easy to fix.  But we haven't even got to the "Acceptance" stage here.  They don't even acknowledge that they have a problem.  They are lying to themselves and their customers, until they agree that latency Jitter is a service level problem, even when it doesn't involve packet loss.

Honestly, they might as well get it fixed, because it is just going to get worse, and it is causing more and more packet loss, which pretty soon will collapse the whole network.  It is just a matter of time.

[user123123]

I am in Orangeville and I've been having exactly the same issues described here for quite a while now.

It usually lasts 2-3 days getting worst and worst during that time, and then it goes away for a while. Lately it happens more often. After calling several time to support, having a contractor sent to my house (he did acknowledge the issue but obviously there is not much he could do but raising it with Rogers), nothing was done and whatever I tried no one at Rogers would do anything more, they always say the signal in the modem looks fine. Last night I wrote a letter to the office of the President, in hope that something  would be done. I am at the verge of cancelling and looking elsewhere, cause I have to work from home since my wife had a stroke recently, and this internet issue is preventing me at times to properly work. I don't think that would solve my issues, but should I try to have my modem replaced?

[Swifty00]

When you have ruled out wi-fi problems, or are wired into your modem try and ping the edge server.  That is, log in to your modem 10.0.0.1 look up your WAN gateway address. 

ping -n 100 x.x.x.1

and see the stats at the bottom.

You should be hitting the edge server consistently in under 15ms.  If you aren't, then the most likely thing is that either one of the network nodes/bridges between you and the edge servers is badly configured, congested or faulty, or the edge server you are pinging is badly configured, congested or faulty.

If your speed is relatively consistent but you have a % of timeouts, then you potentially have a noise problem or a modem problem.  Then replacing the modem or getting a Rogers person out to check your line will be of benefit.

If your connection to the edge server is consistent then you have to do a tracert to establish whether this is a problem within the Rogers network or within the Internet.  You should be able to look up how to go that. 

[pmakshou]

I know you're not trying to defend them, but you have to see it from my shoes. You technically told me more than they did. Why couldn't they have just told me that. Instead of the other stuff they told me which didn't actually happen?

[DE_]

Random high ping started this past Sunday. Unusable last 4 days for gaming Cause looks like cogentco

This past Sunday I started getting kicked within a minute or less from my game (wired connection to Hitron CGN3ACSMR).  I became aware that pings were random jumping to a # of seconds and back down. 4 days later still happening.  Found out about and loaded Pingplotter and confirmed the continuing obvious high random pings. Isolated one high ping instance to be2318.ccr42.fra03.atlast.cogentco.com adding 1300 ms to ping. Who at rogers do I complain to about this ? Is this a known in progress "situation" ? Is the a rough expected resolution date ?  

[geokilla007]

No updates from Rogers since Sunday.. Sent them a PM last night and no reply. Tonight the ping spikes are awful.

[nylongutties]

I'm on Distributel in KW and I just started having this issue a couple days ago. When I run latency tests it will randomly spike as high as 10-12 seconds, and that is reflected in extreme load times while browsing and buffering in videos. It's really bad.

[massimo]

Rogers Ignite Latency spikes in Vaughan/Maple area

Just wondering if anyone in the Vaughan/Maple has been having internet issues the past few days. For 3 days now, I have been having spikes in latency every 20 seconds. It is difficult to watch TV, takes a while to load websites and impossible to play online games. I thought maybe it's on my end since a rogers representative told me that they see no issue on their end, but my neighbours have been experiencing the same issues for the past 3 days as well.....same issues, same time. When Rogers ran a test while speaking to support, they told me they see no spike in ping (that is because while they are doing the test, my internet wasn't lagging). I ran the same ping test while my internet wasn't lagging and it was fine. When I run the test and it DOES start to lag, it shows on the test. Same when I run a speed test. Shows that I get 1gig DOWNLOAD (my internet plan) when I run the test during the 30 second window I have with no lag, but surprise, when I run the same test RIGHT as I lag, it shoots down to 200mbps DOWNLOAD. Just curious if anyone is experiencing these same issues that live in the Vaughan/Maple area.