StormFiber (By Cybernet) FTTH Discussion Thread

[shaheerk]

Does anyone know what their fair usage policy/allowance is?

 

[maazsk97]

Also screw PTA with their WMS bull**** can't use in-game voice chat and most of the connection problems are due to their incompetence. My connection will be running totally fine and I still get random lag and disconnections for no reason.

 

[maazsk97]

Does anyone know what their fair usage policy/allowance is?

1tb/month for all speed tiers. That's what they told me.

 

[shaheerk]

1tb/month for all speed tiers. That's what they told me.

So that means only PTCL gives 2TB FUP (for faster packages).

 

[maazsk97]

So that means only PTCL gives 2TB FUP (for faster packages).

Yep.

 

[ymailpk]

What’s your ping on : google.com
Changing DNS ll make difference?

 

[shaheerk]

What’s your ping on : google.com
Changing DNS ll make difference?

Most likely no - both PTCL and TW have some peering with Google in one form or another (or maybe there's some edge-caching going on?).
PTCL gives 40-45ms here in Pindi. TW is about 5-10 ms lower. You won't be able to improve it further.

Pinging google.com [142.250.181.78] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 142.250.181.78: bytes=32 time=48ms TTL=60
Reply from 142.250.181.78: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=60
Reply from 142.250.181.78: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60
Reply from 142.250.181.78: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=60

 

[TStorm]

Also screw PTA with their WMS bull**** can't use in-game voice chat and most of the connection problems are due to their incompetence. My connection will be running totally fine and I still get random lag and disconnections for no reason.

Is there any solution for this? are they working on it?

 

[maazsk97]

Is there any solution for this? are they working on it?

No solution atm, even with a VPN I can only hear my teammates but they still can't hear me in Rainbow 6. PTA ain't gonna fix this bs any time soon. They are pathetic.

 

[TStorm]

No solution atm, even with a VPN I can only hear my teammates but they still can't hear me in Rainbow 6. PTA ain't gonna fix this bs any time soon. They are pathetic.

Is this a nationwide issue? like are there complaints piling up against this?

 

[Farrukhkazimi]

Is this a nationwide issue? like are there complaints piling up against this?

Nationwide. And this is beyond any ISP's control. PTA has basically installed a web monitoring system, which uses Deep Packets Inspection (DPI) to monitor all communications across the internet including game VOIP's and other communications which result in disrupting voices in the game also affecting latencies in some games. The system is actually recording traffic and call data on behalf of PTA.

 

[shaheerk]

No solution atm, even with a VPN I can only hear my teammates but they still can't hear me in Rainbow 6. PTA ain't gonna fix this bs any time soon. They are pathetic.

If it's not working with a VPN, then either the VPN is at fault or the other server. Try changing your country or your VPN since that practically eliminates PTA/ISP influence.

 

[maazsk97]

If it's not working with a VPN, then either the VPN is at fault or the other server. Try changing your country or your VPN since that practically eliminates PTA/ISP influence.

I am using GPN, my IP address stays the same and only in-game routing is affected. I will try to reconfigure it to see what I can do to fix this but atm PTA has stated that WMS doesn't impact the internet traffic in any negative way but that is a straight up lie. Baki maslay hal krnay nhi bas internet data monitor krlo.

 

[shaheerk]

I am using GPN, my IP address stays the same and only in-game routing is affected. I will try to reconfigure it to see what I can do to fix this but atm PTA has stated that WMS doesn't impact the internet traffic in any negative way but that is a straight up lie. Baki maslay hal krnay nhi bas internet data monitor krlo.

So... Split tunnelling?

Try blacklisting apps from the VPN rather than whitelisting - maybe some other components aren't going through the VPN.

 

[maazsk97]

So... Split tunnelling?

Try blacklisting apps from the VPN rather than whitelisting - maybe some other components aren't going through the VPN.

I will see what I can do, if you have any other good VPN suggestions please do let me know.

 

[smaaz]

Recently stormfible is launching is Bahawalpur soon, PTCL is a freakin mess as they are planning upgratd to fiber since 4 years now. For now I am using internet provided by our local cable network I dont know what it is but generally speed is good 12mbps/6mbps off/on, and on speedtest it says boom info tech.

So should I shift to fiberlink usage is no online gaming only youtube/netflix and online classes. This local net is fine (100 times better then PTCL copper ) but disconnections do occur due to electricity cuts. Please help decide also how good is cable quality ? and is their HD box android based and is it worth it to get it over standard cable ??

 

[TheDankestMan]

Can someone kindly provide me with ping and traceroutes to the following IPs. I'm looking to switch from Transworld because nowadays my connection is very inconsistent.

163.172.139.11
50.7.151.43

Thanks, in advance.

 

[junejo]

Can someone kindly provide me with ping and traceroutes to the following IPs. I'm looking to switch from Transworld because nowadays my connection is very inconsistent.

163.172.139.11
50.7.151.43

Thanks, in advance.

C:\Users\junejo>ping 163.172.139.11

Pinging 163.172.139.11 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 163.172.139.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 126ms, Average = 124ms

C:\Users\junejo>ping 50.7.151.43

Pinging 50.7.151.43 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 50.7.151.43:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 108ms, Maximum = 110ms, Average = 108ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracing route to 50.7.151.43 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.68.3
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.18.1
3 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 202.163.100.245
4 3 ms 3 ms 4 ms 202.163.100.105
5 6 ms 4 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.121
6 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.117.18
7 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.100.21
8 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.253.4.50
9 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms 10.253.4.4
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 108 ms 108 ms 108 ms be3093.ccr42.par01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.165]
12 109 ms 109 ms 109 ms be2416.rcr21.par02.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.48.254]
13 109 ms 110 ms 108 ms core01.aggr0.par.fdcservers.net [149.6.163.58]
14 108 ms 108 ms 108 ms 50.7.151.43

Trace complete.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracing route to 11-139-172-163.instances.scw.cloud [163.172.139.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.68.3
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.18.1
3 6 ms 1 ms 2 ms 202.163.100.245
4 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.105
5 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.121
6 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.117.18
7 3 ms 2 ms 3 ms 192.168.100.21
8 5 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.253.4.50
9 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms 10.253.4.4
10 116 ms 112 ms 112 ms et-0-0-21.edge4.Marseille1.Level3.net [212.73.201.229]
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 124 ms 124 ms 124 ms 195.154.1.189
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 124 ms 123 ms 123 ms 11-139-172-163.instances.scw.cloud [163.172.139.11]

Trace complete.

 

[TheDankestMan]

C:\Users\junejo>ping 163.172.139.11

Pinging 163.172.139.11 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47
Reply from 163.172.139.11: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 163.172.139.11:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 126ms, Average = 124ms

C:\Users\junejo>ping 50.7.151.43

Pinging 50.7.151.43 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53
Reply from 50.7.151.43: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 50.7.151.43:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 108ms, Maximum = 110ms, Average = 108ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracing route to 50.7.151.43 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.68.3
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.18.1
3 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 202.163.100.245
4 3 ms 3 ms 4 ms 202.163.100.105
5 6 ms 4 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.121
6 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.117.18
7 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.100.21
8 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.253.4.50
9 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms 10.253.4.4
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 108 ms 108 ms 108 ms be3093.ccr42.par01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.165]
12 109 ms 109 ms 109 ms be2416.rcr21.par02.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.48.254]
13 109 ms 110 ms 108 ms core01.aggr0.par.fdcservers.net [149.6.163.58]
14 108 ms 108 ms 108 ms 50.7.151.43

Trace complete.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracing route to 11-139-172-163.instances.scw.cloud [163.172.139.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.68.3
2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.18.1
3 6 ms 1 ms 2 ms 202.163.100.245
4 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.105
5 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms 202.163.100.121
6 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.117.18
7 3 ms 2 ms 3 ms 192.168.100.21
8 5 ms 2 ms 2 ms 10.253.4.50
9 5 ms 3 ms 3 ms 10.253.4.4
10 116 ms 112 ms 112 ms et-0-0-21.edge4.Marseille1.Level3.net [212.73.201.229]
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 124 ms 124 ms 124 ms 195.154.1.189
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 124 ms 123 ms 123 ms 11-139-172-163.instances.scw.cloud [163.172.139.11]

Trace complete.

Thank you so much. Pings are quite similar to TW so that's good. Hopefully, the service is better too.

 

[shaheerk]

If they use the same route, then there won't necessarily be a difference in their performance.

Ping is one part. Throughput is another. Both can be affected by networks in between. And sometimes, the same ISP can go bonkers for different people.

Right now, from my own connection (not SF, but PTCL), I'm getting 175ms to 163.172.139.11 (25ms because Rawalpindi). When I test on lg.nexlinx.net.pk and select PTCL or TW, I get 130-135ms (18ms because of Lahore) for both.

Point is - PTCL is also good, but for my current route - within PTCL - it isn't. I've seen weird anomalies like this happen on Transworld as well so both aren't immune.