# Thread: How much does distance from CO affect connection speed

1. ## How much does distance from CO affect connection speed

I think I am pretty close to the outside limit of dsl availibility in my town, should I expect it to be considerable lower than a friends connection that lives much closer to the CO. Asking this in conjunction with my previous post about if CAT5 cable run from my outside junction box to my dsl modem will help increase my connection from its 352/256 to its maximum of 1500/256

2. dsl is affected by distance. You will see lower speeds and probably higher pings than those who are closer to the CO

3. Typically latency isn't affected by your distance to your CO, unless there were faulty repeaters, or enough noise on your line to produce line errors. The farther you are, the less stable your loop will become to attain higher speeds, and therefore the lower speeds your CPE has to be trained to synchronize at. The wiring from your network interface to your junction box will not help improve speed, but line stability, and this is only the case if your wiring is that much primitive. Big factors that account for speeds you can attain, or if service can be had at all, are if there's any bridge taps in your local trunk, or if the gauge in your loop exceeds 24 gauge. The higher the gauge, the thinner the copper is, and the nearer you have to be to your CO to get service.

4. I live at 13,000 feet from the local CO. My download and upload speeds are pretty slow, repeatedly tested at 685/115, especially compared to some of my cable using friends who often get 3500/700. But I'm not in it for downloading, I'm in it for the gaming....

But my pings are still great, usually 40 - 60 in UT, and I enjoyed pings from 26 - 35 in Quake 3 last night for hours.

5. 13,000 feet is fine...

We've had DSL lines train up @ over 8Mbit/s at over 3.5 kilometres. Latency as mentioned above will depend on the line noise, and interleave depth.

6. Interleave depth = _________?

7. It's a parameter in a comms system which alters the response to an impulsive (a burst) of noise into the line.

If the interleave depth is increased, the bit error rate can be decreased - the catch is that it increases the latency (not too much) as opposed to if the interleave was turned off. In such a case though, the line would run alot of errors.

have a look on google for reed-solomon coding - which is used in ADSL.....

8. After consulting with BellSouth and doing a little ground work it seems I am about 17000 feet out soooo for now it seems my best is going to be 300-400 on download. This is of course many times faster than the old 56k but not quite what I was hoping for. The possibility of Bridge Taps in my neighborhood is high but Bell wouldn't confirm. I installed the CAT5 and did actually pick up about 20k so it was worth doing. We actually just got dsl in my area so I guess I am doing good to be getting it at all. Bell did say that the plans are to roll out full coverage in my area by 2005 (Arrrghhh!!!) so I can look forward to the possibility of speed increases in the not-so-near future. FTP downloads from my office pc are around 330 when I get a 350 connection which is nearly ten times better than anything I've ever gotten on 56k. Haven't done any significant http downloads to report on that.

My system for those interested:
800 Mhz Atlon
Gigabyte MB
256 MB Ram
30 MB ATA 100 7200 rpm drive
ATI ALL-in-Wonder Pro AGP w/ 32 MB
SoundBlaster Live Platinum 5.1
Sony 8x8x32 CD-Writer
LG 12x DVD
blah blah bunch of other stuff that has no real affect on performance.

9. That hard disk you've got there is kinda small

Typo I'm sure

10. Ha yeah that pretty funny !! I meant of course a 30 Gigabyte drive.
Interestingly enough however I do have a old 20 MB , a 80 MB and a 340 MB from some old guys I parted out recently.

11. I live 19,200 from my CO (yellow zone, according to isp)
i easily hit my upload cap but never hit a 1/4 of download cap, but pings are great=]

i ping 40-60 to most game servers so im happy

12. I love cable. 6-10ms pings to anything within the same city here..

1 BNG-144-132-80-1.vic.bigpond.net.au (144.132.80.1) 13.292 ms 8.638 ms 8.728 ms
2 gigabit-msfc1.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au (61.9.129.4) 11.704 ms 9.844 ms 7.855 ms
3 202.12.157.71 (202.12.157.71) 10.576 ms 9.527 ms 10.906 ms
4 GigabitEthernet4-0-0.lon5.Melbourne.telstra.net (139.130.49.33) 7.509 ms 5.142 ms 8.647 ms
5 GigabitEthernet3-2.lon-core3.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.76.89) 16.453 ms 10.002 ms 10.872 ms
6 FastEthernet1-0-0.lon20.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.80.30) 12.570 ms 8.058 ms 9.864 ms
7 primu155m.lnk.telstra.net (139.130.193.102) 9.476 ms 11.155 ms 6.838 ms
8 210.50.0.51 (210.50.0.51) 8.854 ms 9.528 ms 10.840 ms
9 210.50.0.10 (210.50.0.10) 9.630 ms 8.641 ms 6.828 ms
10 halflife7.ipgn.com.au (210.50.4.14) 10.607 ms 6.255 ms 9.789 ms

provided from my magical traceroute
www.cybernet.asn.au/trace.html

13. Yeah.. Try hitting a US site.. Betcha that latency will hit close to 90ms average..

14. My Pings using tomsykes ip's and his "Magic Traceroute" from Kentucky,USA

1 BNG-144-132-80-1.vic.bigpond.net.au (144.132.80.1) 61.425 ms 24.419 ms 18.919 ms
2 gigabit-msfc1.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au (61.9.129.4) 32.482 ms 16.009 ms 8.817 ms
3 202.12.157.71 (202.12.157.71) 9.529 ms 19.511 ms 7.833 ms
4 GigabitEthernet4-0-0.lon5.Melbourne.telstra.net (139.130.49.33) 25.515 ms 12.924 ms 16.840 ms
5 GigabitEthernet3-2.lon-core3.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.76.89) 17.589 ms 11.994 ms 8.812 ms
6 FastEthernet1-0-0.lon20.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.80.30) 13.544 ms 8.074 ms 14.745 ms
7 primu155m.lnk.telstra.net (139.130.193.102) 26.558 ms 7.235 ms 9.866 ms
8 210.50.0.51 (210.50.0.51) 9.726 ms 10.672 ms 10.794 ms
9 210.50.0.10 (210.50.0.10) 28.657 ms 14.577 ms 9.815 ms
10 halflife7.ipgn.com.au (210.50.4.14) 34.615 ms 17.220 ms 8.858 ms

overall not much worse than his so despite my slow connection speed it seems latency is okay

15. OOOOOkay

Try 300ms. Or, I can introduce you to my friend Kiefer who is beta testing his transmogrifier. It uses parallel universes to let you violate the laws of physics.

Kip

16. Originally posted by Sonjeir
My Pings using tomsykes ip's and his "Magic Traceroute" from Kentucky,USA

1 BNG-144-132-80-1.vic.bigpond.net.au (144.132.80.1) 61.425 ms 24.419 ms 18.919 ms
2 gigabit-msfc1.vic-remote.bigpond.net.au (61.9.129.4) 32.482 ms 16.009 ms 8.817 ms
3 202.12.157.71 (202.12.157.71) 9.529 ms 19.511 ms 7.833 ms
4 GigabitEthernet4-0-0.lon5.Melbourne.telstra.net (139.130.49.33) 25.515 ms 12.924 ms 16.840 ms
5 GigabitEthernet3-2.lon-core3.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.76.89) 17.589 ms 11.994 ms 8.812 ms
6 FastEthernet1-0-0.lon20.Melbourne.telstra.net (203.50.80.30) 13.544 ms 8.074 ms 14.745 ms
7 primu155m.lnk.telstra.net (139.130.193.102) 26.558 ms 7.235 ms 9.866 ms
8 210.50.0.51 (210.50.0.51) 9.726 ms 10.672 ms 10.794 ms
9 210.50.0.10 (210.50.0.10) 28.657 ms 14.577 ms 9.815 ms
10 halflife7.ipgn.com.au (210.50.4.14) 34.615 ms 17.220 ms 8.858 ms

overall not much worse than his so despite my slow connection speed it seems latency is okay
Heheh Sonjeir.... that traceroute script is a traceroute done from my machine that's why the results are similar.

Mosdef112 - Minimum latency to the US we see is about 140ms (round trip, 70ms each way). In reality 160ms to west coast USA is good. But the clowns at AT&T have got problems at the moment, so traffic is going through a cable which goes through asia - and has been severed a few times by boat anchors (supposedly).

17. Yes I suppose that would be true I hadn't noticed at the time but being a php script meant it was server parsed and would not include my ping time to your server. So I ran them through wsftp ping and got these real stats.

Ping 144.132.80.1 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:38:06
ping 144.132.80.1 packet 1 round trip time = 602 ms. successful
ping 144.132.80.1 packet 2 round trip time = 501 ms. successful
ping 144.132.80.1 packet 3 round trip time = 451 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 451, Maximum: 602, Average: 518
End time 06/21/01 23:38:10
Ping 61.9.129.4 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:38:30
ping 61.9.129.4 packet 1 round trip time = 556 ms. successful
ping 61.9.129.4 packet 2 round trip time = 407 ms. successful
ping 61.9.129.4 packet 3 round trip time = 521 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 407, Maximum: 556, Average: 494
End time 06/21/01 23:38:33
Ping 202.12.157.71 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:38:48
ping 202.12.157.71 packet 1 failed, retcode = 11010 (Timed Out)
ping 202.12.157.71 packet 2 failed, retcode = 11010 (Timed Out)
ping 202.12.157.71 packet 3 failed, retcode = 11010 (Timed Out)
3 packets sent; 0 packets received; 100% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 0, Maximum: 0, Average: 0
End time 06/21/01 23:39:06
Ping 139.130.49.33 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:39:25
ping 139.130.49.33 packet 1 round trip time = 594 ms. successful
ping 139.130.49.33 packet 2 round trip time = 413 ms. successful
ping 139.130.49.33 packet 3 round trip time = 499 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 413, Maximum: 594, Average: 502
End time 06/21/01 23:39:29
Ping 203.50.76.89 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:39:43
ping 203.50.76.89 packet 1 round trip time = 535 ms. successful
ping 203.50.76.89 packet 2 round trip time = 493 ms. successful
ping 203.50.76.89 packet 3 round trip time = 453 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 453, Maximum: 535, Average: 493
End time 06/21/01 23:39:47
Ping 203.50.80.30 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:40:00
ping 203.50.80.30 packet 1 round trip time = 574 ms. successful
ping 203.50.80.30 packet 2 round trip time = 698 ms. successful
ping 203.50.80.30 packet 3 round trip time = 461 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 461, Maximum: 698, Average: 577
End time 06/21/01 23:40:04
Ping 139.130.193.102 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:40:30
ping 139.130.193.102 packet 1 round trip time = 297 ms. successful
ping 139.130.193.102 packet 2 round trip time = 569 ms. successful
ping 139.130.193.102 packet 3 round trip time = 343 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 297, Maximum: 569, Average: 403
End time 06/21/01 23:40:34
Ping 210.50.0.51 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:40:46
ping 210.50.0.51 packet 1 round trip time = 247 ms. successful
ping 210.50.0.51 packet 2 round trip time = 238 ms. successful
ping 210.50.0.51 packet 3 round trip time = 367 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 238, Maximum: 367, Average: 284
End time 06/21/01 23:40:49
Ping 210.50.0.10 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:41:06
ping 210.50.0.10 packet 1 round trip time = 385 ms. successful
ping 210.50.0.10 packet 2 round trip time = 237 ms. successful
ping 210.50.0.10 packet 3 round trip time = 299 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 237, Maximum: 385, Average: 307
End time 06/21/01 23:41:09
Ping 210.50.4.14 3/5000/56/1; Start time 06/21/01 23:41:21
ping 210.50.4.14 packet 1 round trip time = 386 ms. successful
ping 210.50.4.14 packet 2 round trip time = 239 ms. successful
ping 210.50.4.14 packet 3 round trip time = 362 ms. successful
3 packets sent; 3 packets received; 0% lost. Round trip times (ms): Minimum: 239, Maximum: 386, Average: 329
End time 06/21/01 23:41:25

Okay definately a big difference so somebody tell me are these bad ping times considering geographical locations or about right.

Can anybody suggest an ip or two in the us to try ? I really don't play alot of online games (read none) I wanted the speed for transfering files home-office. But I am interested in playing a game or two of Never Winter Nights maybe hosting a game and would like this to perform well enough for that.

18. *** In response to Kip Patterson ***

Thanks for the sarcasm, but I have seen latency rated from 90ms to 110ms overseas, to London in particular. This is, however, traffic I've seen stay within XO Communications' network. 300ms sounds like an overseas wireless link with moderate traffic traveling across the hubs. It would be interesting to find out how AT&T actually layed a physical landline connecting both continents, even though may carriers have already done this so it's not like it's anything new.

19. *** In response to tomsykes ***

160ms isn't so bad, even though it could be better. I could ping a site in Puerto Rico, COQUIK.COM, and get 90ms round trip replies. It surely would be a pain in the ass to be abound to a network browonout like that.

20. *** In response to tomsykes ***

Yikes!! That latency is bad. It's even higher than dial up. There's definitely a network bottleneck on AT&T's overseas link. Try pinging my website at home, OMARNYC.COM, and my website at work, PCMAGLABS.COM.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•