FTTP Latency always change once pppoe reset

I'm currently having some issues with my isp (with Openreach). I feel bad because I don't know what the problem is (I'd love to know the reason behind the problem).

Speed is always as good as what the contract said. But the lowest latency I can get is 4ms (with bbc.co.uk or 8.8.8.8). My latency with Hyperoptic on the same test server at the same address is 1-2ms. If I reboot my router, the ping time sometimes will be 12 or 16 ms. It's not jitter, because the latency is very stable. But everytime I reboot the router or reset the pppoe connection, it has a chance (This sounds like a gamble to me) to go back to 4ms.

Hope anyone is interested in this matter, my isp told me that Openreach didn't have any meaningful reply. There's already been an engineer visit and the engineer said there was nothing wrong with their equipment.

Any guesses and suggested are welcome! I can also post tests here!

What’s the issue here exactly? 😎

Oh indeed, I will say I made it clear that I expected my latency to be stable at 4ms or less, not "random".

Or in other words, I want to know why this happened? Because according to my understanding, if it is the normal fluctuation of the Internet, it should return to the lowest value at a certain time.

Have you setup a BQM?

Which ISP? Openreach aren't an ISP.

If Zen for eg, they have Manchester and London exit points on the network, getting Manchester would result in higher latency.

Other ISPs may have the same setup?

I'm on BT Retail and in N.Ireland and my ping is always the same.

This is the case with BQM. I don't know what happened at 4 am. At 10 pm is one ISP maintenance (a core router reboot).

BQM: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...

I am currently on home broadband with Trunk Networks. I live in East London BTW, so I was really expecting better latency. I have friends in Hampshire and they have a steady 7ms to London on BT Business.

Thanks for your information!

In reply to a post by Otuuu:

This is the case with BQM. I don't know what happened at 4 am. At 10 pm is one ISP maintenance (a core router reboot).

BQM: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...

I don’t think that’s an issue with the Openreach access network. Those step changes look like a changes in gateway when the router drops and reinitiates the PPPoE session. That’s an issue squarely with Trunk Networks and their own backhaul / core network.

Trunk networks use various backhaul suppliers, one of those is Zen backhaul, and what you describe is typical of Zen, so I bet you are on Zen backhaul, you could always ask Trunk Networks to confirm.

Zen will randomly route you via Manchester or London when you connect, it is just random in order for Zen to split the traffic 50/50 to load balance.

As your gateway is in London, if Zen route you via Manchester then your latency is increased because packets now travel up to Manchester then back down to London to get to your gateway, rather than going to London directly.

One option is to just keep dropping PPP until you get back on a London route and keep doing this each time the connection flips over to Manchester when PPP drops for some reason. This is fairly safe and easy to do with a FTTP connection.

When I was on IDNet (using Zen backhaul) I found that Zen would drop PPP every few weeks overnight, and I think this is because over a few weeks enough customers are doing the route shuffle that their network becomes imbalanced (i.e. too few via Manchester and too many via London) so they unceremoniously drop loads of customers connections overnight to force new PPPs to come up via Manchester. So expect to keep doing this reshuffle every few weeks.

If you move ISP, check which backhaul supplier they use, as quite a few will use Zen, and you find exactly the same thing at your next ISP.

Trunk networks use various backhaul suppliers,…

Wonder if the OP could request a change of backhaul supplier, if indeed TN would entertain the idea mid-term? At least the likes of BTW and TalkTalk (if they are options) have stable and relatively fast connectivity.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Wonder if the OP could request a change of backhaul supplier, if indeed TN would entertain the idea mid-term? At least the likes of BTW and TalkTalk (if they are options) have stable and relatively fast connectivity.

I understand the ping time is currently variable and not as consistently low as the OP would like but the OP hasn't said how this is affecting the use of the connection day to day (e.g. while gaming).

Yeah it’s a long shot. Really don’t know if they would or they wouldn’t entertain, even as a smaller ISP to keep the customer happy. They could very well argue the service is well within spec…I know when a bunch of us with Cerberus had a much smaller uplift in latency they took it onboard to sort out, which they did after a while.

Again to be fair I’m not sure of any mainstream or other internet provider offering an SLA better than 20ms latency?

Thank you! Your explanation seems very clear (and understandable for me)! I will communicate with them to see how it goes.

Frankly, No noticeable impact for watching streaming and working day to day, as the speed is always great. But reflected in the game (FPS-CSGO), I can see the "out-of-sync" happening (enemies are always running and shooting and hitting, but the accuracy of the shot while running is very low. Which means the enemies was actually stood and shot).

I don't even know if solving the latency problem will improve my gaming experience or not, because it seems that the experience at 4ms is the same, It's just "a little bit better".

Maybe I shouldn't complain about the gaming experience, I'm actually curious if any ISP really care about their customers' latency.

I will communicate with them further and update here, thanks again everyone for the information, learned a lot.

You may not know this but Trunk Networks also have their Leetline (https://www.leetline.co.uk) brand, this is suppose to offer the best gaming experience and lowest latency, so it would be interesting if that service also uses Zen backhaul, as clearly you can't claim lowest latency for gaming when customers end up travelling up from London to Manchester only to go back down to London adding unnecessary tens of milliseconds.

I did try to join 'No One', another Trunk Networks brand, and knowing the issues with Zen did request not to use Zen backhaul, and they were happy for me to go via Vodafone, the only other alternative from my area they could offer, unfortunately Vodafone have capacity issues in my area and I could only get slower speeds so had to cancel the order.

The funny thing is that I did on the Leetline currently, and now I'm on a Zen backhaul (?). I didn't know anything about the concept of "backhaul" before.

Maybe I put too much trust without thinking about it carefully... (:

So you are on a leetline product? If yes you should raise this as a fault, if they don't fix it then I would say you are perfectly able to leave the contract early as they are using false advertising. On the page About Leetline they say "Leetline exists to provide you with the fastest possible internet connection with the lowest latency, ensuring that the quality of your game is never compromised.". You aren't on the fastest possible if you randomly route via Manchester adding hundreds of miles of latency.

Personally I'm beginning to think all these claims of "fastest this" or "lowest latency" that claims are marketing rubbish, I had this with IDNet, they claimed lowest latency in the UK, but then used Zen backhaul and 50% of the time it was the worst latency in the UK.

Yes I am actually paying for the Leetline product. I discovered the problem when the order was just completed, but I don't know why, and the problem disappeared after a few times the router restarts. But now the fault is back, I have had several rounds of communication with them and today is the 14th day. So, I'm starting to learn something new online and try to deal with this(that's why I am here ).

I will be waiting a few days for their response and if the issue is not resolved I will definitely seek to leave. very sad.

If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

Their marketing is quite clear, they offer the lowest latency, so going from 2ms up to 12ms or more isn't offering the lowest latency, as the lowest would be 2ms. If you took them to a small claims court, they would never win. You can't make claims like that as a company then not fulfil them, then expect to hold someone to a contract. It is false advertising, plain and simple.

In reply to a post by E300:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

Their marketing is quite clear, they offer the lowest latency, so going from 2ms up to 12ms or more isn't offering the lowest latency, as the lowest would be 2ms. If you took them to a small claims court, they would never win. You can't make claims like that as a company then not fulfil them, then expect to hold someone to a contract. It is false advertising, plain and simple.

Hehehe. I had a look at their website, clearly aimed at the gamers mindset (no offence gamers) full of wild and fantastic claims (hot air and BS). They’re just a well oiled retail spin off TN.

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

Agreed. Marketing material does not form part of the contract, nor does anything that a salesman says, and many contracts have a clause which says so explicitly.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Agreed. Marketing material does not form part of the contract, nor does anything that a salesman says, and many contracts have a clause which says so explicitly.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations protects consumers from false advertising. What they say on the website about a product or service must hold true and consumers have protections should they have been misled.

Edited by E300 (Sat 26-Mar-22 13:59:31)

It doesn't seem to have much sway when it comes to advertising though. Otherwise, why would there be a need for the completely toothless Advertising Standards Agency, who don't prosecute or even fine, but just give an instruction not to run the same advert again?

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I had a look at their website, clearly aimed at the gamers mindset (no offence gamers) full of wild and fantastic claims (hot air and BS). They’re just a well oiled retail spin off TN.

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

Virgin had a period of trying this style of marketing. "best for gamers" etc.

Each one was slapped down by the ASA as the jitter inherent with cable frankly made their claims impossible, and the Ofcom yearly reports even included jitter measures which Virgin came out poorly in.

Agreed. You don't have to look far to find numerous examples...

EE’s claims it is the “No.1 network”

"UK's most powerful Wi-Fi vs. major broadband providers"

Vodafone “Unlimited” data plans

There are hundreds more...

However, I'm not aware of any related prosecutions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

The wording of those regulations relates to the "average consumer", for example:

A commercial practice is a misleading action if ... it causes or is likely to cause the average
consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

...

the “main characteristics of the product” include ... specification of the product

So if Leetline had guaranteed a latency of 5ms, and it turned out to be 10ms, then maybe that would apply. But a comparative claim like "the best latency in the UK" is much woolier.

In court, Leetline would point to the average latency across all their clients, and compare that against the average latency on other ISPs. They would also say that the "average consumer" isn't in the slightest bit bothered about an extra 5ms of latency, and they'd be right. They'd also probably claim that their geographical diversity results in a more reliable service.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

However, I'm not aware of any related prosecutions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Perhaps no ISP has taken it to court as they understand the law, know they are in the wrong and would lose any case.

Do you know of any prosecutions for similar claims under this act that has fallen in favour of the ISP?

In reply to a post by candlerb:

So if Leetline had guaranteed a latency of 5ms, and it turned out to be 10ms, then maybe that would apply. But a comparative claim like "the best latency in the UK" is much woolier.

In court, Leetline would point to the average latency across all their clients, and compare that against the average latency on other ISPs. They would also say that the "average consumer" isn't in the slightest bit bothered about an extra 5ms of latency, and they'd be right. They'd also probably claim that their geographical diversity results in a more reliable service.

They could claim that, but would look pretty stupid arguing most customers don't care about latency when their whole site is advertising to gamers WHO CARE about latency, and they are telling their customers to care about latency, that is their whole marketing strategy. I hope you are not their lawyer

Edited by E300 (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:39:29)

In Small Claims court the clamant is protected from paying the defendants costs, so the risk is confined to claimants own costs and the full contract costs if the cases fails. Where the claimant is a consumer the cases is heard local to them, Leetline would have to travel. So while not without risks a claim after rejection of a letter before claim could see Leetline fold when solely looking at the £ outcome of defending a claim.

Anyway not there yet, still time to negotiate a way out based on lack of performance before considering using legal guns.

Edited by kommando (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:34:28)

Absolutely correct. I seem to have started this legal argument off and then had some pushback, no idea why but that often happens here, but my first advice was to speak to Leetline to see if they could resolve the problem. I'm sure Leetline will attempt a resolution (e.g. a move to a different backhaul supplier) and if unable will let them out of their contract early.

I wonder why Zen can't play sensible and route traffic on the shortest route? Anyone near Manchester or north of would not see much if any extra latency, but routing someone 2ms from the ISPs gateway on a round trip up to Manchester just doesn't seem sensible. It's not as though this is the first complaint of latency differences on connections with Zen (or those using Zen backhaul).

Edited by E300 (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:47:50)

In reply to a post by E300:

I seem to have started this legal argument off and then had some pushback, no idea why but that often happens here, but my first advice was to speak to Leetline to see if they could resolve the problem. I'm sure Leetline will attempt a resolution (e.g. a move to a different backhaul supplier) and if unable will let them out of their contract early.

This approach seems sensible with the threat of legal action in the OP's back pocket if they start trying to play hardball.

Certainly, I would expect Leetline to let the customer out of the contract early, to get them off their back if nothing else. All I'm saying is, going to court isn't going to achieve anything more than that.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Certainly, I would expect Leetline to let the customer out of the contract early, to get them off their back if nothing else. All I'm saying is, going to court isn't going to achieve anything more than that.

That’s what you’d expect.

I had a read of this “our commitment to you” page from their website which is all full of lovely waffle, and grandiose statements.

However getting down to it, yes the legal T&Cs is far more revealing…in particular clause 15.1 is quite revealing given all the previous waffle:

15.1 The Services include support only to the extent specifically provided for within the Services and by the contact methods specifically provided for. We do not guarantee that any specified response times or particular outcome will be achieved.

16.1 We do not guarantee that the Service will be uninterrupted or error-free. We are entitled, without notice and without liability (a) to suspend the Service for repair, maintenance, improvement or other technical reason and (b) to make changes to the Service so long as these don’t have a seriously adverse effect on the Service.

So there it is. There is no SLA. It’s best endeavours. As you’d expect.

Edited by Pheasant (Sun 27-Mar-22 21:58:47)

15.1 is regarding support e.g response times to reported issues and 16.1 (b) is a little more relevant in that it states they 'seriously' cannot degrade the service at any time.
The issue will be determining what constitutes 'seriously' as it is not defined.

Also don't forget consumer law doesn't just work from a contract. Leetline's contract can only add better terms than the protections a consumer already has by law, they can not take away a consumers statutory rights. Consumer law takes into account how the product was sold and what promises were made at the time of sale. A company can't just make a load of stuff up on it's website then hide or omit those benefits in its terms and conditions then try and get out of it.

Leetline also state the person can leave after one month, whilst that isn't in their contract that I can see, it still legally applies.

We promise to be the best gaming ISP you have ever had. To prove this if you are not impressed after your 1st month we will rip up the contract! We will help you move and cancel any outstanding contract.

Hopefully the OP can get them to resolve the issue. If not, then if they are true to their word, he should be released from the contract without penalty and chalk it up to experience.

Double check is not a talktalk backhaul as Zen sneakily did mine without telling me from BTw for whatever reason.

Zen have/had a issue before where if i was connect to interxion london gateway (ending in 51.XX.XX.23 and 51.x.x.x.24 my ping would double from 6ms -> 18-21ms however this was a talktalk backhaul issue but since moved back to BT wholesale it resolved the issue, Telehouse was unaffected.

In reply to a post by E300:

I wonder why Zen can't play sensible and route traffic on the shortest route? Anyone near Manchester or north of would not see much if any extra latency, but routing someone 2ms from the ISPs gateway on a round trip up to Manchester just doesn't seem sensible. It's not as though this is the first complaint of latency differences on connections with Zen (or those using Zen backhaul).

Very large portion of zen users would be FTTC/ADSL2 business lines where latency dosnt matter to them, along as they can access emails and social media everythings great, Is only going to affect most home users that are into Gaming and VoIP users that will complain.

Edited by francisuk25 (Tue 29-Mar-22 10:26:36)

Is only going to affect most home users that are into Gaming and VoIP users that will complain.

Excess jitter on a live connection is public enemy number one of VoIP.

A 20, 30, 40 even an 80ms ping is fine - as long as it’s stable - and will not deleteriously affect a single or even several VoIP users on a broadband connection.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Is only going to affect most home users that are into Gaming and VoIP users that will complain.

Excess jitter on a live connection is public enemy number one of VoIP.

A 20, 30, 40 even an 80ms ping is fine - as long as it’s stable - and will not deleteriously affect a single or even several VoIP users on a broadband connection.

Good point.