/fiber/community?hl=en
/fiber/community?hl=en
6/14/14
Original Poster
Mark O'Neill

Why is Google Fiber's latency so bad?

I'm a new Google Fiber gigabit internet customer in Provo, UT.  As a gamer I was hoping that I'd have better latency under Google.  I was dead wrong.

My situation is such that I currently have two internet connections in my home - one from Google Fiber (Gigabit package) and one from my old ISP, Veracity. I've been doing some side by side comparisons with various ping tests and traceroutes. My Veracity internet connection has three times better latency than Google Fiber. I am using a gigabit wired connection directly to the network box from my desktop computer.

I queried dozens of popular sites and less popular ones all around the globe.  In ALL cases my ping from the Google Fiber connection was at least 20ms more than with my other connection.  In many cases the increase was more than 40ms! For example, my ping to google.com from my Veracity connection averaged 20ms while my Google Fiber connection averaged 66ms.

I have over 100ms ping when connecting to 95% of my gaming peers (from various ISPs).  With Veracity I averaged about 20ms.

When doing traceroutes I found that my internet traffic was always being routed through San Jose, California - even if I was connecting to a site in my own city or in Salt Lake City (30 miles north). I understand geolocation services might not be up to date, but the bottom line is that there is a large, consistent set of routers all my traffic is routed through and it slows down my connection significantly.  I suspect the increased latency is due to the fact that all my traffic is first sent to California and then to its true destination.

Are my observations consistent with other gigabit Google Fiber customers in Provo? Is Google working to peer better with other ISPs to improve latency? Any answers, thoughts, or questions are welcome. I can also provide sample traceroutes (for comparison) if wanted.

Thanks!

Community content may not be verified or up-to-date. Learn more.
All Replies (29)
Joy Division
6/18/14
Joy Division
I tend to get 1-2ms locally (KC), about 10-15ms to Chicago, 20ms to Dallas and usually no more than 40ms to the coasts.

Try from different computers if you can.  If you know how to find the IP address of your router/network box, try pinging first.  If that is more than a few ms, is probably cabling or router/network box.  If ping is good, then try checking the Fiber Jack.  Power it off, take off cover at bottom of jack and unplug the fiber cable and back in, power back on, also replugin ethernet cable.  If these don't work, would then call for service person to come out.
6/18/14
Original Poster
Mark O'Neill
I get the same latency from any of my home computers.  Ping to my network box and the next two hops from there are consistently below 2ms.  As said before, there is a large, consistent set of routers after that point that all my traffic gets routed through regardless of destination.  These are all owned by Google and based in San Jose, CA  (assuming my whois and geolocation data are correct).  Since all traffic is routed through these, my ping to a local city is actually more than to San Jose, California.
Joy Division
6/19/14
Joy Division
Strange, could you paste a traceroute?
Tom Boyd
6/21/14
Tom Boyd
I'm a gamer in Provo who also has the free Google Fiber, and yes, it's awful. My old internet was atrocious, so I was excited for the Google Fiber, so I could actually play online games again. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case.

I primarily play Dota2, which takes around 40 minutes to complete a match. For the most part, my latency is fine. However, every few minutes I'll get a huge spike that lasts anywhere from 5-30 seconds. 1000+ ping, and usually ~30% packet loss. Needless to say, it makes games near impossible to play. Sometimes the internet just sucks completely. Yesterday I tried to play, and had a minimum of 200 ping for the entire game, often spiking up to around 2,500 ping with 75% packet loss.

At least it's better than my old internet. At least now I can actually browse the internet, because before it would take upwards of a minute to load pages, assuming they would actually load.
Nodas P
6/24/14
Nodas P
Hi Mark,

Thanks for sharing this; when you get a chance could please share a list of websites and/or services you are noticing your traffic being routed through San Jose?

@Tom, your case sounds a bit different mainly due to the difference in bandwidth. The free Fiber plan does have bandwidth limitations so a good start would be trying shutting down any other bandwidth intensive services while you are gaming.

Kindly
Nodas,
The Google Fiber team
Atlantisman
6/24/14
Atlantisman
I have seen the same with with latency, and it does appear that google is routing everything through the google data center in San Jose. Here are a few examples.

Overall this means that routing to services that are local to Provo/Utah will have higher ping. Google would need to route their traffic differently in order to resolve this issue.

 1  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  0.880 ms  0.687 ms  0.818 ms
 2  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  1.725 ms  1.796 ms  1.952 ms <----- San Jose
 3  192.119.17.151 (192.119.17.151)  1.933 ms  4.805 ms  2.177 ms
 4  192.119.17.156 (192.119.17.156)  16.968 ms  16.673 ms  16.817 ms
 5  192.119.17.149 (192.119.17.149)  17.352 ms  16.916 ms  16.931 ms
 6  eqixsj-google-gige.google.com (206.223.116.21)  16.841 ms  16.669 ms  16.964 ms
 7  216.239.49.170 (216.239.49.170)  22.775 ms  17.354 ms  17.492 ms
 8  209.85.246.38 (209.85.246.38)  36.785 ms  36.491 ms
    209.85.250.63 (209.85.250.63)  17.439 ms
 9  216.239.49.198 (216.239.49.198)  42.546 ms  39.717 ms  33.445 ms
10  72.14.233.138 (72.14.233.138)  43.406 ms
    72.14.233.140 (72.14.233.140)  43.572 ms
    72.14.233.138 (72.14.233.138)  43.428 ms
11  216.239.48.167 (216.239.48.167)  35.777 ms
    216.239.46.171 (216.239.46.171)  36.480 ms
    216.239.46.175 (216.239.46.175)  35.662 ms
12  * * *
13  google-public-dns-a.google.com (8.8.8.8)  36.036 ms  36.019 ms  36.006 ms


 1  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  1.393 ms  0.804 ms  4.583 ms
 2  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  2.025 ms  1.762 ms  1.832 ms <----- San Jose
 3  192.119.17.151 (192.119.17.151)  2.028 ms  1.986 ms  2.245 ms
 4  192.119.17.156 (192.119.17.156)  16.987 ms  16.876 ms  16.764 ms
 5  192.119.17.149 (192.119.17.149)  16.911 ms  16.986 ms  16.792 ms
 6  216.156.84.125.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.84.125)  16.564 ms  17.249 ms  18.944 ms
 7  216.156.84.6.ptr.us.xo.net (216.156.84.6)  16.691 ms  16.870 ms  16.751 ms
 8  xe-2-2-0-955.jnrt-edge02.prod1.netflix.com (69.53.225.30)  18.012 ms  17.959 ms  18.203 ms
 9  te1-8.csrt-agg02.prod1.netflix.com (69.53.225.10)  18.124 ms  17.912 ms  17.959 ms
10  netflix.co.uk (69.53.236.17)  17.773 ms  17.817 ms  17.950 ms

6/25/14
Original Poster
Mark O'Neill
Hi Nodas!  Thanks for your response.  Some sample traceroutes and ping results are below.  I apologize in advance for the length of the post.  Lines in red are from hosts in San Jose, California.  I have some discussion at the end of the post as well.


Ping Tests from Ookla's speedtest.net service:
Salt Lake City, UT: 43ms
St George, UT: 52ms
San Jose, CA: 18ms
Palo Alto, CA: 24ms

My location is Provo, UT.  Notice how pings to nearby cities are higher than to cities in California, because my traffic is being routed to San Jose before going to its final destination.  My ping to a website hosted in Orem, Utah, for example (a city 5 miles away from me) is more than double my ping to a website in Palo Alto, California (a city 805 miles away).  This is because that traffic first goes to California and then back to Utah to its final destination.  Please note that I have performed the previous ping tests on dozens of servers in various cities throughout the nation and the results above are mere samples.  The results are always the same: The closer the server is to San Jose, the better my ping. Below are some sample traceroutes (again, from a much larger set).

traceroute to facebook.com [this host located in Menlo Park, CA] (173.252.110.27), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  1.218 ms  1.224 ms  1.216 ms (Provo, UT)
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  2.690 ms  6.433 ms  9.280 ms
 3  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  2.651 ms  3.033 ms  3.027 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 4  192.119.17.151 (192.119.17.151)  3.020 ms  3.573 ms  3.572 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 5  192.119.17.156 (192.119.17.156)  55.063 ms  55.059 ms  55.051 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 6  192.119.17.149 (192.119.17.149)  18.400 ms  17.068 ms  17.053 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 7  sv1.br01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (206.223.116.166)  18.383 ms sv1.pr02.tfbnw.net (206.223.116.153)  17.988 ms sv1.br01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (206.223.116.166)  18.366 ms
 8  ae2.bb02.sjc1.tfbnw.net (204.15.21.166)  18.363 ms ae0.bb01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.76.21)  22.551 ms ae1.bb01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.76.23)  22.548 ms
 9  be16.bb01.frc3.tfbnw.net (31.13.24.28)  64.867 ms  65.063 ms be16.bb02.frc3.tfbnw.net (31.13.24.42)  65.913 ms
10  ae87.dr02.frc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.79.209)  65.326 ms ae88.dr01.frc1.tfbnw.net (173.252.64.119)  65.278 ms ae87.dr04.frc1.tfbnw.net (173.252.64.53)  65.481 ms
11  * * *
12  * * *
13  edge-star-shv-13-frc1.facebook.com (173.252.110.27)  64.025 ms  64.009 ms  64.137 ms


traceroute to thedavidsons.co [located in Orem, Utah] (174.52.181.183), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  1.375 ms  1.377 ms  1.375 ms (Provo, UT)
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  4.044 ms  4.841 ms  5.019 ms
 3  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  2.938 ms  2.928 ms  3.211 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 4  192.119.17.151 (192.119.17.151)  3.430 ms  3.423 ms  3.623 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 5  192.119.17.156 (192.119.17.156)  18.383 ms  18.368 ms  18.654 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 6  192.119.17.149 (192.119.17.149)  18.646 ms  16.989 ms  17.046 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 7  te-0-4-0-7-pe02.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (173.167.58.141)  17.172 ms  17.473 ms  17.469 ms
 8  be-15-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.37)  20.937 ms be-13-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.93)  20.930 ms be-16-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.41)  20.903 ms
 9  pos-0-11-0-0-ar02.sandy.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.86.89.82)  51.953 ms  51.948 ms  49.134 ms
10  162-151-49-86-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (162.151.49.86)  49.108 ms  48.719 ms  48.915 ms
11  te-7-0-acr01.orem.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.87.171.154)  47.817 ms  47.976 ms  47.806 ms
12  c-174-52-181-183.hsd1.ut.comcast.net (174.52.181.183)  56.822 ms  56.807 ms  56.117 ms


traceroute to causeforhope.org [located in Chicago, IL] (50.57.254.125), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  1.289 ms  1.280 ms  1.272 ms (Provo, UT)
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  2.107 ms  2.356 ms  2.343 ms
 3  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  2.867 ms  2.860 ms  3.019 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 4  192.119.17.154 (192.119.17.154)  14.190 ms  14.625 ms  14.618 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 5  xe-0-0-2.ar01.mci101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.15)  25.432 ms  25.888 ms  25.885 ms
 6  ae2.ar01.mci101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.16)  25.648 ms  24.052 ms  24.085 ms
 7  ae0.ar01.dfw101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.53)  77.834 ms  78.101 ms  78.088 ms
 8  ae4.pr01.dfw101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.67)  33.298 ms  33.830 ms  33.815 ms
 9  xe-7-1-0.edge5.Dallas3.Level3.net (4.59.36.57)  33.396 ms  32.852 ms  33.040 ms
10  vlan60.csw1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.62)  43.757 ms  44.555 ms vlan80.csw3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.190)  43.591 ms
11  ae-61-61.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.126)  43.720 ms ae-71-71.ebr1.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.138)  44.507 ms  44.511 ms
12  ae-14-14.ebr2.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.151.117)  43.355 ms  43.367 ms  43.609 ms
13  ae-212-3612.edge1.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.158.237)  43.697 ms ae-209-3609.edge1.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.158.225)  43.346 ms ae-210-3610.edge1.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.158.229)  43.688 ms

traceroute to fiberinternetcenter.com [located in Palo Alto, CA] (66.201.42.85), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  1.182 ms  1.180 ms  1.170 ms (Provo, UT)
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  3.148 ms  3.487 ms  3.685 ms
 3  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  3.472 ms  3.464 ms  3.589 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 4  192.119.17.151 (192.119.17.151)  3.080 ms  3.620 ms  3.614 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 5  192.119.17.156 (192.119.17.156)  19.894 ms  19.883 ms  19.878 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 6  192.119.17.149 (192.119.17.149)  18.606 ms  17.099 ms  17.220 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 7  te-0-4-0-7-pe02.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (173.167.58.141)  17.758 ms  17.749 ms  17.740 ms
 8  be-13-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.93)  23.321 ms be-10-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.81)  23.318 ms be-16-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.41)  23.149 ms
 9  pos-0-2-0-0-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.10)  26.241 ms  26.233 ms  26.225 ms
10  173.167.59.142 (173.167.59.142)  33.914 ms  33.092 ms  33.090 ms
11  L2.mtv.L42.FiberInternetCenter.net (64.118.162.9)  25.948 ms  25.721 ms  26.262 ms
12  1.fibernoc.com (66.201.42.85)  25.811 ms  25.678 ms  25.954 ms
Notice the much lower latency to this host, since it's close to San Jose


traceroute to utopianet.org [located in Salt Lake City, Utah] (166.70.32.177), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1)  1.252 ms  1.249 ms  1.242 ms (Provo, UT)
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  3.094 ms  3.411 ms  3.698 ms
 3  192.119.17.166 (192.119.17.166)  3.043 ms  3.041 ms  3.032 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 4  192.119.17.154 (192.119.17.154)  14.101 ms  14.157 ms  14.148 ms (SAN JOSE, CA)
 5  xe-0-0-2.ar01.mci101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.15)  25.509 ms  25.515 ms  25.512 ms
 6  ae2.ar01.mci101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.16)  25.511 ms  23.863 ms  23.748 ms
 7  ae0.ar01.dfw101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.53)  33.771 ms  33.770 ms  33.735 ms
 8  ae4.pr01.dfw101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.67)  33.755 ms  33.753 ms  33.748 ms
 9  xe-7-1-0.edge5.Dallas3.Level3.net (4.59.36.57)  33.778 ms  33.020 ms  32.993 ms
10  vlan90.csw4.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.254)  42.193 ms vlan80.csw3.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.145.190)  41.886 ms  42.205 ms
11  ae-72-72.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.142)  41.585 ms ae-92-92.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.166)  41.559 ms ae-72-72.ebr2.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.69.151.142)  41.656 ms
12  ae-2-2.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.132.105)  41.881 ms  41.376 ms  41.642 ms
13  ae-5-5.car2.SaltLakeCity1.Level3.net (4.69.133.125)  42.169 ms  42.141 ms  42.141 ms
14  4.69.202.162 (4.69.202.162)  42.679 ms  41.313 ms  41.891 ms
15  * * *
16  te-9-3.dcr1.slc.xmission.net (166.70.4.97)  46.894 ms  46.891 ms  47.319 ms
17  166-70-32-177.xmission.com (166.70.32.177)  42.997 ms  42.414 ms  42.809 ms

Some thoughts
The geolocation data I received may be out of date, but that seems unlikely since my ping to hosts based in San Jose is always lower than to any other location.  The inefficient routing of traffic causes unnecessary detours, increasing the time it takes for data to be exchanged.  In this sense, Google Fiber is actually the slowest internet access I've ever had.  In contrast, my previous internet connection with Veracity routed traffic much more efficiently, with no obvious unneeded redirections of traffic, resulting in lower latency for all my internet traffic than I have with Google Fiber.

Thank you so much for your help.  It is greatly appreciated!

--Mark
Nodas P
6/27/14
Nodas P
Hi Mark,

Thanks for the info, it helped our engineers execute the following changes:

1.  The reference to San Jose is eliminated off your DNS data .
2.  A direct connection has been established for sites that were mis-routed 
You should now be experiencing significantly lower latency, please let me know if this is not the case.

The issue that was causing your high latency has been identified and a Fiber wide solution is on the way from the same engineering team that "cherry picked" your fix :)

Thanks again for your help addressing this!
Nodas,
The Google Fiber team
6/28/14
Original Poster
Mark O'Neill
Hi Nodas!  Thank you for your support in this issue.  It's nice to have an ISP that actually cares about its customers.

Unfortunately I have not noticed any better latency.  Some new ping results (taken 5 minutes ago) are shown below.  I also have a few sentences of commentary interspersed between them and at the end of my post.


New Ping Tests from Ookla's speedtest.net service:
Salt Lake City, UT: 50ms (hosted by Comcast)
St George, UT: 32ms (hosted by AWI networks)
San Jose, CA: 18ms (hosted by Internode)
Palo Alto, CA: 23ms (hosted by Fiber Internet Center)

As you can see the ping has not improved.  Unless a host is located near San Jose, CA, it has higher ping than expected.  I re-ran two of the traceroutes provided earlier to see if my traffic was still being routed through San Jose.  All of my traffic is still being routed through the same IPs as before (although now their DNS names have "slc" in them).  My ping to these services also remains unchanged.  So while they now claim to be in SLC, it seems a bit unlikely.  I've highlighted the IPs that are the same from my last traceroutes to these hosts in red.

New traceroute to facebook.com [this host located in Menlo Park, CA] (173.252.110.27), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  networkbox.home (192.168.0.1)  0.362 ms  0.258 ms  0.570 ms
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  1.960 ms  1.925 ms  1.896 ms
 3  ae5.ar01.slc101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.166)  2.452 ms  2.394 ms  2.636 ms
 4  ae0.ar01.slc102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.151)  2.780 ms  2.725 ms  2.834 ms
 5  ae2.ar01.slc102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.156)  17.670 ms  17.639 ms  17.755 ms
 6  ae3.ar01.sjc101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.149)  17.817 ms  17.047 ms  17.386 ms
 7  sv1.br01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (206.223.116.166)  17.377 ms sv1.pr02.tfbnw.net (206.223.116.153)  17.196 ms  17.071 ms
 8  ae0.bb01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.76.21)  17.930 ms ae1.bb02.sjc1.tfbnw.net (204.15.21.164)  17.879 ms ae1.bb01.sjc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.76.23)  17.459 ms
 9  be16.bb01.frc3.tfbnw.net (31.13.24.28)  65.910 ms  65.412 ms be16.bb02.frc3.tfbnw.net (31.13.24.42)  63.852 ms
10  ae88.dr03.frc1.tfbnw.net (173.252.64.191)  63.700 ms ae87.dr01.frc1.tfbnw.net (74.119.79.145)  63.184 ms ae88.dr03.frc1.tfbnw.net (173.252.64.191)  62.928 ms
11  * * *
12  * * *
13  edge-star-shv-13-frc1.facebook.com (173.252.110.27)  63.330 ms  63.294 ms  63.542 ms

It does not appear that my routing has changed at all.  In addition, another repeated traceroute from earlier reveals that my traffic may still be routed through San Jose, CA.  In the traceroute below, we see that after my traffic leaves the four Google-owned routers (highlighted in red) it is located in California and is picked up by Comcast's San Jose routers (highlighted in blue).  This further hints that all my traffic is being routed through San Jose, California still.

New traceroute to thedavidsons.co [located in Orem, Utah]  (174.52.181.183), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
 1  networkbox.home (192.168.0.1)  0.452 ms  0.361 ms  0.913 ms
 2  10.26.0.50 (10.26.0.50)  2.142 ms  2.096 ms  2.043 ms
 3  ae5.ar01.slc101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.166)  2.541 ms  2.904 ms  2.865 ms
 4  ae0.ar01.slc102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.151)  2.810 ms  3.165 ms  3.115 ms
 5  ae2.ar01.slc102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.156)  17.760 ms  17.681 ms  17.882 ms
 6  ae3.ar01.sjc101.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.149)  17.934 ms  17.266 ms  17.193 ms
 7  te-0-4-0-7-pe02.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (173.167.58.141)  18.062 ms  17.996 ms  18.286 ms
 8  be-16-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.41)  23.906 ms be-11-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.85)  23.815 ms be-15-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.83.37)  23.792 ms
 9  pos-0-11-0-0-ar02.sandy.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.86.89.82)  50.239 ms  50.213 ms  50.105 ms
10  162-151-49-86-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (162.151.49.86)  50.302 ms  48.597 ms  48.792 ms
11  te-6-0-acr01.orem.ut.utah.comcast.net (68.87.171.146)  48.147 ms  48.373 ms  48.330 ms
12  c-174-52-181-183.hsd1.ut.comcast.net (174.52.181.183)  56.596 ms  58.217 ms  55.905 ms

If I understood correctly, an engineering team is still working on this issue and has identified its cause.  Since that is the case I'll continue to monitor my latency and the routing of my traffic to see if it improves in the coming days.  However, I would like to ask about point #2 in your recent post.  For which sites were direct links provided?  I would like to test to see if my latency to them has improved.

I really appreciate your continued help in this matter.   You've already been more helpful than the staff in all my past ISPs.

--Mark
Nodas P
7/23/14
Nodas P
Apologies for slow follow up here, somehow I missed it :-/
Not sure what the status is currently but at the point we left this thread; Your original traceroutes to:

utopianet.org - 166.70.32.177
and www.google.com
should be much shorter now.

In the meantime we have been working and are still working at a local level to improve RTTs .

Kindly
Nodas,
The Google Fiber team
18 MORE
Rick Hornsby
11/16/16
Rick Hornsby


On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 6:07:49 AM UTC-6, Willie Ames wrote:
I live in Kansas City and was wondering if anyone else is experiencing lag in gaming on google fiber? I talked to a buddy of mine who plays and he is also having issues with high latency and he`d bypass fiber throttling using vpn and not quite as bad as mine.

Depending on the methods they use, you really can't "bypass" your ISP's network throttling with a VPN. If they're doing layer 4 traffic shaping, then it might help some. But if they're doing layer 2 instead of or in addition to layer 4, a VPN won't make a positive difference. In almost all cases a connection through VPN tunnel -- from your ISP to a VPN provider and then out to the interwebs -- will be slower and have higher latency than not using the VPN tunnel.

Secondly, I've never experienced nor am I aware of GF throttling our connections. Even if they did, it would slow the link down (ie 15Mb/s instead of 20Mb/s) rather than simply increase the latency.

Whatever you're experiencing, whatever the root cause of your latency, it's not likely to be traffic shaping on the part of GF. See also this thread for a recent discussion on gaming latency - https://productforums.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!topic/fiber/2Z-zSZJHabY;context-place=forum/fiber
Were these replies helpful?
How can we improve them?
 
This question is locked and replying has been disabled. Still have questions? Ask the Help Community.

Badges

Some community members might have badges that indicate their identity or level of participation in a community.

 
Expert - Google Employee — Googler guides and community managers
 
Expert - Community Specialist — Google partners who share their expertise
 
Expert - Gold — Trusted members who are knowledgeable and active contributors
 
Expert - Platinum — Seasoned members who contribute beyond providing help through mentoring, creating content, and more
 
Expert - Alumni — Past members who are no longer active, but were previously recognized for their helpfulness
 
Expert - Silver — New members who are developing their product knowledge
Community content may not be verified or up-to-date. Learn more.

Levels

Member levels indicate a user's level of participation in a forum. The greater the participation, the higher the level. Everyone starts at level 1 and can rise to level 10. These activities can increase your level in a forum:

  • Post an answer.
  • Having your answer selected as the best answer.
  • Having your post rated as helpful.
  • Vote up a post.
  • Correctly mark a topic or post as abuse.

Having a post marked and removed as abuse will slow a user's advance in levels.

View profile in forum?

To view this member's profile, you need to leave the current Help page.

Report abuse in forum?

This comment originated in the Google Product Forum. To report abuse, you need to leave the current Help page.

Reply in forum?

This comment originated in the Google Product Forum. To reply, you need to leave the current Help page.