Thank you for taking the time to diagnose this, you clear...

[suey]

@mdk Thank you for taking the time to diagnose this, you clearly know a lot about this.

I'd like to clarify the drive from Lloydminster to Edmonton is about 2.5 hours, not 5.5 hours. And you're saying that from Vancouver pinging to Edmonton your latency is only 27 seconds?

I have a friend that lives in Lloydminster, we have played MANY games together connected to the same servers. He uses Telus and we use Shaw. His ping was consistently 30-40 LESS than mine, so while I'm getting 80-90, he would be getting 40-60.

I would consider "normal" for the games I'm playing and servers I'm connecting to anywhere from 30-60. I lived in Edmonton and was getting 25-45 ping to these same servers.

@shaw-tony  is it possible that Lloydminster is over saturated? Please excuse my lack of knowledge 🙂

[mdk]

> about 2.5 hours, not 5.5 hours.

Oops!  Eyestrain, from too many hours at my computer.

> you're saying that from Vancouver pinging to Edmonton your latency is only 27 seconds

For me, from Vancouver Island to Edmonton, it averaged 27 MILLI-seconds, and then 43 ms to "LM".

I don't know if Shaw has one fibre-optic cable from you (Vermilion) to "LM", and also a separate fibre-optic cable between "LM" to Edmonton, or if Shaw "taps" that latter cable near Vermilion.

>  a friend that lives in Lloydminster ...

Internet service from Telus (Alberta) or SaskTel ? Where is that border?  🙂

Maybe, the TELUS fibre-optic cable from "LM" to Edmonton is separate from Shaw's fibre-optic cable? Or, do they "share" (or co-own) the same run ???

The CANARIE map shows one connection between Edmonton and Saskatoon, but no "high-speed" connection into "LM".  There currently seems to be an imbalance of IPv4 traffic between EDM & SASK -- much more one way than the other.

[suey]

@mdk All good!

I definitely meant to type milliseconds haha. Was shocked that it's so low when I live MUCH closer and it's way higher.

My friend has TELUS, not Sasktel. They live on the Alberta side of the city.

At this point your guess is a lot better than mine haha, I'm hoping I can get some clarification as to why it's like this.

[mdk]

> Was shocked that it's so low when I live MUCH closer and it's way higher.

I am not shocked. From Vancouver Island to Edmonton is an electronic "super-highway", compared to the Edmonton-"LM" segment.

> I have a friend that lives in Lloydminster. My friend has TELUS, not Sasktel.

Can you ask him to run: tracert youtube.com and send the output to you, to post here?

> I lived in Edmonton, and was getting 25-45 ping to these same servers.

That is perfectly reasonable, given:

Edmonton, Alberta is often referred to as "The Gateway to the North" because it functions as a link to Canada's northern communities through rail, road and air.

Obviously, it is also the gateway to the north & the south for Internet traffic. As such, your PING times to south-of-49 servers should have been much smaller.

[shaw-tony]

@suey The signal in the area looks good to me and there are no reports of saturation or errors coming up. It may be signal related since it's the first few hops. You will need to contact TekSavvy as they would be able to see your modem signal levels.

[suey]

@shaw-tony sorry for taking so long to get back, been pretty busy.

Teksavvy checked with you guys and this is what they sent me:

The modem is online with good RF (Rx: 2.3 Tx: 36 DSNR: 38.8 USNR: 28.6).

So we can rule out the modem, what’s next?

[mdk]

@suey - So we can rule out the modem, what’s next?

Please  repeat the traceroute commands.

Target the IP-address of that "something.WA.SHAWCABLE.NET" router.

The latency values from that router to each onward segment are reasonable, and, also, they are not something that Shaw can do anything about.

Try it at a few different times of the day, and label each trace.

To me, it seems that it is the cross-province segment between "LM" and Edmonton that has the highest latency.

[suey]

Hey @mdk @shaw-tony , been busy but gathered a few tracert's over the week at different times:

6:20 AM Sunday May 31:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 16 ms 7 ms 7 ms 50.65.0.1
3 40 ms 40 ms 40 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 55 ms 54 ms 54 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 54 ms 53 ms 53 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 71 ms 70 ms 70 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

3:20 AM Monday June 1:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 17 ms 9 ms 11 ms 50.65.0.1
3 41 ms 41 ms 41 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 25 ms 26 ms 30 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 48 ms 42 ms 42 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 53 ms 58 ms 62 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 58 ms 58 ms 59 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

2:35 PM Monday June 1:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 50.65.0.1
3 53 ms 53 ms 53 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 25 ms 24 ms 25 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 42 ms 47 ms 41 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 69 ms 66 ms 73 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 58 ms 59 ms 58 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

6:20 PM Thursday June 4:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms 50.65.0.1
3 42 ms 40 ms 41 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 60 ms 54 ms 55 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 66 ms 66 ms 68 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 63 ms 59 ms 59 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

4:00 AM Saturday June 7:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 19 ms 7 ms 10 ms 50.65.0.1
3 53 ms 54 ms 54 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 24 ms 25 ms 25 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 43 ms 41 ms 41 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 55 ms 53 ms 53 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 60 ms 60 ms 59 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

10:30 PM Saturday June 7:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 8 ms 7 ms 11 ms 50.65.0.1
3 54 ms 53 ms 53 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 25 ms 27 ms 26 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 44 ms 45 ms 45 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 66 ms 69 ms 66 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 72 ms 72 ms 74 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

1:30AM Monday June 8:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.1
2 8 ms 9 ms 7 ms 50.65.0.1
3 56 ms 53 ms 55 ms rc2we-be134-1.ed.shawcable.net [64.59.185.117]
4 30 ms 26 ms 26 ms rc2ar-be7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.70.130]
5 42 ms 42 ms 45 ms xe-0-1-1-824-bdr01-cgr.teksavvy.com [76.10.191.125]
6 53 ms 53 ms 55 ms ae4-0-agg01-van2.teksavvy.com [206.248.155.181]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 74 ms 72 ms 72 ms rc2wt-be100.wa.shawcable.net [66.163.75.233]

Let me know what you guys think.

[mdk]

> Let me know what you guys think.

Over those dates/times, there is not a lot of variation. 

Rearranging your results, and hiding the "under 1 ms" column, and the "timeout" column:

Consistently, the largest contribution is the "hop" from 50.65.0.1 (in your town) to a Shaw router in Edmonton.

Second-largest contribution is from Shaw (Edmonton) to TekSavvy (Calgary).

IMHO, there is nothing that you can do, except to move to Edmonton.  🙂

[suey]

@mdk I was worried you would say that 😥

Personally I am not happy with just accepting it, to me it seems like an issue.

Something is causing a very high time between LM and Edmonton. I would like to know what is the issue causing it.

I thank you for all your help though, you've been very informative. Hopefully @shaw-tony can do some digging and find out what is the reason for it.