silverapple42 , boopacketloss and jasluna, in a nutshell, AWS is entrusted to host those gaming applications for businesses. Those, high profile customers, probably have very good access to AWS technical support. The gaming company CEOs should be very concerned about the apparent widespread impact this is having on their customers who use Cox Internet Services to directly access their applications hosted by AWS. Having said that, I would think that the management of those companies would appreciate having some data presented to them that could definitively help isolate the problem that's having a widespread effect on their customer base. Based on our testing and other info gathered, I think the information should be presented to the corporate management of those respective gaming companies. All the best.
The CEOs should be concerned? https://www.reddit.com/r/FortNiteBR/comments/931lrl/attempt_2_at_getting_visibility_most_cox_isp/ The company knows about it, they don't care. As you can see, a member of the company commented on this thread and the developer eventually concluded that the problem is on COX's end. The first place I went to try and address this problem was to the game's forums and through their support system. I didn't receive a single response in 8 months. It's a free game with over 125 million players, they aren't going to address the problems of one ISP.
Are the CEOs and/or upper management present in the discussion you provided the link to? Has anyone offered more definitive data than ours? The testing you and I performed strongly suggest the problem lies within the 54.239 network at AWS. Someone is paying AWS to host those games for "over 125 million players". I seriously doubt the for-profit AWS is providing those system and network resources simply because they feel like being charitable. The fact that Cox directly peers with the AWS network gives insight into the amount of traffic originating from the Cox network. We're not talking "small potatoes" here.
I don't play those games, yet I took the time to assist fellow Cox customers in helping to isolate the problem. It is disappointing that, apparently, you guys are giving up without even attempting to present our demonstrable findings to upper management. If upper management won't listen, take your case to an arbitrator (i.e. BBB). For someone who began working in IT WANs when the size of a 19.2 Kbps (not 19.2 Mbps) long-haul modem was the size of a microwave oven, this is disappointing.
Yeah let me just @ the CEO on Twitter really quick. I think I'll stick with filing FCC claims against COX. I like doing that a LOT more.
boopacketloss Just so we're perfectly clear, your reference to contacting CEOs with relevant network troubleshooting data via Twitter and henceforth knowingly filing false FCC claims against Cox when our own testing, together, has shown the problem to be within the AWS network (not even at the point where Cox peers with AWS) in no way reflects my recommendations or suggestions. My apologies for having wasted your time with mine while selflessly and fervently troubleshooting your problem. It won't knowingly happen again.
