What is wrong is GFN network test detecting packet loss and lower than expecetd bandwidth
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Fibre-broadband/BT-Capping-bandwidth-to-geforce-now/m-p/2083246/highl...
WinMTR does not use same packet size, packet type or packet frequency as what GFNs own native network test uses. GFNs own native network test is optimised for GFN service - winMTR is not optimised for GFN service and so does not accurately replicate network stress in GFN traffic scenario.
What is described at
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Fibre-broadband/BT-Capping-bandwidth-to-geforce-now/m-p/2083246/highl...
in this thread should be marked as solution as using VPN removes zayo.com from route and seems to make GFN network test happy.
For discussion what is described in OP here is very similar scenario as what is described in OP at https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Fibre-broadband/Horrible-ping-spikes-and-packet-loss/m-p/1915395
which is described in more detail at
https://community.bt.com/t5/Home-setup-Wi-Fi-network/Is-My-BT-Internet-Connection-Suitable-For-Next-...
Different cloud gaming services are detecting packet loss and lower than expecetd bandwidth.
Can anybody show that what is described at
https://community.bt.com/t5/BT-Fibre-broadband/Horrible-ping-spikes-and-packet-loss/m-p/1916928#M283...
can help all cloud gamers and not just those who use Shadow cloud gaming service?
I find it odd that nobody in BT community has suggested that requesting the "super stable" option on their internet connection can help make GFN network test say "You are all set for streaming" instead of "Streaming over your network is not recommended"
BT do not throttle traffic but it may prove to be the case that they can optimise customers connection to better meet the demands of cloud gaming services.
As far as i know no other ISP offers customer the choice of "standard", "stable, or "super stable" options on their internet connections.
