Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

romel · July 9 2012

OK this is the info i got from a friend working at the ministry of communications, 10% of Lebanese people get good and stable internet , the other 90% are on backup satellite lines ,and this problem will not be solved until the government issues a decree where the fibre optics line going through the sea is fixed and upgraded for a cost of 1.3 billion euros(which will not happen any time soon ,not until the elections in 2013 and a new government is made) i just wish i was part of that 10% ,as for the rest of us well all i can say is at least we can Google stuff and check facebook lol.

ballad · July 9 2012

romel wrote:

OK this is the info i got from a friend working at the ministry of communications, 10% of Lebanese people get good and stable internet , the other 90% are on backup satellite lines ,and this problem will not be solved until the government issues a decree where the fibre optics line going through the sea is fixed and upgraded for a cost of 1.3 billion euros(which will not happen any time soon ,not until the elections in 2013 and a new government is made) i just wish i was part of that 10% ,as for the rest of us well all i can say is at least we can Google stuff and check facebook lol.

I don't think it will be for a 1.3billion dollars
the cable is a couple of 10cm's in diameter and it's constituted of some basic technology
I would say it will cost a million dollar to fix it not more plus it won't be us that who'll pay for it
we're in the same pool with some 8 countries but the sad thing is that they have back-up cables

old Sheet fact by The Guardian about submarine cables
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/G … 010208.pdf
and it shows that an alexandria cable cut had happened also in 2008

the sea must be very shallow there or they're dragging their anchors across the sea

Last edited by ballad (July 9 2012)

The-MMMs · July 11 2012

Uptime: 0 days, 2:00:19

Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]: 122 / 204

Update is coming they said; it will be better they said.

romel · July 11 2012

ok well i know it would take a couple of million to fix , the problem is fixing the cabal will not fix our crappy connection problem and the fact that about 70% of the country is on satellite connections, what we need is a new and upgraded line that will provide the demand needed, this my friends will not happen i assure you all ,but if it does it will cut the cost of internet in Lebanon by 80% and give us all the same quality of internet that people in Germany or France or Holland get . a dream that will not come true just like the dream of Lebanon having a power plant that is capable of supplying the demand of electricity at 100%.

nuclearcat · July 11 2012

<offtopic>
If you want to get same internet and power, stop supporting same freaking politicians who is burning your country, and stop being racist.
</offtopic>
Things are simple, if you want good internet, you need to have investments. Till there is no permission by law (Ogero monopoly), and unstable situation - you will not see that.

user · July 11 2012

personnaly. I don't care about 30 mbps download and 15 mbps upload and stuff like that.

what I want is a small push from here(or maybe not so small but I think so) unlimited quotas, or at least like 30 gbps being the minimum quota. latency below 100 ms at all time. a 3 G with a real quota, like 5 GB for 10$ not 100 MB.

100 MB currently costs 0.4$ and they are selling it for 10, wtf...

nuclearcat · July 11 2012

Mobile internet will not be cheap.
With broken infrastructure (local connectivity and electricity) it will be 4-6 times more expensive than other countries.
Compare, KSA, STC, data 3G - 5GB - $26, while here they have very good infrastructure, no taxes and etc.

amkahal · July 20 2012

New Route Today (Terranet 1 Mbps)

Download:

1	 	 	 	*	*	*
2	hos-tr1.juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de	213.239.224.1	de	0.115 ms	 	 
hos-tr3.juniper2.rz13.hetzner.de	213.239.224.65	de	0.181 ms	 
hos-tr4.juniper2.rz13.hetzner.de	213.239.224.97	de	0.179 ms
3	hos-bb2.juniper3.s06.hetzner.de	213.239.240.139	de	2.762 ms	2.859 ms	2.849 ms
4	nbg-s1-rou-1001.DE.eurorings.net	134.222.107.20	nl	3.202 ms	3.258 ms	3.363 ms
5	ffm-s1-rou-1102.DE.eurorings.net	134.222.227.117	nl	6.636 ms	6.636 ms	6.632 ms
6	ffm-s2-rou-1041.DE.eurorings.net	134.222.229.74	nl	6.809 ms	6.798 ms	6.815 ms
7	 	 	 	*	*	*
8	if-3-2.tcore1.PVU-Paris.as6453.net	80.231.153.53	fr	25.952 ms	 	 
if-4-2.tcore1.PVU-Paris.as6453.net	80.231.153.10	fr	30.607 ms	 
if-5-2.tcore1.PVU-Paris.as6453.net	80.231.153.121	fr	26.281 ms
9	if-2-2.tcore1.PYE-Paris.as6453.net	80.231.154.18	fr	25.932 ms	 	 
if-12-2.tcore1.PYE-Paris.as6453.net	80.231.154.69	fr	25.954 ms	25.947 ms
10	if-8-1600.tcore1.WYN-Marseille.as6453.net	80.231.217.5	fr	25.678 ms	25.765 ms	25.759 ms
11	 	 	 	*	*	*
12	 	 	 	*	*	*
13	 	 	 	*	*	*

Upload:

C:\Users\Administrator>tracert 4.2.2.1

Tracing route to a.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.1]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    67 ms    98 ms    98 ms  dsldevice.lan [192.168.1.254]
  2    69 ms    41 ms    42 ms  ssg.terra.net.lb [212.98.136.18]
  3    44 ms    61 ms    59 ms  10.40.40.6
  4    79 ms    42 ms    42 ms  rev-212-98-135-121.terra.net.lb [212.98.135.121]

  5    40 ms    41 ms    42 ms  172.16.18.158
  6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  7   101 ms    77 ms   124 ms  ix-1-2-0-0.tcore1.WYN-Marseille.as6453.net [80.2
31.217.25]
  8   109 ms    99 ms    92 ms  if-8-1600.tcore1.PYE-Paris.as6453.net [80.231.21
7.6]
  9    88 ms    93 ms   128 ms  if-12-2.tcore1.PVU-Paris.as6453.net [80.231.154.
70]
 10   100 ms   100 ms    90 ms  80.231.153.66
 11    91 ms   109 ms    90 ms  ae-51-51.csw1.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.139.215]
 12    93 ms   103 ms    90 ms  ae-58-113.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.161.45]
 13    96 ms   103 ms   145 ms  ae-46-46.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.143.105]

 14   118 ms   115 ms   137 ms  ae-57-112.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.153.118]

 15    96 ms    97 ms   123 ms  ae-11-51.car1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.66]
 16   110 ms   110 ms    98 ms  a.resolvers.level3.net [4.2.2.1]

Trace complete.

john · July 25 2012

From the minister via twitter:

News: Repair boat started the repair of the IMEWE today, if weather conditions remain favorable, it is expected to finish by tomorrow night

Edit:

News: Cable IMEWE repaired. Ogero teams are testing it.

Last edited by john (July 26 2012)

redbyte · July 27 2012

My ping times have decreased ever since the IMEWE came back online. I used to get between 105-110 ms on Ogero, I am now sub 100ms

Pinging www.l.google.com [74.125.132.104] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.125.132.104: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=46
Reply from 74.125.132.104: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=46
Reply from 74.125.132.104: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=46
Reply from 74.125.132.104: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=46

Adnan · July 27 2012

Well, that deescalated quickly !

I pinged the same IP as redbyte:

PING 74.125.132.104 (74.125.132.104) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=1 ttl=43 time=97.9 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=2 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=3 ttl=43 time=96.5 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=4 ttl=43 time=97.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=5 ttl=43 time=96.6 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=6 ttl=43 time=95.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=7 ttl=43 time=97.1 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=8 ttl=43 time=96.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=9 ttl=43 time=95.9 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=10 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=11 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=12 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=13 ttl=43 time=97.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=14 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=15 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=16 ttl=43 time=95.8 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=17 ttl=43 time=97.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=18 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=19 ttl=43 time=95.5 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=20 ttl=43 time=96.8 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=21 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=22 ttl=43 time=95.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=23 ttl=43 time=96.6 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=24 ttl=43 time=714 ms <--------------
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=25 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=26 ttl=43 time=96.6 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=27 ttl=43 time=97.8 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=28 ttl=43 time=97.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=29 ttl=43 time=96.3 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=30 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=31 ttl=43 time=96.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=32 ttl=43 time=97.0 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=33 ttl=43 time=96.7 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=34 ttl=43 time=95.2 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=35 ttl=43 time=96.5 ms
64 bytes from 74.125.132.104: icmp_req=36 ttl=43 time=97.5 ms

I don't know what happened with the 700ms all of a sudden, but over-all as you can see, that's amazing, especially when you're with Sodetel !

I also pinged bbc.co.uk and the maximum is barely 110ms.

I'm not very excited since I know it will get back to shi7 very soon.

Last edited by Adnan (July 27 2012)

trophyhunter · July 27 2012

they are saying they fixed the cable,but why am i getting unstable pings?
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Echo data>ping -t bbc.co.uk

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=182ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=172ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=219ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=469ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=186ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=103ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=152ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=169ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=175ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=159ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=171ms TTL=238
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=238

romel · July 28 2012

well obviously the fix did not do anything to our qos @ sodetel , i never had any high hopes that it will ...

user · August 1 2012

I am never landing a ping with sodetel higher than 100 ms... I wonder why

Jinx · August 1 2012

I'm an ogero user.. My ping dropped from 130ms to 80ms after fixing the cable, which is good I guess

NuclearVision · August 1 2012

Cable user, 78ms average ping.
And i thought cable latencies were not good for gaming!

user · August 3 2012

sodetel is moody. I will change soon! I keep saying that yet I do nothing

InVader · August 4 2012

My connection (Cyberia ADSL) has deteriorated a few days ago:

I used to get 120ms pings to www.l.google.com, and 100ms pings to 4.2.2.2. Now both are 375-400+ms.

Anybody experiencing the same?

PING bbc.co.uk (212.58.241.131) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=1 ttl=238 time=376 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=2 ttl=238 time=362 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=3 ttl=238 time=400 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=4 ttl=238 time=400 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=5 ttl=238 time=416 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=6 ttl=238 time=392 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=7 ttl=238 time=407 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=8 ttl=238 time=372 ms
PING bbc.co.uk (212.58.241.131) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=1 ttl=238 time=376 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=2 ttl=238 time=362 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=3 ttl=238 time=400 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=4 ttl=238 time=400 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=5 ttl=238 time=416 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=6 ttl=238 time=392 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=7 ttl=238 time=407 ms
64 bytes from 212.58.241.131: icmp_req=8 ttl=238 time=372 ms
PING 4.2.2.2 (4.2.2.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_req=1 ttl=47 time=374 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_req=2 ttl=47 time=378 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_req=3 ttl=47 time=401 ms
64 bytes from 4.2.2.2: icmp_req=4 ttl=47 time=371 ms

Hybrid · August 4 2012

yea Same thing on Cyberia, ping is high

Reply from 173.194.41.178: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=46
Reply from 173.194.41.178: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=46
Reply from 173.194.41.178: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=46
Reply from 173.194.41.178: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=46
Reply from 173.194.41.178: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=46
Ping statistics for 173.194.41.178:
Packets: Sent = 37, Received = 37, Lost = 0 (0% loss)
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 355ms, Maximum = 1774ms, Average = 403ms

Last edited by Hybrid (August 4 2012)

hussam · August 4 2012

post a traceroute. ping doesn't tell anything.
Either way, they are probably on satellite.

NuclearVision · August 4 2012

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\*>tracert bbc.co.uk

Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    37 ms    98 ms    98 ms  192.168.1.254
  2    76 ms     *       80 ms  77.42.129.91
  3    72 ms    71 ms    71 ms  77.42.129.20
  4    76 ms    71 ms    71 ms  192.168.111.2
  5   110 ms   111 ms   114 ms  213.242.116.25
  6   133 ms   131 ms   130 ms  ae-7-7.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net [4.69.143.238]
  7   140 ms   141 ms   137 ms  ae-45-45.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.143.101]

  8   139 ms   147 ms   148 ms  ae-59-114.csw1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.153.126]

  9   129 ms   131 ms   180 ms  ae-14-51.car3.London1.Level3.net [4.69.139.68]
 10   129 ms   127 ms   127 ms  195.50.90.162
 11     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 12   129 ms   127 ms   127 ms  ae1.er01.thdow.bbc.co.uk [132.185.254.18]
 13   129 ms   130 ms   131 ms  132.185.255.92
 14   130 ms   130 ms   131 ms  212.58.241.131

Trace complete.

amkahal · August 4 2012

Tracert results from your computer side shows that cyberia use fiber for upload, do a traceroute from www.ping.eu to your external IP address to know what they use for download.

NuclearVision · August 4 2012

I'm not with cyberia, i have a shitty upload speed i doubt it is offered cia fibre, i am a cable susbcriber.
The traceroute in my previos post above is for ogero...
How do you know about the fiber thing?
Here's cable traceroute via ping.eu

traceroute to 62.84.94.6 (62.84.94.6), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1	 	 	 	*	*	*
2	hos-tr3.juniper2.rz13.hetzner.de	213.239.224.65	de	0.114 ms	 	 
hos-tr1.juniper1.rz13.hetzner.de	213.239.224.1	de	0.240 ms	0.408 ms
3	hos-bb2.juniper4.ffm.hetzner.de	213.239.240.150	de	5.825 ms	5.827 ms	5.812 ms
4	core-backbone-gw.level3.net	195.16.162.69	de	5.512 ms	5.509 ms	5.475 ms
5	vlan70.csw2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net	4.69.154.126	us	5.652 ms	 	 
vlan90.csw4.Frankfurt1.Level3.net	4.69.154.254	us	5.660 ms	 
vlan60.csw1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net	4.69.154.62	us	16.717 ms
6	ae-61-61.ebr1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net	4.69.140.1	us	5.635 ms	5.526 ms	7.213 ms
7	ae-1-15.bar2.Marseille1.Level3.net	4.69.143.245	us	21.835 ms	21.805 ms	21.794 ms
8	ae-0-11.bar1.Marseille1.Level3.net	4.69.143.241	us	21.567 ms	21.585 ms	21.581 ms
9	 	 	 	*	*	*
10	 	 	 	*	*	*
11	cachebox.lynx.net.lb	62.84.94.6	lb	61.166 ms	61.208 ms	61.130 ms

Last edited by NuclearVision (August 4 2012)

andrew55 · August 5 2012

I'm with IDM and they keep telling me that the fastest possible speed that can be achieved on my line is 1 mbps and i'm only 1 km away from my CO. The maximum bandwidth on my modem settings is around 9 mbps for download. Does anyone know a technical reason why IDM can't offer faster speeds?

InVader · August 5 2012

This is the traceroute to bbc.co.uk (Cyberia ADSL):

1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 0.601 ms 0.550 ms 0.422 ms
2 * * *
3 * 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1) 45.693 ms 43.500 ms
4 10.1.1.2 (10.1.1.2) 43.859 ms 43.708 ms 43.554 ms
5 195.112.197.86 (195.112.197.86) 43.846 ms 43.910 ms 41.601 ms
6 c4.cyberia.net.lb (212.28.239.25) 43.854 ms 43.885 ms 43.547 ms
7 router.cyberia.net.lb (80.81.159.17) 47.821 ms 44.925 ms 43.775 ms
8 * * *
9 213.242.116.25 (213.242.116.25) 375.871 ms 361.231 ms 365.784 ms
10 ae-7-7.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.143.238) 371.191 ms 357.671 ms 365.084 ms
11 ae-47-47.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.109) 376.185 ms ae-45-45.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.101) 372.755 ms ae-46-46.ebr1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.143.105) 384.361 ms
12 ae-56-111.csw1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.114) 381.175 ms 388.457 ms ae-58-113.csw1.London1.Level3.net (4.69.153.122) 388.033 ms
13 ae-14-51.car3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.68) 381.981 ms 366.708 ms 382.805 ms
14 195.50.90.162 (195.50.90.162) 365.843 ms 384.303 ms 371.544 ms
15 * * *
16 ae1.er01.thdow.bbc.co.uk (132.185.254.18) 377.893 ms 373.418 ms 371.463 ms
17 132.185.255.92 (132.185.255.92) 380.861 ms 368.608 ms 377.124 ms
18 212.58.241.131 (212.58.241.131) 377.180 ms 382.371 ms 380.683 ms

LebGeeks

#476 July 9 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#477 July 9 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#478 July 11 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#479 July 11 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#480 July 11 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#481 July 11 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#482 July 11 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#483 July 20 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#484 July 25 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#485 July 27 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#486 July 27 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#487 July 27 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#488 July 28 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#489 August 1 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#490 August 1 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#491 August 1 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#492 August 3 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#493 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#494 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#495 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#496 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#497 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#498 August 4 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#499 August 5 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

#500 August 5 2012

Re: Internet Speed and Latency in Lebanon

Board footer