FIOS not good ISP for gaming in North East, bad routing to canada and west coast.

Question

http://forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-Internet/Keep-ge​tting-kicked-out-of-game-MechWarrior-Online/m-p/66​...
Yes the same thing has been happening to me. It also appears it was a problem back in january according to this thread....
http://forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-Internet/Routing​-Latency-issues/m-p/525091/highlight/true#M34574
Here is a past MWO thread started at the same time by a verizon customer.   I believe almost all of thise users have quit fios or quit MWO.  
  http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/91680-higher-ping​-times-after-patch/page__st__80
Many people in the game believe its due to MWO patches,  but I think thats just a placebo.  I believe it is to do with the cold winter months and verizon not being able to handle the load.    Speedtests to any west coast, specifically vancouver server,  have the same results.
I have called verizon, gone to live chat, spoken to many different supervisors and technicians and have gotten no help with this issue.  They basically tell me its not their problem.
After doing many traceroutes and speedtests.   It appears I am  getting routed through europe to get to canada from NY, which just doesn't make any common sense. First verizon claims the link router sending us to europe is not owned by them. Then we have to prove to them that it in fact is with public business records and WHOIS reports. Which also seemed to be the case for others in that thread back in january.
IT seems the issue in january might of been that particular router was geting overloaded  they might have fixed the circuit on that verizon link/border router in question. But now it seems the issue has been passed up the line to the next link router and now that next circuit up the line  is getting congested.
Below you can see some traceroutes when I am receiving the bad ping:
Tracing route to relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 9 ms 10 ms 5 ms L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34.1]
3 11 ms 12 ms 7 ms G0-1-3-7.NYCMNY-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net [130.81.185.220]
4 94 ms 12 ms 10 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 9 ms 15 ms 12 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
6 9 ms 16 ms 11 ms TenGigE0-5-0-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.65]
7 28 ms 25 ms 44 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]   (previous congested router routing to europe)
8 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 100 ms 104 ms 103 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 97 ms 99 ms 98 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
11 103 ms 103 ms 96 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
Trace complete.
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 8 ms 10 ms 10 ms L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34.1]
3 15 ms 15 ms 12 ms 130.81.185.220
4 25 ms 84 ms 12 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 22 ms 21 ms 10 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
6 18 ms 16 ms 19 ms TenGigE0-7-4-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.133
7 35 ms 33 ms 34 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
8 56 ms 54 ms 55 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 118 ms 119 ms 112 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 111 ms 111 ms 109 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
11 116 ms 111 ms 109 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
Here are some traceroutes when I am getting the good ping:
Tracing route to relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 10 ms 5 ms 8 ms L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34
.1]
3 11 ms 13 ms 10 ms G0-1-3-7.NYCMNY-LCR-21.verizon-gni.net [130.81.185.220]
4 48 ms 11 ms 10 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 83 ms 30 ms 33 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
6 19 ms 12 ms 23 ms TenGigE0-7-1-0.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.21.125]
7 14 ms 12 ms 15 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
8 29 ms 26 ms 28 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 33 ms 34 ms 34 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 36 ms 40 ms 44 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
11 38 ms 40 ms 39 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
Trace complete.
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 6 ms 11 ms 6 ms L100.NYCMNY-VFTTP-175.verizon-gni.net [71.167.34.1]
3 10 ms 11 ms 12 ms 130.81.185.220
4 88 ms 9 ms 11 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 8 ms 11 ms 11 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
6 14 ms 21 ms 11 ms TenGigE0-7-0-4.GW8.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.25.226]
7 14 ms 10 ms 10 ms tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]
8 26 ms 29 ms 28 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 23 ms 22 ms 22 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.1
32]
11 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
Going from 20 ping to 100 depending on time of day,  which seems to 24 hours a day now!   is a real tease and frustrating, and when there is packet loss or excessive spikes, thats when we lose the connection,  session lost messages,  black screen issue...etc...
When reading that past thread,  The problem server back in january was tinet-gw.customer.alter.net [152.179.72.122]  (the one that routes us through europ)   but now it seems the burden has been passed up the chain to the next link/border router and circuit   internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94].
Maybe the guys back in january were able to pressure verizon to increase bandwidth on the tinet circuit on tha verizon router in NY because they actually owned that server,  even though they originally tried to lie and claim they didn't.  Even if not part of FIOS,  and after the 6th hop.    Its obvious it was theirs cause it ends with alter.net,  was right here in NYC,    WHOIS reports gave verizons email,  and business records show they bought it in 2006.
Fios doesn't contact DSL,  residential doesn't contact business...etc..  Its like this company doesn't remember how 9/11 happened!!!
BUt Now the burden is on the the next link router  which routes to internap.  And that is a german server and part of tinet.net and is a different company that verizon does not have direct access to.    Verizon would not even email  the admin for me,  which many feel is unprofessional.  
You can try emailing that admin yourself or doing some trace routes your self and calling and pressuring verizon to address the issue themselves.    
It seems verizon fios can't handle routing people to canada,  especially in the cold months of the year.  They must not be able to handle their load.   It seems verizon fios is really a scam,  and fiber optics is just a pretty name,  but in reality is no different then any other network,  except locally.    The only difference we need to look at when buying bandwidth,  is pricing period.  The fact it is fiber optics means diddly squat!  And the more people that get fios,  i predict the worse their network is going to get.
   I have sent an email to the admin of that german server  {edited for privacy}  but I would be shocked if I got any reply.  Ridiculous for verizon to suggest I do that in the first place.
People with timer warner in the same area  are getting constant 20-40 ping to MWO,  while verizon fios customers are getting terrible connections right now.

Answer 1

What you are seeing here has nothing at all to do with what your speed is. Latency has nothing to do with speed, it has to do with distance and network congestion. Your local ISP, no matter who it is, can not directly affect how another company (in your case Internap Network Services Corporation) routes data. Now if there was a problem in a link directly connected to your local ISP, for example:
4 94 ms 12 ms 10 ms ae0-0.NY325-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.209.110]
5 9 ms 15 ms 12 ms 0.so-4-0-1.XT2.NYC4.ALTER.NET [152.63.10.29]
*from your tracert
The above link is leaving Verizon local control and entering Alter.Net control, if there was latency on a regular basis there then this should be reported to Verizon as your local ISP and that will filter up to their NOC group who will contact Alter.net and figure out the issue with that link. If the issue is a faulty link it will get fixed, if the issue is a link undergoing to much traffic its ability to handle the traffic will either be increased where possible or routed around where possible. The whole issue of peer-to-peer networking is very complex (which is what the Supreme Court was reviewing by the way) and a number of issues come into play. If the connection point only experiences high traffic sometimes on a very limited basis then generally routing some traffic to different connections is what is done.
Now in your later postes you show the following:
8 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms xe-8-2-0.tor10.ip4.tinet.net [141.136.107.98]
9 100 ms 104 ms 103 ms internap-gw.ip4.tinet.net [77.67.70.94]
10 97 ms 99 ms 98 ms border1.te7-1-bbnet1.tor001.pnap.net [70.42.24.132]
11 103 ms 103 ms 96 ms relay-1.mwtactics.com [70.42.29.65]
That clearly shows the problem is inside the tinet.net (Internap Network Services Corporation) network. This network is also the network providing the link into this game server. What does this tell us? From what you are seeing it tells us that either Internap does not have enough bandwidth to server the amount of traffic down to this server or the game company has not purchased a high enough link. The latter is unlikely. Most likely the issue is that Verizon's Fios product is growing with more and more people are trying to reach that game from the Fios network. This causes issues at the link point, which Verizon apparently has taken steps to fix as well as those internal links going down to the game servers. Now your local ISP (Verizon) cannot help the latter half of that. One can hope the end user ISP (in your case Internap Network Services Corporation) will increase their internal bandwidth or router traffic around problem areas.