70%+ packet loss in level 3 peering sacramento, ca

Still down, 6 hours later.

Co-worker noticed that the sfsutro to san jose link is experiencing 100% packet loss.

I guess this is punishing customers that supported net neutrality?

But, I did expect my business cable internet to be a bit more reliable, and the support seems to be non-existant.  I would call support, but don't want my bill stuffed in retaliation.

Checking to see if sonic.net will offer decent speeds in Timbuktu.

the packet loss is only for Google DNS servers, 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4

OpenDNS goes through Fresno to LA.  Google DNS goes through Sacramento's peering point to Level 3.

Looks like I never changed my modem back over to GoogleDNS, explains why I didn't notice this issue(also in your area). Looks like this has cleared up for the most part though, my MTR is only showing a single dropped packet. out of 250. 

Still 83% packet loss at the Sacramento L3<>Comcast peering point.

Google has had to reroute traffic away from multiple Comcast peering points that were getting high packet loss, so it is not just a single peering point.  AWS traffic is unaffected, just Google traffic. Disappointed that this has been going on for a week, worried that Comcast hasn't noticed, alarmed that they are the only ones who haven't noticed.

Packets Pings
Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 192.168.1.254 0.0% 13 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0
2. xxxxxx-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 0.0% 13 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.1
3. 76.127.112.1 0.0% 13 13.8 9.9 8.4 13.8 1.8
4. xe-11-0-0-0-sur01.tracy.ca.ccal.comcast.net 0.0% 13 9.4 13.6 8.0 37.8 10.1
5. ae-18-0-ar01.sacramento.ca.ccal.comcast.net 0.0% 13 10.9 12.0 10.5 18.0 2.0
6. lag-7.ear1.Sacramento.Level3.net 83.3% 13 17.9 18.0 17.9 18.1 0.2
7. ae-4-90.edge1.SanJose3.Level3.net 0.0% 13 16.9 15.9 14.3 24.7 2.9
8. 72.14.223.91 0.0% 13 22.5 17.2 14.3 24.3 3.2
9. 64.233.175.237 0.0% 13 16.4 18.7 14.7 34.1 5.4
10. google-public-dns-a.google.com 0.0% 12 14.8 15.7 14.3 18.9 1.5

I didn't notice this earlier but your MTRs aren't showing issues. It would be an issue with the loss started at a single point and carried on to the end, but in your case it's just a single hop.