Yes and no... It depends on how the backhaul or link providers prioritise different types of traffic
If there's a problem at a particular switch, this will sometimes show up on a tracert so you can see where te bottle neck is. Be wary though if a particular hop shows high latency yet he hops afterwards don't show any incremented time, as this jst means that the hop is prioritising normal http type traffic over ICMP and it doesn't mean there actually is a problem.
As to speeds and latency on BTs network, even if an exchange is congested and speeds are slow, its seldom that you will see increased latency as they give some priority to ICMP. I've been on a severely congested exchange where loads of us were experiencing extremely slow speeds of sub 100 kbps yet not one of us saw any increased latency through this.
looking at mine the tracert looks ok apart from hop 11 and hop 12 on the ping test im not losing any packets
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\joe>tracert
www.google.co.ukTracing route to
www.google.co.uk [173.194.41.152]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms BThomehub.home
2 14 ms 14 ms 13 ms 217.32.144.168
3 15 ms 14 ms 14 ms 217.32.144.222
4 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms 212.140.235.98
5 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 217.41.169.95
6 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms 217.41.169.109
7 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms acc2-xe-5-0-3.sf.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.159.251.24
1]
8 28 ms 26 ms 26 ms core2-te0-2-3-0.ealing.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.25
1.147]
9 25 ms 25 ms 25 ms host213-121-193-148.ukcore.bt.net [213.121.193.1
48]
10 27 ms 27 ms 24 ms 195.99.126.105
11 43 ms 22 ms 25 ms 209.85.252.186
12 28 ms 35 ms 24 ms 72.14.238.55
13 20 ms 24 ms 24 ms lhr08s03-in-f24.1e100.net [173.194.41.152]
Trace complete.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\joe>ping
www.google.co.uk -t
Pinging
www.google.co.uk [173.194.41.159] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=52
Reply from 173.194.41.159: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 173.194.41.159:
Packets: Sent = 16, Received = 16, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 26ms, Average = 24ms
Control-C