Hi
I discussed this with Matt yesterday and we were going to get a change pushed through to 'depref' the Tata Communications (GLOBEINTERNET) path.  
However looks like Ubisoft have made their own changes overnight and now originating 216.98.48.0/24 from AS26415 (VERISIGN-INC), so have they turned up a new transit provider?
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/845782-Maintenance-11-03-2014
It seems VeriSign have allowed this prefix to be announced to peers on both LINX and LONAP (London Internet Exchange Points) via AS7342 (VERISIGN-AS) which Plusnet do have active peering sessions with.  
So the new path for 216.98.48.1 - 216.98.48.254 is VeriSign and any other Ubisoft IP addresses from their 216.98.48.0/20 prefix still over the same paths options through Tata Communications and / or Tinet SpA via our Level3 IP Transit connection.
Below shows the new route object for 216.98.48.0/24 along with the original one for 216.98.48.0/20, note the different origin ASN's
whois -m 216.98.48.0
route:      216.98.48.0/24
descr:      VeriSign Customer Route
origin:     AS26415
mnt-by:     MAINT-AS26415
route:        216.98.48.0/20
descr:        Peer1 Route Object
origin:       as22634
mnt-by:       maint-as13768

Regards

Just to be clear Deathtrap, we don't think there is anything wrong with Level3's routing, rather it's issues further on.

The game i play does not use UPLAY nor  i do not have uplay software on my PC      lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com [216.98.48.56]  
And i can't believe you see nothing wrong with the example from level3's looking glass , when the transatlantic  feed to the usa is in the uk  you seem to think it's ok for traffic to be bounced around Europe first ? how can this possibly be ok , ?
They have even set the switches on this route to be invisible  if you try a normal tracert , this verisign  global  domain registry  seems to be acting as a mask  as it is preventing icmp requests to it's transatlantic hops, a way of preventing  anyone diagnosing problems
my ping to ubisoft  servers has increased from 89-90ms to  125ms +  and I'm asking something be done about that, if you think it's not the routing that level3 are providing plusnet with then  by complaining about  the next provider to them or directly to tata's noc  may just get the desired result ,
Instead i have been treated like a mushroom IMO  and the end result is we ain't going to do anything for you because we think it's ok  that level3 can't route traffic directly or that they won't  change the routing so i get the 89,ms latency back
How do i raise this with Plusnet's NOC  ?assuming that they have a NOC

Target Name: lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com
         IP: 216.98.48.56
  Date/Time: 12/03/2014 14:23:00 to 12/03/2014 15:32:08
Hop Sent Err   PL% Min Max Avg  Host Name / [IP]
 1  1000   0   0.0   0   1   0  home.gateway.home.gateway [192.168.1.254]
 2  1000   0   0.0  13 525  21  lo0-central10.ptw-ag01.plus.net [195.166.128.195]
 3  1000   0   0.0  13  56  13  link-a-central10.ptw-gw01.plus.net [212.159.2.144]
 4  1000   0   0.0  12  93  14  xe-4-2-0.ptw-cr01.plus.net [212.159.0.240]
 5  1000   0   0.0  13 103  16  xe-1-1-0.r2.bb-fo.lon3.vrsn.net [195.66.225.46]
 6  1000   0   0.0  13  47  14  [199.16.94.205]
 7  1000   0   0.0  18  91  20  xe-1-2-0.r1.bb-fo.ams1.vrsn.net [199.16.94.162]
 8  1000   0   0.0  18  85  21  xe-0-2-0.r2.bb-fo.ams1.vrsn.net [199.16.94.178]
 9  1000   0   0.0  19 106  22  [199.16.95.158]
10   999 999 100.0   0   0   0   [-]

Destination not reached in 35 hops

although it doesn't show the real peering provider it appears to be routing to AMSTERDAM  why ?  it isn't part of the direct route to montreal

So how long before i am given the contact details of Plusnets NOC  ?  or do i have to do this in a more formal way?

Do you have a traceroute when you were getting  89-90ms?
I can ping a game server in Montreal using solely Level3's network and get 80-85ms pings. So surely that rules out Level3 being at fault?

https://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,120077.msg1078466.html#msg1078466  the tracert without Chicago in it  shows the 89-90ms ping,
And no not really, it doesn't prove that level3 are not to blame, because they route hosts differently  and they also route things differently for other ISP's  and this whatever it is now is no better  infact it maybe even worse

Ok...but surely the problem is Ubisoft's end?
TRACEROUTE (using port 80/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1   3.35 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   10.93 ms lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3   7.25 ms  link-b-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.182)
4   6.82 ms  xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.214)
5   10.66 ms ae2.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.6)
6   6.83 ms  xe-11-2-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.213)
7   6.52 ms  te-3-4.car5.London1.Level3.net (217.163.45.181)
8   15.13 ms ae-52-52.csw2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.120)
9   6.53 ms  ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.154)
10  13.25 ms ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
11  90.36 ms xe-1-3-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.74)
12  89.72 ms hsrp-101.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.1)
TRACEROUTE (using port 1723/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  1.69 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  6.25 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3  5.62 ms  link-b-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.182)
4  5.66 ms  xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.214)
5  9.93 ms  ae2.pcl-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.6)
6  6.58 ms  ae1.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.0)
7  12.10 ms  ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
8  13.82 ms  ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82)
9  5.23 ms  ae-227-3603.edge3.London1.Level3.net (4.69.166.154)
10  12.77 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
11  104.60 ms if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
12  83.16 ms  hsrp-101.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.1)
TRACEROUTE (using port 1720/tcp)
HOP RTT       ADDRESS
1   1.66 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   6.70 ms   lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3   6.67 ms   link-b-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.182)
4   5.95 ms   xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.214)
5   28.06 ms  ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net (195.166.129.2)
6   38.83 ms  ae2.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.4)
7   5.98 ms   te-4-2.car5.London1.Level3.net (217.163.45.249)
8   12.43 ms  ae-91-91.csw4.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.90)
9   11.90 ms  ae-1-60.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.8)
10  13.10 ms  ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
11  100.43 ms if-17-2.tcore1.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.130.129)
12  106.85 ms if-2-2.tcore2.L78-London.as6453.net (80.231.131.1)
13  106.79 ms if-20-2.tcore2.NYY-New-York.as6453.net (216.6.99.13)
14  106.01 ms if-12-6.tcore1.CT8-Chicago.as6453.net (216.6.99.46)
15  90.24 ms  hsrp-101.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.1)
TRACEROUTE (using port 80/tcp)
HOP RTT       ADDRESS
1   2.36 ms   router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2   6.97 ms   lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3   6.49 ms   link-b-central10.pcl-gw02.plus.net (212.159.2.182)
4   5.96 ms   xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr02.plus.net (212.159.0.214)
5   5.98 ms   ae1.ptw-cr02.plus.net (195.166.129.2)
6   6.32 ms   ae1.ptw-cr01.plus.net (195.166.129.0)
7   11.53 ms  xe-1-2-0.r1.bb-fo.ams1.vrsn.net (199.16.94.162)
8   6.34 ms   199.16.94.205
9   ...
10  11.76 ms  xe-0-2-0.r2.bb-fo.ams1.vrsn.net (199.16.94.178)
11  ... 13
14  107.44 ms msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
15  107.28 ms vlan100.foobar.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.1)

How can it be ubisoft's fault, they don't have control  of how TATA  ect route to them , My point is that traffic for their games should be always routed  directly  where possible, the direct route over AS6453.net still exists, their was nothing wrong with that route, then Either Level3 or AS6453.net decided to be clowns and went and changed it (borked it)  Tinet has a direct route  why can this be used ?
Currently i'm getting routed indirectly  why is this ,? And i want the lower latency back to lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com port 3074 anyone would think that they had moved Montreal  or something ,

The routing via Verisign is their DDOS scrubbing centre.  I suspect they've dialled up some DDOS protection based on some intel - and this will add latency.

Network Distance: 13 hops
TRACEROUTE (using port 3011/tcp)
HOP RTT      ADDRESS
1  1.77 ms  router.asus.com (192.168.1.1)
2  8.29 ms  lo0-central10.pcl-ag06.plus.net (195.166.128.187)
3  6.03 ms  link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.180)
4  11.40 ms xe-10-3-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.212)
5  6.03 ms  xe-11-1-0.edge3.London2.Level3.net (212.187.201.209)
6  13.37 ms ae-3-3.ebr1.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.141.86)
7  12.32 ms ae-71-71.csw2.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.161.82)
8  13.10 ms ae-1-60.edge5.Paris1.Level3.net (4.69.168.8)
9  12.91 ms ae5.par22.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.103.181)
10  90.77 ms xe-4-2-0.mtl10.ip4.tinet.net (141.136.107.125)
11  89.39 ms ubisoft-gw.ip4.tinet.net (173.241.128.42)
12  89.82 ms msr-onl-fw01.ubisoft.com (216.98.51.10)
13  86.00 ms lb-lsg-prod.ubisoft.com (216.98.48.56)

Well just around 30-60mins ago  the routing did change  level3 at london onto tinet  ping was 95ms to ubisoft , I thought once again i had been listened to  and this  issue was resolved but how wrong was i , now back to P poor verisign lagggggggy routing again,
Once again i request the contact details for plusnets NOC  if im ignored fobbed off i'll go the formal route

The switch to Verisign would have been initiated by Ubisoft.  It's nothing to do with Plusnet (now).
Verisign are announcing Ubisoft's /24 using BGP, then using a GRE tunnel to route the traffic back to Ubisoft servers (which is why you're not getting ICMP TTL exceeded messages in your traceroutes).
This will also be masking the actual route from Verisign's scrubbing centre back to Ubisoft's ingress.

I am somewhat confused why you think it's Plusnet's fault or responsibility to have control over something outside of their network?
noc@plus.net is the email, but I very much doubt you will get anywhere....

Verisign  routing doesn't have to be used  as other routing to ubisoft exists , peering providers and isp's should still have some control over if or not to route via this dumb verisign  routing ? this verisign will likely be in addition to the existing peering , unless it is the very same peering providers masked by verisign  so we can't see how bad their lame routing is and how much extra lag they have introduced  maybe they are sick of people complaining ,