dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1798
share rss forum feed


Stevent

@frontiernet.net

[Installer] pointing the gen 4

Hey anybody having trouble pointing the Gen 4? I've installed 8 so far but two of them have given me a lot of trouble taking me hours to peak the dish.



FlaLackey

@bellsouth.net

Dude. I have at least three a week that take me more than 5 hours because the system pops these phantom state codes. even installer support is clueless. this new system is shit.


TexasRebel

join:2011-05-29
Edgewood, TX

interesting.. both ViaSat-1 and EchoStar 17 are identical LS1300 platforms. so I would say HN's GEN4 is being crippled by gateway issues.


C0RR0SIVE

join:2012-06-19
Salvisa, KY

You honestly think the networks are using the exact same everything? They are sister satellites, similar design, but are different. As such, both systems also use different software to control everything.

Gee, go figure, new software has bugs. -.-


TexasRebel

join:2011-05-29
Edgewood, TX

dude... It's not like they just got the idea to launch the GEN4 satellite a week ago and started putting customers on it. They've had months to plan, develop, and tweak their system. Probably up to 2 years or more.

They had over 2 months to test for all these problems before officially offering GEN4 packages.

If the satellites are so different in design, why is ViaSat filing a lawsuit against Space Systems Loral because of patent copying with the EchoStar 17 sat??

I had Exede12. When I got it in April, right off the bat I was getting way over the advertised speeds. I was getting over 20Mbps down and a consistent 3.5Mbps up. They terminated me because I got verbal about their constant screwing with DAP and LNFZ settings which had me power cycling hardware twice a day. If they would've just left the damn thing alone I'd still be with them. They terminated me because they claimed I threatened their company...

Hughesnet claims they are they are the satellite broadband leader. So far it doesn't look like it.. A brand new satellite like GEN4 should be delivering over the expected speeds.. Supposedly I saw somewhere that there were users in California that were seeing over 15Mbps consistently.. They must be going through a different gateway...


C0RR0SIVE

join:2012-06-19
Salvisa, KY

So, you think that they could some how magically test the modem software for all potential bugs on all potential beams with no load? -.-

If there is a lawsuit, so be it, but, the software for the system is different when it comes to the modems.


sharkyyoung
Premium
join:2012-03-15
Reno, NV

said by C0RR0SIVE:

So, you think that they could some how magically test the modem software for all potential bugs on all potential beams with no load? -.-

If there is a lawsuit, so be it, but, the software for the system is different when it comes to the modems.

Corrosive
You do know you are arguing with Larry again, don't you.

TexasRebel

join:2011-05-29
Edgewood, TX
reply to C0RR0SIVE

you act as though these two highspeed satellites are radically different from each other. they're not. it's 2012, not 2000. believe me they've perfected these systems for high throughput. I'm betting this is way more likely an issue at the gateways not having enough bandwidth due to HN not putting in the needed fiber connections needed for the GEN4 system.

I even got a customer service rep telling me that the GEN4 is using the same gateways as the legacy satellites. so instead of cramming people onto beams, they've managed to over saturate the damn gateways..


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

If it is a problem with saturated gateways, then it is an easy although possibly time consuming fix.


C0RR0SIVE

join:2012-06-19
Salvisa, KY

1 edit
reply to TexasRebel

Yes... They are some how magically using the same gateways for all the systems... Please, tell me more about how these flooded gateways are actually producing better ping times for Gen4 over the other systems.

You can't go based upon GeoLocation, sure it's great, but I have seen too many instances where an IP for lets say, a UK resident, is actually for an American resident.

HN9000 Tracert (Turbo Page Disabled) to my website:
Tracing route to www.clantwgb.com [66.96.130.49]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms pfsense.localdomain [192.168.1.1]
2 2 ms 2 ms 6 ms www.systemcontrolcenter.com.www.systemcontrolcen
ter.com [192.168.0.1]
3 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms www.systemcontrolcenter.com.www.systemcontrolcen
ter.com [192.168.0.1]
4 876 ms 1012 ms 1107 ms 184.52.224.2
5 1043 ms 914 ms 1109 ms 184.52.224.157
6 1266 ms * 1182 ms 12.90.110.117
7 1385 ms 1219 ms 1096 ms cr2.ptdor.ip.att.net [12.123.157.82]
8 1324 ms 1218 ms 1099 ms cr82.st0wa.ip.att.net [12.122.5.229]
9 1560 ms 1828 ms 1667 ms st0wa01jt.ip.att.net [12.122.84.17]
10 1083 ms 942 ms 1070 ms te8-2.ccr01.sea02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.11.
105]
11 964 ms 697 ms 1192 ms te9-1.ccr01.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.44.
85]
12 1148 ms 829 ms 1404 ms te8-1.ccr01.slc01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.80.
6]
13 843 ms 836 ms 928 ms te8-1.ccr02.den01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.82.
226]
14 742 ms 768 ms 880 ms te0-2-0-7.ccr22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.82.214]
15 932 ms 803 ms * te0-1-0-2.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.5.174]
16 871 ms 834 ms 1165 ms te0-2-0-5.ccr22.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.43.74]
17 893 ms 767 ms 780 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.97.106.34]
18 842 ms 1117 ms 1235 ms 238.252.148.207.static.yourhostingaccount.com [2
07.148.252.238]
19 1405 ms 915 ms 1213 ms 49.130.96.66.static.eigbox.net [66.96.130.49]

Trace complete
______________________________
Gen4 Tracert (Turbo Page/Web Acceleration Disabled):

Tracing route to www.clantwgb.com [66.96.130.49]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms pfsense.localdomain [192.168.1.1]
2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 100.72.192.249
3 612 ms 633 ms 626 ms dpc6935176130.direcpc.com [69.35.176.130]
4 638 ms 599 ms 653 ms dpc6935180017.direcpc.com [69.35.180.17]
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 648 ms 729 ms 679 ms dap-brdr-04.inet.qwest.net [67.14.2.162]
7 683 ms 679 ms 719 ms te9-5.ccr01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.11.
165]
8 690 ms 709 ms 719 ms te0-4-0-3.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.82.21]
9 699 ms 708 ms 700 ms te0-3-0-6.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.46.201]
10 720 ms 729 ms 699 ms te0-1-0-2.ccr21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.25.82]
11 753 ms 719 ms 719 ms te0-1-0-1.ccr22.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54
.6.21]
12 736 ms 739 ms 751 ms endurance-international-group.demarc.cogentco.co
m [38.97.106.34]
13 739 ms 780 ms 751 ms 242.252.148.207.static.yourhostingaccount.com [2
07.148.252.242]
14 720 ms 739 ms 740 ms 49.130.96.66.static.eigbox.net [66.96.130.49]

Trace complete.

________________________

@FlaLackey

Which state codes are coming up? Are they 12.x.x ones or?



Need

@direcway.com
reply to Stevent

Try a different Beam.

The only similarity is that they both were on the SSL 1300 Platform.

The onboard hardware in some cases may be similar. But Viasat is NOT moving on with the lawsuit.(Last I heard anyway) They know they could not win it anyhow.

Viasat was trying to make Hughesnet look bad with that public announcement about the lawsuit.

They did not do a full 2 months to test it. Design on paper and controlled environment testing is different then Real World Testing.

The only thing that I know of that Gen4 uses that is the same or similar to the older systems is the Land Based Fiber Connection. If they can saturate the Land Based Connection that is at Each NOC, then we all have bigger issues then the Satellites up there.