Satellite > HughesNet Satellite > Hughes Gen4 is a FRAUD

Hughes Gen4 is a FRAUD

reply to greenneck

Re: Hughes Gen4 is a FRAUD

reply to greenneck
Howdy,
I have had Hughes Net since May 2001 (called Direct Way in the beginning), so I have been through all of their “Upgrades” over the years.
I think that HN has a problem with their GN-4 satellites. I believe that someone made a mistake on some of their I/O circuitry. And to compound the problem, I bet that the FPGA that controls that circuitry isn’t brought out so that it can be reprogrammed from the “ground”. To increase the “through-put” on GEN-4, they must be “stealing” the equipment from the other Satellite systems to increase the “through-put” on the ground stations for GEN-4.
Anyone up for a “space walk” with some new circuit cards?

reply to greenneck
Blistering speeds

Date/Time Down(kbps) Up(kbps)
12/10/2012 19:37:08 202 760
12/10/2012 19:27:28 222 585
12/10/2012 19:24:34 193 456
12/10/2012 19:14:40 232 665
12/10/2012 18:53:40 226 760
12/10/2012 17:54:17 323 908
12/10/2012 17:46:43 2845 893
12/10/2012 17:15:20 1640 543
12/10/2012 17:11:25 880 40
12/10/2012 17:09:11 1205 906
12/10/2012 16:56:49 1090 887
12/10/2012 16:51:56 1033 818
--
HT1000 Beam 23

it's not on the satellite, it's at the damn gateways and web acceleration servers. There's no way in hell that EchoStar 17 has reached capacity on any of the beams. I seriously doubt that they have 15,000+ subs on any of the beams. Probably only a couple thousand max on any beam.

reply to greenneck
12/11/2012 20:58:28 498 634
12/11/2012 20:32:18 302 504
12/11/2012 19:52:42 388 863
12/11/2012 19:49:33 297 851
12/11/2012 19:46:16 197 701
12/11/2012 19:40:04 258 916
12/10/2012 19:37:08 202 760
12/10/2012 19:27:28 222 585
12/10/2012 19:24:34 193 456
12/10/2012 19:14:40 232 665
12/10/2012 18:53:40 226 760
12/10/2012 17:54:17 323 908
12/10/2012 17:46:43 2845 893
12/10/2012 17:15:20 1640 543
12/10/2012 17:11:25 880 40
12/10/2012 17:09:11 1205 906
12/10/2012 16:56:49 1090 887
12/10/2012 16:51:56 1033 818
12/09/2012 21:14:58 215 830
12/09/2012 21:06:12 153 709
--
HT1000 Beam 23

reply to TexasRebel

reply to TexasRebel
Lets just assume that its all overloading, if it is then why not make it more powerful?
If its the people whos working with the speed then they need professionals (like i said before) there's a chance that hughes will score back there customers if they hire professionals.
--
HT1000/ BeamID 32/ Power Max plan/ 4 pcs on a D-Link wired router/ wireless D-Link router with password
Support only the gaming company's that matter the most, pay for something that actually is worth buying or has a good reason for how much it's worth.

reply to Liberty
Not possible... Are you sure that particular beam isn't just screwed up? No way in hell any beam is already peaked unless they essentially sold an entire beam to one or two huge customers....

reply to Liberty
there is no way in hell that any of HNG4's beams are loaded. Not in just over 2 months of going live. Hell, Exede had nearly a 9 month headstart and they've not maxed out any of their beams.

Either Echostar 17's bandwidth is not completely being dedicated for HNG4 and is being used for non-published purposes, or HN's network operations is really below required spec to be used with Echostar 17.

Probably the later in that HN executives thought they could save money in cutting corners and believing a segment of their customer base wouldn't ever complain about the performance.

reply to C0RR0SIVE88
that would be some sheit.. imagine a handful of customers having the only access to a beam.. probably some rich effers that want all the available bandwidth so they can netflix day and night and whatever else their hearts desire.. meanwhile the rest of the customers get the shaft.

reply to diablo1892

oh yeah they have professionals alright.. professional script readers.. muchlike with every technological advancement, you have dumbfounded dipsheits at the management levels that dictate how the service will be used.

If HNG4 was actually management by the engineers that designed the technology, it would probably work way better than how it's been working since it's launch date.

reply to silbaco
If there are professionals then why is it not loading like Exede (like how everyones saying) or is all those postive feedbacks from customers with exede telling lies? I believe that Hughes is ran by a bunch of clowns(:

I had Exede12 for 6 months before they terminated me over the stink I made over shitty meters and DNS/DHCP problems. I believe Exede12 rules over HNG4 because they build an all new infrastructure to handle the traffic. HN just uses the same old crap that the legacy satellites were using and added a bit more bandwidth..

reply to greenneck
I've activated easily over 100 systems since launch including a few betas. I hear peoples complaints & understand their frustration. Installers are going through similar headaches. Spent 1 1/2 hrs on the phone a couple of days ago with tech support because of an activation outage. Was the unfortunate sucker to be connected with NOC, ping this #, ping this site, hold for a min(15), let me get an engineer, hold for a min(15), think we're about to narrow it down, hold for a min(15). Turned out to be a dns server problem......go figure. This stuff should have already had the kinks worked out.

reply to greenneck
Just to clarify some of the basics with gen4, or exede,viasat,wildblue.Whatever system you have or are thinking of getting.
The systems are still running the same speeds and using the same Ka band on the birds and the ground stations.
With that said when things are not working correct at the NOC server the speeds will return to legacy speeds.
The new satallites are just there to expand the Ka service available.

If you do not believe this just use a speed meter on your pc (like networx) while browsing .
Direct file downloads are unpacked at the modem(we will call him the accelenet client) to give you the impression of high speed.

I had the exede 5Mb, during the same period that I had over 8Mbps download speed a test with networkx shows my true speed as 100 to 250KBps.(on par with a good hn9000 pro plan)
On these new services you may want something like networkx to keep track of actual usage.

Back to the tech side.
All these "broadband" satallite services are based on the server side compression software. When your system(browser) makes a request the server (we will call him accelenet server) performs the normal DNS query, then the data is retrieved by the server.
The server then unpacks any compressed files and then recompresses them. For example, google loads a 45KB page in IE8 using a standard connection and any other connection to the web.On the new satallite system the server gets the compressed file from google,expands it to approx 350KB ,then recompresses it to about 25KB.........here is the kick in the teeth.

Your usage is based on the uncompressed file size that THEY created.

When you have an issue with usage not seeming correct and complain about it, they just change the multiplier.From what I could tell they set the multiplier at about 8 to 10 to start with.If you complain they bump it down a notch or 2. I think this is a setting on the client end(modem) ,but it could be either end.

On speedtest.net they may show a speed of approx 8Mbps, but the throughput speed will be approx 200KBps because they have reduced the file size via compression to 1/40th (approx) from the original file size(s).

The compression software does not work well with secure connections,it ignores all browser settings, ftp is hopeless. It even changes the color and layout of pages, so much that a page like ebay or facebook will look identical on all browsers.

Well thats about all i can say about these services.

John H. from Michigan