corvettez06u
join:2007-01-15
New Richmond, OH
| Anyone else thinking WildBlue?
With this new FAP crap, I'm seriously considering WildBlue now. I can deal with slow peak time speeds, but this 350MB download per day is silly. I did the math, and with what I'm paying for Hughesnet I could get 17GB per month FAP (roughly 566MB per day in a 30 day month period) and I definately don't download THAT much. If they wanted to enact a daily fap, they should have really adjusted the numbers to much higher amounts. Atleast 500 for the pro plan. |
|
IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL
| Judging by how many people are contacting the Better Business people and local lawyers in regards to the new and unannounced FAP change...I wouldn't be surprised if a judge at a circuit court eventually makes HughesNet disclose their methods for determining FAP once and for all or making them do away with it. |
|
corvettez06u
join:2007-01-15
New Richmond, OH
| reply to corvettez06u
I hope so, because the old FAP was FAIR, this is just rediculous. Like today, I saw the Forza Motorsport 2 demo at 600MB. Before this crap, I could download it if I chunked it 300 a piece over the span of two days. Now, if I chuncked it, I'd only have 75MB to last me the next 24 hours. When my contract is up and this isn't fixed, I'm going WildBlue or saying screw it and sticking with my 10 dollar a month dial up service. I have a friend with cable I can mooch off him. |
|
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to corvettez06u
Better check out the wildblue forums and the problems that their users are experiencing. You can download more with WB without being fapped...you can dl complete iso's and not get bit with the fap bug. However if you get fapped with WB your down til your 30 day rolling average catches up with you. Look before you leap the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence. You also have to be prepared for pings which are much longer than with Hughes.
--
HN7000S IA-8 1270 / 8-PSK 3/4 (14) / Router:67.142.140.95 /.74 1 watt / Pro / Pentium 3.2ghz, 1gb ram / WinXP Pro/ Firefox 2.0.0.3 |
|
corvettez06u
join:2007-01-15
New Richmond, OH | 30 day rolling FAP is much more managable than 1 day. 17GB is a LOT for me. Trust me. HUGE. I can manage that easily. |
|
DickDastardl
join:2005-10-10
Port Republic, VA
| reply to corvettez06u
Boy, I'd like to get in on this one. I personally can't afford to deal with the upfront costs of a new sat system. However, If I knew that I could have 17gb's in a months time that would work out great for me. On a daily basis I don't download much, but there are times where I would want to download a large game, or even an operating system or two. These are things I do rarely, but I do want to have the freedom to do that.
I was going to relinquish command to the Borg and commit to downloading just 100 megs a day even though I'm entitled to 200. However, not long ago I downloaded about 50mb's and got FAPed, with the Borg stating I did much more. With this type of BS behavior from a supposedly reputable company (Hughesnet) WB is looking more and more like something I might be able to justify breaking the piggy bank for. I'll be reading up on WB to see how dysfunctional they are, and we'll see what happens from there.
Some people here think that I should be grateful and bow to the mercy of the revered Hughsnet. "How can you be so selfish," I'm told. "You have no other way to get broadband Internet service, and now you're asking for all this bandwidth from this poor company?" You bet your booty I am. I feel I'm giving them plenty of money for a service that I've been promised, and now that same service doesn't exist. The all powerful Hughesnet can sign me up for a contract and then change it, and tell me that if I don't like it I still can't leave because I have to fulfill my contract with them? Boy, that's fair. Hmmmm, promise me a service, and then change it to something I have no interest to have. Now with the new limitations they've released, they won't allow me to give back their blasted equipment and let me have the option to move on.
There's just something very wrong with this whole thing. I just hope the justice dept. gets on their case for all this aggravation. |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Better make sure you can handle pings like this(on a good day). Believe me they get much worse than this. Usually average in between 1300-1700ms.
Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1220ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1233ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1215ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1224ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1191ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1233ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1053ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1176ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1158ms TTL=46
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1267ms TTL=46
Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1053ms, Maximum = 1267ms, Average = 1197ms
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
Brad R
join:2007-05-06
Collingwood, ON
| Not so very much worse than I commonly get from HN:
PING yahoo.com (66.94.234.13) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=1149 ms
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=766 ms
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=1114 ms
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=1160 ms
64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=1536 ms |
|
IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL
| reply to corvettez06u
Hughes Pings are just as bad if not worse than WB's. There's no real difference.
PING www.apple.com (17.112.152.32): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=0 ttl=240 time=1606.609 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=1 ttl=240 time=1696.186 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=2 ttl=240 time=2114.629 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=3 ttl=240 time=1734.426 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=4 ttl=240 time=1154.378 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=5 ttl=240 time=1224.159 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=6 ttl=240 time=2386.489 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=7 ttl=240 time=1557.124 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=8 ttl=240 time=1126.034 ms
64 bytes from 17.112.152.32: icmp_seq=9 ttl=240 time=1105.857 ms |
|
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI | What modem is that with? |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| said by CMoore2004  :What modem is that with? What he said ^^^^. I have heard that the HN7000S gets better latency. I have also heard that a lot of it depends on which transponder you are on as well.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL | reply to CMoore2004
HN7000S with ProPlan. I got 500-800ms pings with the DW6000. |
|
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to IzzyJG99
Here's pinging apple as well. These are actually a little slow for me. This was pinged thru the utility built into the modem.
------------------------------------
Network Time: WED MAY 16 19:02:19 2007
------------------------------------
Ping test completed
Host 17.112.152.32
Test status Successful
Error code None
Maximum ping response time 890ms
Average ping response time 802ms
Minimum ping response time 720ms
Ping requests sent 10
Ping responses received 10
Ping requests timedout 0
--
HN7000S IA-8 1270 / 8-PSK 3/4 (14) / Router:67.142.140.95 /.74 1 watt / Pro / Pentium 3.2ghz, 1gb ram / WinXP Pro/ Firefox 2.0.0.3 |
|
Fed Up2
@direcpc.com
| reply to Siryak
Wild Blue has done something technically stupid to get such awful ping, there's not doubt about that. But it is inherently fixable.
I have seen pings of 2 seconds and beyond many times on Hughes, and their hopeless DNS lookup response in the past made Wild Blue's ping look like a Sunday School Picnic.
When you use a decent browser (Opera) that displays time and amount downloaded while a page is loading, and you see Hughes consistently take upwards of 3 seconds before ANYTHING happens, ping becomes a bit of a non issue, doesn't it? Many web pages do nothing for up to and beyond 10 seconds. This isn't something in the past, it's all the time!
Anything interactive, like gaming, is not viable on satellite systems because of the inherent satellite delay, so I am not convinced ping alone is a big issue.
I'll happily take a ping a second if the needless delay and overall sluggish response is removed.
Interestingly, when something is changed, like forcing DNS addresses out on the net somewhere, HUGHES RUNS LIGHTNING FAST with minimal delays.
For a short while.
The delays are gone until whatever bloated, "fair" or sinister thing they are doing catches up. Then their system becomes sluggish again. But those few seconds of good performance prove that there is nothing preventing the signal getting out onto the net almost immediately. Only whatever "processing" they are doing in the NOC. This is not a frivolous claim. I've seen this happen many times.
So is Wild Blue's ping really a problem when compared to the overall response of Hughes that constantly wastes seconds, not milliseconds? I don't know, but unless something changes soon I suspect I'll find out...
But this whole unpleasant experience is coming down to integrity. Both companies have technical flaws and aggravations, but who can I trust more to fix things honourably and treat their customer with respect?
When Hughes repeatedly treats their customers like dirt most of us lose the ability to trust them. This ignorant new FAP policy has pushed a bad situation over the edge. The more they act like dictators, the greater the tendency to overlook flaws in another company's product. |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26 | Wildblue and Hughesnet are a lot alike in how they treat their customers. They both have a "You have no other options therefore I don't haft to respect you" attitude.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
Fed Up2
@direcpc.com | Then we have work to do, don't we... |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26 | said by Fed Up2 :
Then we have work to do, don't we...
*sigh* EVDO can not get here fast enough lol.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
Mokey2000
Mokey
join:2001-02-22
Dixie
| I know WB has high ping times, but do you have prime time slowdowns like this?
:::.. Download Stats ..:::
Download Connection is:: 138 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)
Download Speed is:: 17 kB/s
Tested From:: »testmy.net/ (Server 2)
Test Time:: 2007/05/16 - 5:33pm
Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 60.24 sec
Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 177.36 seconds to complete
Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 13.03 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com)
D-Validation Link:: »testmy.net/stats/id-CKBMHYTAV
User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; AT&T CSM6.0) [!]
--
Hybrid System, DW3000 Modem, AOL+ Grey Dish, SatMex5 1250, 4.2.1.10, Win98se |
|
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
| You can come get my dish and DW6000 modem and get rid of that slowdown. Even in primetime, with the new FAP, I was getting 800kbit. Free, if you pick it up. No idea where "Dixie" is.
--
Sprint Mobile Broadband PX-500 | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| reply to Mokey2000
said by Mokey2000 :I know WB has high ping times, but do you have prime time slowdowns like this? :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 138 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 17 kB/s Tested From:: » testmy.net/ (Server 2) Test Time:: 2007/05/16 - 5:33pm Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 60.24 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 177.36 seconds to completeDownload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 13.03 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: » testmy.net/stats/id-CKBMHYTAVUser Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; AT&T CSM6.0) [!] That is one plus for me. No prime time slowdown  . My only problem with Wildblue is the pings because pings are very important to me.
:::.. Download Stats ..:::
Download Connection is:: 1736 Kbps about 1.7 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)
Download Speed is:: 212 kB/s
Tested From:: »testmy.net/ (Server 1)
Test Time:: 2007/05/16 - 5:45pm
Bottom Line:: 30X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 4.83 sec
Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 14.114 seconds to complete
Download Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 17.62 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net)
D-Validation Link:: »testmy.net/stats/id-LR8TKY34V
User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3 [!]
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
