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
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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
| 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..
| 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 | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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
| 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
| Re: Anyone else thinking 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
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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 | |
|
| | 
Fed Up2
@direcpc.com
| 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 | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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 | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? Then we have work to do, don't we... | |
|
| | | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? 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
| 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | corvettez06u
join:2007-01-15
New Richmond, OH
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? Ping really doesn't have too much to do with downloading programs and stuff. I have a dial up account for my World of Warcraft. Wild Blue's Fair Access Policy is FAIR. 17GB in a rolling 30 day period is generous as all heck for the same price I'm paying monthly for HNS. If anyone complains about that being over a 30 day period is just insane, as if you went over that amount you definately are an "abuser", as these companies coin it. I don't download pirated movies, I don't download movies at all really. I don't download ISOs or such things like that, but what I DO download from time to time can easily go over 400MB. I'd say within a month I'd probably download 2-3GB at MOST in WORST CASE SCENARIO. This new FAP doesn't handle abusers, it mucks up the whole service for EVERYONE. The old policy was doable, as with my example in the beginning of the thread, but now it is just stupid. It's like buying a brand new car but the company says you can only drive it on certian days during certian hours but they still want their 25 thousand dollars anyway. If Hughes wants to take this approach, what's the difference than just doing a "pay for what you use" system instead? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? said by Piggie :The way I understand Wildbull's FAP. If you hit FAP then you are FAPed until you refill 20% of your monthly bucket. If you figure they have a flat refill rate (which I have no idea how it works), then that would take 20% of the days of one month to come out of FAP. I have never asked a WB users, just reading their site and trying to figure it out. If that is true they one would be FAPed for about 6 days? Can that be true? No flat refill rate. You are credited back what you downloaded 30 days ago and nothing more. If you downloaded 1mb you get 1mb back. If you downloaded 10gb you get 10gb back.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
1 edit | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? Ok, so if you FAP , how long are you now FAPed on their relatively new rolling monthly FAP?
That doesn't mean if you didn't download anything exactly one month ago, then you have to wait longer to get out of FAP? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
1 edit | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? Ok let's say you downloaded 17 gigs all in one day and got FAPped. You will be throttled for 30 days until that 17 gigs rolls off. Basically you will stay FAPped until you drop back below 80%.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
·HughesNet Satellit..
 ·Windstream
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? So that means if you downloaded 17G/30days or 567 Megs a day, everyday exactly, then you would just FAP toward the end of the month. Or lets say you download an extra 5 megs every day to be sure you FAP before 30 days passes.
Then would it then take 6 days to get out of the FAP to get back to below 80% ??
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/386 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 2 downstream switches feeding 5 total clients (no wireless)| | |
|
| | | | | | | | | corvettez06u
join:2007-01-15
New Richmond, OH | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? I think it goes if you download 10GB at day 1, by day 31 (rolling 30 days remember?) you get 10GB back in your bucket. Straight up, no trickle. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | mrpepsi
join:2006-05-22
·WildBlue
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? said by corvettez06u :I think it goes if you download 10GB at day 1, by day 31 (rolling 30 days remember?) you get 10GB back in your bucket. Straight up, no trickle. Exactly how it works. On Jan 1st if you download 100mb, on Jan 30th you get back that 100mb.
Wildblue's FAP and bandwidth capacity are it's bright shining stars. I've never seen a speed test below 450kbps on my 512kbps plan. If only they'd give us sub 1-second latency. 
--
Cheyenne : Beam 34 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Fed Up2
@direcpc.com
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? The point is that Wild Blue's FAP is usable and flexible for respectful users.
Large downloads can be undertaken to fit YOUR schedule, not Hughes'.
Reasonable management can easily avoid being FAPped for everyone except those with insatiable appetites who are trying to milk every last drop from the system. This means the penalty is a lot less of a concern.
Hughes new FAP is annoying and inconvenient. It causes you to re-shape your life around downloads. Their limit is now unworkably low for many of us. Their refusal to cleanly and openly communicate rubs salt into the wound.
Wild Blue is now miles ahead for responsible users. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | bumwolf
join:2007-04-21
Florence, AL
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? Hindsight is 20/20 but when I bought my system I figured to go with who was in the business the longest. You'd think 10 years the company would have grown invested in better technology increased throughput for everybody maybe kept with internet trends. Boy was I wrong it's sad that we even have a fap bucket in this day in age on any service.
--
Hughesnet | DW7000 | Pro Package | Windows XP SP2 | AMD Athlon 64 3000+ | 1GB RAM | ATI Radeon 9550 256MB | 250GB HDD | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? If HughesNet was smart they'd add an option for 10 or 20 bucks added a month to your bill to allow you to have monthly allowance of FAP and not daily. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | InTheSticks3
join:2007-04-09
Lyons, OR
| Also, WB claims post-FAP speeds of 128 down / 28 up, so you can still use the internet moderately while coming out of it. WB also emails you when you exceed 80% of your FAP, so you do get some warning, and can take appropriate action.
I wish HN would adopt the rolling 30 day, it would fit my internet usage patterns much better than HN's..........
--
| R16 1250 99W | HN7000S 5.4.0.33 | Pro Plan | Windows XP
| |
|
| | | 
dMarks
Melting Faces For Fun
join:2007-02-09
Leslie, MI
 ·Millenicom
·HughesNet Satellit..
| said by Fed Up2 :
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.
After going through the Attorney General and getting things looked at by Hughes Executive Customer Care, I can do gaming on Satellite. I play EQ2, LOTRO and Vanguard. Even during prime time I can game with only a slight bit of latency (Note: if you PvP, then satellite is definitely not good).
Before I went to the AG though, gaming was indeed impossible on Satellite. I still use my dial-up for gaming though unless I'm using Ventrillo or TeamSpeak at the same time, or am raiding since, with at least EQ2, raiding requires slightly more burst bandwidth than dial-up can provide.
If you're really into gaming and want high speed, find a one-way satellite provider. That's what I used for a long time before switching and kinda wish I didn't, but that's all in the past now.
--
HN7000S G16 - 1230 MHz|Home Plan|Windows XP Pro SP2|AMD Athlon 64 FX-57|2GB Dual Channel RAM|2x GeForce 7950 GT 512MB|250GB HDD | |
|
IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL
| 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 | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? What modem is that with? | |
|
| |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: Anyone else thinking 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 | HN7000S with ProPlan. I got 500-800ms pings with the DW6000. | |
|
|
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
| 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 | |
|
DickDastardl
join:2005-10-10
Port Republic, VA
| It seems like customer service has become a passing fad.
I personally don't think adding more money to the plans just to enable a monthly allowance type FAP is in our best interest. Don't give Hughesnet any ideas to take any more advantage of us. I think we're already paying too much for far too little. I'm glad to see others in my boat. My download behaviors would be better served with a monthly FAP system as well.
Think about it people - Wildblue can do this and Hughes can't? There shouldn't be mercy for Hughes and understanding of their tactics. They have the money to make things better for us not worse. Just look at their commercials. They've monopolized every tv station in the nation with these commercials. I don't even know why they need all these commercials. But having the extra money for so much advertising does show that they do have the funds to make their customers Internet experience better.
There's a mindset here. And it should be to provide a better experience for the customers. But it's not. It just consistently looks as bitter as I feel. Has anyone heard from Hughes about our dissatisfaction? Why hasn't there been a response from them? Doesn't it make you wonder? But the true question is - what can we do about this? I really wish WildBlue could get their technical issues in place because I really do want to jump ship. But not if I'm about to jump in a smaller leaky boat. | |
|
|
See 17 replies to this post |
|
challass
join:2007-04-17
Sanders, KY | If we touch the right nerve, maybe we'll make the frog's leg jump! 
--
HN7000S 113:W:0990 Firm Ware:5.4.0.33 Pro+ Vista Home Premium | |
|
challass
join:2007-04-17
Sanders, KY
| Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Hughesnet bubble!
Heee, heee, heee, heee!
--
HN7000S 113:W:0990 Firm Ware:5.4.0.33 Pro+ Vista Home Premium | |
|
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
| quote:
But now those are the ones leaving in droves
Is there any data to back up that contention?? I think it's too soon to issue such a sweeping pronouncement. Perhaps in another quarter or so Hughes will see an impact on their subscriber base but it's too early at this point. Hughes and WB of course are the major providers for bottom end residential sat internet service and the pendulum swings between the two as far as which one is better. It will swing back in Hughes direction when WB starts to tighten up again.
Regardless of how it's marketed Hughes isn't true broadband and we all know it. It's a bottom line business. We are told we have a bucket of 200mb or 375mb ect, but the bandwidth doesn't exist to even give each customer that much on a day in and day out basis. They have these things modeled very precisely. Most of the customers stay well below the fap limit. If Hughes customer base continues to grow although perhaps slower than before they will be happy. I don't think they will be disappointed at all to see the heavier users to to wireless or a different provider. It just gives them more room to add the more "economical" users and that gives Hughes a larger bottom line.
For every subscriber that quits who uses a full 200mb a day they can replace that one subscriber with two 100mb users. For every subscriber that uses a full 375mb a day they can replace that person with 3 or 4 who use the 100mb a day. It will shake out the heavier users who have another option and the rest of us will watch our useage much closer or upgrade to a larger package. The tightrope they are walking is to avoid pissing people off enough to avoid a wholesale exodus to the door. Since they make very little money off the sub $100 a month accounts, (obviously these accounts generate volume but if they even come close to using there plan limits Hughes isn't making money off of them...bandwidth is expensive.)if a portion of these hits the door for greener pastures it probably won't disappoint Hughes very much.
quote:
So the moderate users being there didn't hurt your better new evening prime time speeds, because at the time you first noticed a tremendous increase up to advertised speeds, most moderate users were totally unaware of a new FAP.
If that's the case then where did the speed increase come from?? Just happenstance, or did hughes open the faucet more?? It wasn't happenstance as the transponders were running flat out at capacity. I have a separate dvb card in the computer and thru software can monitor null packets in the stream. The very day they started with the new fap the transponder loadings decreased especially during prime time. It could be that people were getting fapped and it took them a few days or so to figure out what was happening but the proof is in the pudding, there was a dramatic difference in speed.
It all boils down to this. The policy was a strategic decision by Hughes to allow an increase in customer base utilizing existent bandwidth and to allow an increase in prime time performance which was the number one gripe on all the forums. Somethings got to give as it's a zero sum game. If you want speed then you can't download as much. If you want to download more then the speeds are going to have to come down. Some of us like it and some of us hate it. But I come back to the same point...I sure can't grouse about the overall performance gains I have experienced since the policy implementation.
--
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 | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
dino195
join:2003-08-30
| I finally got FAPed twice this week. Only happened to me once before the new FAP was put in place and that was from DLing updates when I first got the service. I am by no means a "power user" and the old FAP policy worked fine for me. Anyone who says that there are only a handfull of whiners on here needs to look at the Hughes reviews. The numbers speak for themselves. To throttle bandwidth even more so with ever increasing content on the web is a huge step backwards and not what we agreed to when we signed our contract. There is no justification for this and it's a slap in the face for them to be signing ten thousand new customers a month without investing more into their infrastructure and not being able to properly service the existing customer base. I hope the government steps in and FAPs Hughes around a little!
--
HN7000S 93 West 1086 WRT54G XPpro/Debian Sarge
| |
|
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
IzzyJG99
join:2007-04-28
Deland, FL
| Get this...
Just got off the phone with a friend of mine in the United States Army. HughesNet and a number of other companies were contacted by the US Military. They're going to contract HughesNet and other Satellite ISP's to give support/coverage to in the field to soldiers. So we may see a massive slow down that's bogged down by all the new potential users. According to my friend..they're going to have several dishes per F.O.B. in Iraq and Aghanistan sometime in 2008. | |
|
|
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? said by IzzyJG99 :Get this... Just got off the phone with a friend of mine in the United States Army. HughesNet and a number of other companies were contacted by the US Military. They're going to contract HughesNet and other Satellite ISP's to give support/coverage to in the field to soldiers. So we may see a massive slow down that's bogged down by all the new potential users. According to my friend..they're going to have several dishes per F.O.B. in Iraq and Aghanistan sometime in 2008. This shouldn't effect us Izzy. The satellites that we use are not even visible to those overseas in the middle east. Our satellites are below the horizon from their perspective. The only issue would be what noc are they going to be using?? But since Hughes has been active overseas for quite a few years they must have some noc's on the other side of the pond to handle the traffic over there.
--
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
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? This is a clean, professional forum that used to be dominated by technically experienced people willing to help other folks keep their systems running.
All of that changed around four weeks ago when Hughes stupidly and blindly changed the rules. It is now almost entirely dominated by annoyance and frustration from normal, non-criminal people who feel cheated and insulted, with Hughes trying to smooth things over under various disguises. At least we now know who you are! The number of different member names Hughes is using is amazing, and the dates they joined indicate Hughes has been sneakily trying to sway opinion here for years.
And at the same time refusing to discuss their self serving policies openly.
Someone observed around 100 years ago: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Very appropriate. With more new rural or under serviced customer areas than they can currently handle, Hughes is making the fateful mistake of treating small customers like dirt.
But small customers are a substantial and necessary portion of their income.
Little do they seem to understand that each one they insult, restrict, lie to, or refuse to openly communicate with, when suddenly faced with a car that tries to run over the driver, will no longer tell their neighbours, friends, relatives, business associates, churches, and a formidably broad spectrum associations and groups in nearby towns that Hughes has its problems but overall it works.
Instead they will advise everyone to stay away at all cost.
Just as the hornets nest on this forum is a powerful negative message to anyone who strays here, rural areas will become saturated with the same thing.
If they let that happen, Hughes' over abundant new customer base will look very different.
I've been there. With an engineering, not sales background, I have run a company with technical products and non technical users. I learned a lot.
The basic problem, beyond just plain greed and uncaring for our fellow humans, is that ALL of Hughes' top dogs are engineers. None of them understand PEOPLE, and it shows in their self serving, secretive actions. | |
|
| | |
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? quote:
At least we now know who you are! The number of different member names Hughes is using is amazing, and the dates they joined indicate Hughes has been sneakily trying to sway opinion here for years.
Wow,,,Hughes must be all powerful and I guess I must be a Hughes plant!! I must be on their payroll or something. LOL Maybe the mods should look into this. I've heard of conspiracies before but that's ridiculous. Few users of Hughes, WB or the other providers even post on such forums and I doubt that they care enough about the end users that they are willing to devote resources to infiltrate the forums. Wow...I thought I heard it all. If I was on the payroll then why am I paying $69 a month for my service. Maybe I ought to call them and ask for free service.
Seriously though, it's obvious that they care little for the end user. It's a numbers game of trying to balance an acceptable level of service on one hand and trying to keep as many customers as possible on the other hand and continue to grow.
This fap flap will probably die down after awhile and hopefully things will settle down. If you've been lurking on the forum for awhile you would of noticed that most of the "technical" help offered to people here before was in troubleshooting their systems as to why things were running so slowly. People where wondering if there was something wrong with there systems. And many of us offered our help in troubleshooting. Perhaps there is a reason why in the last month we have not had to help people as much with troubleshooting unexplainable system slowdowns....hmmmmm. 
I do however fully agree that these forums cause people to consider whether or not it's worth the hassle to try satellite service. It's not just the hughes forums either. Go to any of the WB forums or the one way forums and a potential user is left with mainly complaints and dashed expectations.
It's human nature to primarily complain and grouse when things are not going as expected and these forums are a lightning rod for such discussions. People rarely go to them and post that things are going well and that they are happy and satisfied with there systems.
I think that the "average" user of 150mb a day or so is pretty content with their system regardless if it's got a hughes sticker or a WB sticker on it. I would be perfectly content with recommending WB or having a WB system if it met or exceeded the performance I get with my system.
Of course sat internet is more expensive than it's terrestrial cousins and the performance is less due to latency and bandwidth limitations so I would certainly advise anyone reading these forums trying to explore if it's right for them to carefully look at all available options and if wireless or DSL is an option in your neighborhood you would probably not be smart to go with Hughes, WB or the offshoots.
But for those of us who have no other options, the systems work and work well within their limitations. If someone does their homework before getting the systems, does the research by visiting the forums and doing some reading of the manuals and is around when the system is installed and knows what to look for for making sure you get a good install I would tell them that these systems work and work well.
It's yet to be seen how much of a "mistake" Hughes has made with this new policy. The WB people were ganging up on their provider last fall when the packet scheduler modules were changed out which resulted in the latency almost doubling and WB had to put up with a lot of bad press over it. People vote with there feet and if there is a wholesale exodus from the Hughes subscriber rolls over the next quarter then Hughes will have it's answer. I consider myself an "average and moderate" user of the service. My system works well, it performs above the design specifications and I'm happy with it even after the fap change. If that changes I certainly am willing to add my voice to the naysayers.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | v8rail
join:2003-10-13
Ash Fork, AZ
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue? said by Arion : If you've been lurking on the forum for awhile you would of noticed that most of the "technical" help offered to people here before was in troubleshooting their systems as to why things were running so slowly. People where wondering if there was something wrong with there systems. And many of us offered our help in troubleshooting. Perhaps there is a reason why in the last month we have not had to help people as much with troubleshooting unexplainable system slowdowns....hmmmmm. And you have a problem with us that we try to figure out how much bandwidth we lost and how we can get most of the little HN left us. So there is no difference, just that for you speed is important, for many of us the bandwidth.
And again that there are slowdowns is in the fatprint and in the HN advertisement. That they cut down bandwidth is only in the fineprint and they still advertise the old bandwidth numbers 
--
DW7000 release 5.4.0.33, 117W:1230, pro, router 66.82.158.77, rate code 256k 2/3 (TC), signal usually 80 | |
|
| | | | |
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
·HughesNet Satellit..
1 edit | Re: Anyone else thinking WildBlue?said by v8rail :
And you have a problem with us that we try to figure out how much bandwidth we lost and how we can get most of the little HN left us. V8
Find even once where I have criticized you for trying to find out a way for you or anyone else to maximize bandwidth or figure out how the new fap is working and I'll apologize to you. Even one instance!! I have stated a number of times even up to a comment I made last night that it's impossible to "abuse" the system. That's what the fap is for.
And neither have I criticized anyone else for experimenting to see what you can get out of the system. That's as valid of an experiment as the speed tests that I've been criticized for doing. I think you have me confused with someone else on those points.
What I object to is the anger that has been directed at times towards me and others for daring to say that we like the system and the performance increase that were seeing after the fap policy change. I'll never defend how Hughes has done it because they are providing a moving target that's impossible to hit. But, even as you and others have freedom of speech to say that the new system sucks and Hughes is taking advantage of you I also have freedom of speech to say that the result is beneficial to me in my experience with the system. There should be room for both viewpoints to be expressed without the unnecessary anger that has been displayed by some towards us who have been benefited by the change.
--
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 | |
|
DickDastardl
join:2005-10-10
Port Republic, VA | YEA! And me too, what v8rail said.  Hear! Hear! | |
|
|
|
|
