how-to block ads
|
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
| reply to Argus P
Re: [DW7000] Hit Hughes FAP limit and this is what happened
spcsdns.net - 815/279 kbit
(726 samples last 14 days)
»/mspeed?domains=1
Perhaps looking at more reputable sites is a good idea.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
Argus P
join:2004-08-31
Lake Cormorant, MS
| reply to kewaynco
I have been researching the EVDO things for a week now and one website listed the pros and cons of the different wireless providers and one of the pros of Verizon was faster speeds across the board, the cons was the TOS/5 gig cap ( but read this: »www.evdoforums.com/thread5965.html ). I have been to a couple of hundred sites so I couldn't begin to tell you were this was that said Verizon was faster. Another plus for Verizon was that PC5750 modem was free and Verizon has dropped the price to $59 without a qualifing voice plan which it used to be $79.
My buddy is a EE and used to maintain large commercial radio station transmiters for a living and he seems to think that the 20 ft or so of cable might not hurt that bad, particularly if I get an antenna with a fair amount of gain to begin with.
One thing I noticed this afternoon driving around the area with a laptop is that I hit a Rev A broadband conection that only had one bar, but the testmynet test was 575 down and "UP", amazing to say the least after using Hughes.
--
Direcway-DW7000/Pro Dynamic, G4R - 1110 Mhz. XPpro/SP 2, 5 users (up to Six PCs) on Lynksys WRT54G Wieless Router - 1075 Down/180 Up consistantly | |
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
| reply to Argus P
Just out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that Sprint's speeds are slower? I've heard many claims about Verizon crippling their EVDO service. If you can get Sprint, I'd recommend going that way.
And if you get an external yagi antenna, you're likely to lose much of the gain with the long cable. I'd recommend an amplifier instead.
I'm still in disbelief that someone would say Sprint's speeds are slower than Verizon's. Perhaps some references would help me believe there are people crazy enough to make this claim.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
Argus P
join:2004-08-31
Lake Cormorant, MS
| reply to kewaynco
I was fully satisfied with Direcway/Hughesnet performance when I purchased it 3 years ago last month. I got close to what was advertised speeds day-in & day-out over those three years with an occasional hiccup, but understandable with this type of technology. I also came from town with previous internet service provided by RoadRunner Cable, so I do know the difference between the two, Hughesnet is inherently slower due to the technology, but I accepted it and learned to live with it, FAP and all. What I am unwilling to accept is the current slowness of browsing, email and just plain poor overall performance of a service I am paying $80/month for. If Hughes could continuously provide the level of service they did for 3 years on the money I paid them, I fully expect them to continue to do so now, even raise my rate if inflation makes it more costly to do this business these days.
Below are the speeds I have been getting for the last week:
September 17th, 11:22PM - 59/129 kbps
September 17th, 08:38AM - 734/148 kbps
September 16th, 11:17PM - 554/140 kbps
September 16th, 08:24AM - 736/149 kbps
September 15th, 10:16PM - 198/137 kbps
September 15th, 09:03AM - 683/148 kbps
September 15th, 12:02AM - 266/146 kbps
September 14th, 11:27PM - 89/144 kbps
September 14th, 08:44AM - 721/147 kbps
September 13th, 06:36PM - 89/37 kbps
September 13th, 12:30PM - 431/127 kbps
September 13th, 12:07PM - 585/139 kbps
September 13th, 12:05PM - 625/138 kbps
September 13th, 08:59AM - 730/146 kbps
September 12th, 09:23PM - 50/95 kbps
September 12th, 04:44PM - 138/80 kbps
September 12th, 04:40PM - 93/117 kbps
September 12th, 03:29PM - 725/146 kbps
September 12th, 02:09PM - 554/145 kbps
September 12th, 01:05PM - 514/133 kbps
September 12th, 08:58AM - 677/161 kbps
September 12th, 01:49AM - 853/142 kbps
September 12th, 12:49AM - 791/145 kbps
September 12th, 12:46AM - 857/142 kbps
September 12th, 12:43AM - 838/148 kbps
September 12th, 12:20AM - 536/142 kbps
September 11th, 11:26PM - 104/121 kbps
September 11th, 11:25PM - 107/114 kbps
Early morning has been fine, not what I used to get, but close enough to live with. Afternoons and evenings are a completely different matter. Just checked 15 mins ago and I had 59 down and 129 up. Everything slow as molasses.
The Verizon modem came in late this morning and got it activated a few hours ago. Can’t get Broadband Rev A here at the house, but can close by. I went up on the roof after supper and got a Broadband Rev A signal there, weak, but stable with quick browsing. I guess I’ll order a roof mount external antenna and see if that helps as I have 30 days to cancel the service. I am aware of Verizon’s TOS and have looked at my monthly usage, could be a go. I also have Sprint EVDO as an option and they are truly unlimited usage from what I have read, just overall speeds appear to be slower, coverage looks better for my area though.
If you don’t take care of your customers, the shareholders have no business to own. It’s called balance.
--
Direcway-DW7000/Pro Dynamic, G4R - 1110 Mhz. XPpro/SP 2, 5 users (up to Six PCs) on Lynksys WRT54G Wieless Router - 1075 Down/180 Up consistantly | |
Arion
join:2006-07-09
Marquette, MI
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to kewaynco
I can boil it down pretty easily I think. Satellite Internet is what it is and ain't what it ain't. They problem comes when people have had dsl/cable/wireless and expect the satellite internet to be the same level of performance at the same price and then complain bitterly when it isn't.
A number don't get close to the performance that is advertised. Some of that comes from poor or shoddy installs and others from being on overcrowded gateways. The rare times I've had multi day slowdowns has been remedied when Hughes load balanced.
In many rural areas were never going to see cable or wireless unless you want the congress to mandate it as an inherent right. It's just too expensive for companies to make the investment looking at how few customers there are to pay the bills in those areas.
I could move back to the big city but no thanks. I'll stay in the boonies where I can watch the deer, bear, wolves and occasional moose while I sit by the fire and have a cup of coffee surfing the net at 1000kbps down most of the time. Pretty good trade off to me... 
--
HN7000S IA-8 1270 / 8-PSK 3/4 (14) / Router:67.142.140.95 /.74 1 watt / Pro / Pentium 3.2ghz, 1gb ram /Dual Boot WinXP Pro/LinxuS / Firefox 2.0.0.6 | |
hjriver
hjriver
join:2006-12-03
North, VA
| reply to Argus P
said by Argus P  :said by dbirdman :said by Argus P :The real world to me is that Hughes has been selling of a portion of the service that I had been paying for to someone else, but didn't share the proceeds with me. And it will never matter to you that this is not true. Your performance went down, and it must be due to greed or a conspiracy. You are wrong, but unconvincable. This is why I have a Verizon BroadBandAccess package on the way and if it works it's bye-bye hughesnet.
Do you expect to get an argument about that? The key is in "if it works" which it would not for an awful lot of people on satellite. If it does, do you think people, just because they are reasonably satisfied with their satellite connections, would tell you that you are crazy to jump ship? You are only crazy if that's what you think! The "if it works" is that the average throughput on Verizon looks to be around 800k which is the best that hughes has been able to deliver lately and if I get a reasonable/stable signal where I am. The coverage in my area for Verizon and Sprint is something newly available and according to Verizon's maps, their highest speed coverage ends just across the street from my new home, so I feel pretty sure it will work. For 2 years I have been getting a stable 1075/175 from hughes, pretty much 24/7. Lately that has not been the case, 750/140 is the best it gets and between 3pm and 12am central it's more like 105/120 which is absolutely ridiculous for this service. You can't tell me that hughes has not over-sold the bandwidth to a very serious extreme and at the expense of long time customers. They are also luring in new customers with the promise of speeds that they will not be able to deliver on even a reasonably consistent basis. That is actually fraudulent advertising, but hughesnet will pull out the fine print to prevent these people from doing something about it. I also understand from reading your posts over the years that hughesnet has a large part in what you do for a livelihood and/or hobby, but don't defend them to the extent that you overlook the fact that hughesnet is way more concerned with the shareholders of the corporation than the customers. What are you going to do when you reach Verizons' 5GB monthly limit? Their TOS plainly states the service is intended for internet browsing and email all other functions are prohibited. I looked into it as I can well get it and talked to their customer service. It ain't for me. Now it would be a different story if I could get Sprint EVDO.
HN overall is not that bad most of the time as long as one doesn't have to deal with their customer service in India. I can't complain much about my speeds as they usually are up to par. I think some people just have misconceptions of how the service works. BTW, Hughesnets primary concern is the return on the shareholders investement, not making you happy.
![]()
--
HN7000S/Satmex6/1190/0.78/pro-plus/Sig level: 65 | |
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
| reply to Argus P
A public corporation HAS to be more concerned with their shareholders. In case you don't understand the concept, it is the shareholders that own the business.
Before I argue some things you said, I'll agree with a few.
Many people are seeing decreasing speeds, even the long-time customers
I also agree that they somehow took bandwidth that was ours and gave it to someone else when they changed the FAP. In all reality, with the FAP-free time, it's much larger. But I think the people that were customers before the new FAP should have been able to stick with the old, where you could have a usable service by waiting 30 minutes or so.
Now, you seem to have cited other technology advances and how their prices are going down while their quality is going up. In case you're forgetting, these operate on licensed frequencies. You can't just make more of these when you run out. Last I knew, satellites were also very expensive. I don't foresee the price of the satellite transponder leases to go down.
I'm not any longer a HughesNet customer, but understand the frustrations. At the end of the day, I usually felt it was a lot better than dial-up. Reliability was around 99% (averaged all the years I had it).
Some here on the forum think that HughesNet's residential market will fade over the next few years, while some will argue that the most remote areas still won't have coverage. I'm not sure about 2-5 years, but I can't imagine in 10 years what will be available. Perhaps they'll have towers with the 700MHz spectrum they're supposed to offer soon that will travel many miles. Maybe broadband by blimp. Maybe they'll have the very small satellites that sit just outside the atmosphere covering smaller areas with frequency reuse and lower latencies. Right now, Hughes has to please its investors.
On another note, many people will download 2+GB/night with their FAP-free time. Give that a try with your Verizon card. They can terminate you JUST for watching a streaming video. How's that for an inherent right? My Sprint serves me well, and I wouldn't do business with a company like Verizon anyways.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
Eureka, CA
| reply to Argus P
said by Argus P :You can't tell me that hughes has not over-sold the bandwidth to a very serious extreme No, I can't
and at the expense of long time customers. Yes, I can.
The difference in the two answers is because they have ALWAYS severely oversold the bandwidth, and there is zero objective evidence that the overselling has changed. The fact that you may have been lucky enough to be on a gateway with just a bunch of e-mailers in the past, and now are on one with others who use it just as you do, does not change this premise.
I also understand from reading your posts over the years that hughesnet has a large part in what you do for a livelihood Then you fully misunderstand. The Internet has a great deal to do with the way I make my livlihood. Satellite, whether by Hughes, iDirect, or UnaSat (had them for a short while) is simply my method for accessing the internet when it would otherwise be impossible. That is true for most here.
The day I find a way to string a cable or phone line behind my bus I will be as happy as the next guy to drop satellite. I could also choose to travel only where there is EVDO, just as all of the others here could choose to move away from where they are. We weigh all factors, and for hundreds of thousands of us there are more important things, whether lifestyle or economic factors, that place us where only satellite will do. Now if you can show me someone where Hughes has placed a gun to their head and said "Live there" that will be a different thing entirely.
On the hobby side I have chosen to support other mobile users, both with forums and with software. It happens that most have Hughes, so that ties me rather heavily to the Hughes modem and is why I am keeping a Hughes account even though I rarely need it for my own access. I doubt my hobby costs more than the hobbies of many here.
In a thunder/wind storm here this evening in Cheyenne I did put my big dish down to protect it and used the Hughes account on the small dish - nice having a fallback.
--
W2K Server|Toshiba Satellite XP Pro|iDirect 3100 on Datastorm 1.2 meter XF3 with 4-watt BUC|HughesNet IA8/1390/7000s Pro on Datastorm .74 F1|1990 Blue Bird Wanderlodge "Blue Thunder" 22 tons of rolling steel! | |
Argus P
join:2004-08-31
Lake Cormorant, MS
| reply to dbirdman
said by dbirdman :said by Argus P :The real world to me is that Hughes has been selling of a portion of the service that I had been paying for to someone else, but didn't share the proceeds with me. And it will never matter to you that this is not true. Your performance went down, and it must be due to greed or a conspiracy. You are wrong, but unconvincable. This is why I have a Verizon BroadBandAccess package on the way and if it works it's bye-bye hughesnet.
Do you expect to get an argument about that? The key is in "if it works" which it would not for an awful lot of people on satellite. If it does, do you think people, just because they are reasonably satisfied with their satellite connections, would tell you that you are crazy to jump ship? You are only crazy if that's what you think! The "if it works" is that the average throughput on Verizon looks to be around 800k which is the best that hughes has been able to deliver lately and if I get a reasonable/stable signal where I am. The coverage in my area for Verizon and Sprint is something newly available and according to Verizon's maps, their highest speed coverage ends just across the street from my new home, so I feel pretty sure it will work. For 2 years I have been getting a stable 1075/175 from hughes, pretty much 24/7. Lately that has not been the case, 750/140 is the best it gets and between 3pm and 12am central it's more like 105/120 which is absolutely ridiculous for this service. You can't tell me that hughes has not over-sold the bandwidth to a very serious extreme and at the expense of long time customers. They are also luring in new customers with the promise of speeds that they will not be able to deliver on even a reasonably consistent basis. That is actually fraudulent advertising, but hughesnet will pull out the fine print to prevent these people from doing something about it. I also understand from reading your posts over the years that hughesnet has a large part in what you do for a livelihood and/or hobby, but don't defend them to the extent that you overlook the fact that hughesnet is way more concerned with the shareholders of the corporation than the customers.
--
Direcway-DW7000/Pro Dynamic, G4R - 1110 Mhz. XPpro/SP 2, 5 users (up to Six PCs) on Lynksys WRT54G Wieless Router - 1075 Down/180 Up consistantly | |
or270
Premium
join:2007-03-13
Lookout, CA
·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to fell_away
I have not other choice but dial-up,Just have to make the best of it, have the proplus plan just for the extra room. The FAP free time between 3-6 am eastern time helps especially since I am trying out Directv's Video on demand, able to download a little over 2GB in 3 hours.
As soon as Frontier gives me the promised DSL I'm gone.
--
HN7000S/satmex5 1170/.74 1 watt/Sig 77/ProPlus
| |
fell_away
join:2007-09-14
Muscle Shoals, AL
2 edits | reply to Bill00
Like I said: my previous ISPs never gave me a problem or reason to doubt them. Only on satellite do I realize just how lucky cable subscribers are and I was. I'm sure my constant downloading made a difference somewhere along the line, but not for me or any other people I knew who subscribed to the same service. The prices only kept going DOWN and the speeds only kept going UP.
I don't know why anyone would call me wrong for wanting more? Do you not use the internet? Download music, videos, software?
And where does anyone get the greed and conspiracy thing? I have no idea what you are talking about. HN's market will eventually start shrinking once newer, faster, better, and easier technologies begin to spread and leak into even the most rural locations leaving room for only subscribers that use HN for their RV.
I'm not trolling just trying to understand the "whys". | |
dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
Eureka, CA
| reply to Argus P
said by Argus P :The real world to me is that Hughes has been selling of a portion of the service that I had been paying for to someone else, but didn't share the proceeds with me. And it will never matter to you that this is not true. Your performance went down, and it must be due to greed or a conspiracy. You are wrong, but unconvincable.
This is why I have a Verizon BroadBandAccess package on the way and if it works it's bye-bye hughesnet.
Do you expect to get an argument about that? The key is in "if it works" which it would not for an awful lot of people on satellite. If it does, do you think people, just because they are reasonably satisfied with their satellite connections, would tell you that you are crazy to jump ship? You are only crazy if that's what you think!
--
W2K Server|Toshiba Satellite XP Pro|iDirect 3100 on Datastorm 1.2 meter XF3 with 4-watt BUC|HughesNet IA8/1390/7000s Pro on Datastorm .74 F1|1990 Blue Bird Wanderlodge "Blue Thunder" 22 tons of rolling steel! | |
Argus P
join:2004-08-31
Lake Cormorant, MS
| reply to Bill00
said by Bill00 :said by fell_away :...But as far as I'm concerned it is my inherent right no matter what ISP I pay for to have a limitless data flow... I don't know if you are just trolling or if you are serious about this. If the latter, you might seriously consider joining The Real World. In TRW, TANSTAAFL applies (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Who do you think is supposed to subsidize your 'inherent right...to have a limitless data flow,' either in reduced bandwidth for the rest of us or in higher prices to compensate the vendor? In TRW, someone ALWAYS pays the freight. On a positive note, you CAN exercise your 'Inherent Right;' all you have to do is get with an ISP who will gladly sell you a dedicated connection such as a T1 or similar, or even a dedicated satellite link with guaranteed throughput and unlimited data. All you have to do is come up with the up-front installation costs (most likely in the 4 digit range) and add a couple of zeroes to your current monthly ISP bill. Welcome to The Real World! Bill. In the early/middle '70s my Dad bought a VCR for $800. It was grainy, expensive, slow to fast forward/rewind, but acceptable for the time. Blank tapes were $20+ each.
Today we have DVD for $40. It's sharp & clear, cheap and if you have a recorder, blanks are about $.25.
Technology has progressed and brought a lot of things to the masses for a reasonable cost. The masses expect things to make their lives easier/better for cheaper. Companies realize this and the ones who deliver make vast amounts of money.
I have friends not very far away that have cable or DSL. They pay less than I do and have better performance. Is it wrong for me to expect the same thing for my home and my family? I understood the limitations of hughesnet when I bought into it and was satisfied with the performance....then. Today it ain't cutting it, although I am paying for a higher plan than before I have a more restrictive FAP and the performance of the system is considerably less today than it was 6 months ago. The real world to me is that Hughes has been selling of a portion of the service that I had been paying for to someone else, but didn't share the proceeds with me. This reduced performance and higher costs goes against every other business model out there right now. This is why I have a Verizon BroadBandAccess package on the way and if it works it's bye-bye hughesnet. YMMV
--
Direcway-DW7000/Pro Dynamic, G4R - 1110 Mhz. XPpro/SP 2, 5 users (up to Six PCs) on Lynksys WRT54G Wieless Router - 1075 Down/180 Up consistantly | |
Argus P
join:2004-08-31
Lake Cormorant, MS
| reply to kewaynco
said by kewaynco :The other problem with Hughes is their "transmission failure policy". They say 25% is acceptable. I agree if it is 25% over a long period of time. However, I experience transmission failures of 80% or 90% within a two or three minute period (I've kept track - I know, I should get a life). A 90% failure rate is totally unacceptable. Looks like you had a crappy install/point. My transmission error rate over the last three or 4 days is about .22% (2254 failed against 1019455 successful). Might need to gripe about the install and see if they will float you a repoint.
--
Direcway-DW7000/Pro Dynamic, G4R - 1110 Mhz. XPpro/SP 2, 5 users (up to Six PCs) on Lynksys WRT54G Wieless Router - 1075 Down/180 Up consistantly | |
laserfan
join:2005-01-14
Blanco, TX
| reply to dbirdman
said by dbirdman :I finally (mostly) jumped the HN ship two days ago... I retained a low-end Hughes account for testing... Glad you will still be around, then! :whew: 
I would "jump ship" myself if I had any better options--but I do not. HN is what it is, and I for one am VERY GLAD it exists, and is reasonably priced too.
--
DW6000CEv5.4.0.20, G13/H1@127W, 1270MHz, SigTyp74, Toshiba Magnia SG10, LinksysBEFW11S4w, Airlink8portswitch, AirlinkAR410Wwireless, 10-20clients & 6+OSes | |
dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
Eureka, CA
| reply to fell_away
said by fell_away :I realize the FAP is in effect because satellites do have limitations as far as throughput and usage on a national basis is concerned, but that doesn't make me any more content with it. I think you hit the whole thing right there. You realize the reasons it has to be there, but you are not content. I hope nobody here is saying that people should be contented, just realistic.
There are very few HN users so happy with their service that they would not jump at the first cable or DSL offering that comes their way.
We have these arguments continuously, and those of us who "realize" try to get others to do so as well - you can't make consumer satellite into something other than what it is. Remain discontented, but stop trying to make it into something about greed, incompetence, or conspiracy.
I finally (mostly) jumped the HN ship two days ago in favor of a much more costly iDirect account (costly in terms of both hardware and service) simply because I could justify it. I retained a low-end Hughes account for testing, since I write so much software against the modem and and I have to concern myself with them breaking it.
--
W2K Server|Toshiba Satellite XP Pro|iDirect 3100 on Datastorm 1.2 meter XF3 with 4-watt BUC|HughesNet IA8/1390/7000s Pro on Datastorm .74 F1|1990 Blue Bird Wanderlodge "Blue Thunder" 22 tons of rolling steel! | |
laserfan
join:2005-01-14
Blanco, TX
| reply to fell_away
said by fell_away :...as far as I'm concerned it is my inherent right no matter what ISP I pay for to have a limitless data flow. You can debate my opinion... No need to debate--your position is completely untenable. What is ironic of course is that you are complaining about something that is in place precisely because of this kind of thinking/attitude/wrongheadedness! 
--
DW6000CEv5.4.0.20, G13/H1@127W, 1270MHz, SigTyp74, Toshiba Magnia SG10, LinksysBEFW11S4w, Airlink8portswitch, AirlinkAR410Wwireless, 10-20clients & 6+OSes | |
Bill00
Premium
join:2004-07-20
Capron, VA
| reply to fell_away
said by fell_away :...But as far as I'm concerned it is my inherent right no matter what ISP I pay for to have a limitless data flow... I don't know if you are just trolling or if you are serious about this.
If the latter, you might seriously consider joining The Real World. In TRW, TANSTAAFL applies (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
Who do you think is supposed to subsidize your 'inherent right...to have a limitless data flow,' either in reduced bandwidth for the rest of us or in higher prices to compensate the vendor? In TRW, someone ALWAYS pays the freight.
On a positive note, you CAN exercise your 'Inherent Right;' all you have to do is get with an ISP who will gladly sell you a dedicated connection such as a T1 or similar, or even a dedicated satellite link with guaranteed throughput and unlimited data. All you have to do is come up with the up-front installation costs (most likely in the 4 digit range) and add a couple of zeroes to your current monthly ISP bill.
Welcome to The Real World!
Bill.
--
HughesNet | DW7000 Pro (Non-static) | G3C | 95W | 1420MHz | Hor/Hor | Gateway 66.82.12.58 | CPQ/AMD Sempron 3200+ 1.79 GHz | 1.25GB RAM | XP Home/SP2 | LAN: WRT54G 3 x XP/SP2. | |
hjriver
hjriver
join:2006-12-03
North, VA
| reply to fell_away
said by fell_away :That's right as some of you point out I apparently abuse my ISP privileges. When I had a 10mbps connection my usage was in excess of 200gb per month. But as far as I'm concerned it is my inherent right no matter what ISP I pay for to have a limitless data flow. Is it any wonder that HN is the only of many ISPs I have ever had that limits data flow? Even during peak usage periods on dial up, dsl, and cable I never had any problems with any of my ISPs and I was very happy until I had to go with satellite internet to even marginally function online. You can debate my opinion, but HN has tightened their FAP since a few months ago which I see as a step in the wrong direction. I realize the FAP is in effect because satellites do have limitations as far as throughput and usage on a national basis is concerned, but that doesn't make me any more content with it. And....thus the need for FAP. BTW HN is not the only ISP putting limits on. Comcast, Alltel wireless and many others are finding the need to slow down the hogs.
--
HN7000S/Satmex6/1190/0.78/pro-plus/Sig level: 65 | |
fell_away
join:2007-09-14
Muscle Shoals, AL
| reply to kewaynco
This is quite an interesting thread. Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of defense for the FAP as opposed to outrage.
I am not a new HughesNet user. I have had 2 installs over the past 6 months. The first, I cancelled because I moved out of Alabama and back to Pennsylvania. In PA, my local cable company offered 10mbps broadband which I subscribed to.
But I moved back and to my dismay HN changed their FAP since I was last a subscriber. The first time around once I hit the FAP, which I did daily, I would be limited to about 25kbps actual download speeds and I wouldn't have to wait 24 hours, rather there was a recovery rate that allowed me to leave the FAP within 3-4 hours depending on my usage.
That's right as some of you point out I apparently abuse my ISP privileges. When I had a 10mbps connection my usage was in excess of 200gb per month. But as far as I'm concerned it is my inherent right no matter what ISP I pay for to have a limitless data flow.
Is it any wonder that HN is the only of many ISPs I have ever had that limits data flow? Even during peak usage periods on dial up, dsl, and cable I never had any problems with any of my ISPs and I was very happy until I had to go with satellite internet to even marginally function online.
You can debate my opinion, but HN has tightened their FAP since a few months ago which I see as a step in the wrong direction. I realize the FAP is in effect because satellites do have limitations as far as throughput and usage on a national basis is concerned, but that doesn't make me any more content with it.
--
HN Home Plan - HN7000S | |
|
