fikester

Looks like one shouldn't use it to check out a business either especially WildBlue.... WildBlue Revoked by BBB for having the best services and least complaints?

I suppose the BBB report for WildBlue is also incorrect.......the customer service is actually great they just don't answer the bureau? As bad as hughesnet is with customer service this WB has got Hughes beat on this story http://www.techreviewcentral.com/?p=55 If WB had such great speed and customer service.......good chance Hughes would have been under by now.

Whats your upload speed...? your paying for 200k up on the select pack. WB has what one sat in the sky, and service how many compared to Hughes? I think this makes a fair comparison: http://www.nationwidesatellite.com/HughesNet/service/HughesNet_vs_wildblue.asp

Just to throw a number out there likely less than 50% of installs are done correctly......my own experiences DirecTv and Hughes myself have redone the install on both after the jokers left. The DirecTv was left with a signal of 74-75, I peaked it to a 97-98. The Hughes, DirecWay then grounded the transmitter to the coax etc... pole mount much better, xpol was 60's got to 89, and correctly grounded the system and installed RG-11 coax. There is no doubt in my mind Hughes and WB both have a very high number of jokers installing systems. I can guarantee one thing the installer may get away with a few short cuts, but will he leave me an install not working correctly, no speed test? yeah only after he packs up the stuff he just installed. My point to the previous post is WB originally sounded like a true beating for Hughes, but as it stands WB is not winning the game.

Nothing here but dial up or satellite....the cable company offers internet (previous subscription demonstrated outages for weeks at a time, internet on the best day was 128kbps) believe it or not satellite is actually better than the cable here. My new pole location is set waiting for the Spaceway3 equipment tomorrow from hughes, this has always been quite an adventure in the past years.....already printed out the email from Hughes executive stating "zero cost to me", almost certain somehow installer will want paid for something.

I have already been there and ask to see speed test during evening hours.... from what I have read WildBlue is having pretty good slow downs and as you say the upload is not performing either? Just dont buy the great customer service otherwise the BBB rating would be much different. I like this response by a WB dealer/installer to a complaining customer: The installer lied to you. He just wanted to get out of there rather than make sure your system was working the way it should. He should have installed the optimizer and run a couple speed test before he left. Hopefully one of the moderators will see your post today, if not send them a PM asking for help. it does take forever for the google page to come up. a couple things to look at here was it a peak time when you were installed ? there is no requirement for a speed test on the installers part. they can not guarantee speeds. If the tech was pulling up your home page he did his job. four greens in the qoi. my self i do not do speed test at a customer site unless i see something i do not like in the connection., like a slow locking modem or a easy site that grinds and does not load. i do not base the speed on the wb homepage loading it sits there and grinds what seems like for ever. http://www.wildblueworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2426

The BBB has already revoked WildBlue accreditation...... http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/internet-access-providers/wildblue-communications-in-greenwood-village-co-9036631 Hughes has far less complaints with the newer Ka band system, seems most issues are with the older Ku band. WildBlue on the other hand must have problems they cant or wont fix? Hughes will respond to most BBB complaints with a re-point, transponder change, refund, credits etc... obviously Hughes responds to the BBB shows an "A" rating http://www.dc.bbb.org/report.html?national=y&compid=9864

This is what Hughes did for me as well.....should be on Spaceway3 next week. From what I'm reading and looking at my brothers speeds the Ka system will be much better........for now anyway. I read somewhere that another satellite is going up, but until then they will continue to install and move others like us having complaints onto the Ka band equipment. From my past experiences with getting moved to different sats and transponders.......speeds will be good for awhile, then eventually get overcrowded.

Seems the BBB has revoked WB's accreditation. I was thinking of switching to WB but have decided to go with a re-point to Spaceway3 at no cost to me instead. The more I read about WB the worse it sounds.

I am not familiar with the Hughes Ka band speeds, but my speeds with a Ku system has had several speed issues over the years. The time that is peak hours will vary depending on what transponder or beam your using. The WB has a terrible BBB report and many are stating speed issues download, also many are not getting the upload speeds either.....not to mention the fact WB is more expensive and does not include the FAP free time. I'm not promotting Hughes either.....just do not believe WB is any better. Seems to me the greed factor has already been applied?

I'm curious what your upload speed test results are?.......my uploads are currently slowing dropping to in the 30's unless the test are done during 1am-6am then they are at 200kbps.

Could someone post current WIildBlue upload and download speeds....?

The FAP free zone is 2-7am....personally the LCCU tweak worked best for me using XP, vista I'm using no tweaks just the auto tune feature for the receive window on "highly restricted". My speeds on the pro plan will still drop quite a bit during peak hours (sometimes below 200kbps), for a true speed check in early am hours for best results. On the pro plan 1000/200 would be higher if using Ka band.

:::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1500 Kbps about 1.5 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 183 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/02/12 - 9:14am Bottom Line:: 26X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.6 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 16.344 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 42.31 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-BT3J5NICS User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) [!] not quite as fast as most dial up.....

show me where I attacked her.......politely ask for price? and poltely ask for a ping test and remarked did not see in the speed test logs where the speed was faster? if thats attacking.....will not be posting any more. and like I mentioned it were such a concern.....nobody had an issues with it on just to show a few, and nobody said jack about it

and above shows I do nothing gorman doesn't do ....if the owner doesn't want me on here, remove me.......as I say nothing shows very clearly gorman attacked the price paid of a new member and nothing was even said!

Seems everybody else can post opinions....until the owner tells me my opinion is not allowed, will be posting mine as well. I couldn't count on here how many times its been posted by gorman and gramps how fast the sat is....seems funny nows its slow as dial up My point in bringing up the cost is so others know what the price is.....and since the title of this is EDVO vs SATs guess in my opinion would be part of the comparison! The price concerns me just as much as the no FAP concerns you.......what makes gorman and gramps concern themselves with everything posted? Neither of you have it or use EDVO either. Seems we have a lot of know it alls on what I'm allowed to post as well? [glow=red,2,300]WRONG[/glow] Looks like when gorman concerned hisself with price it was OK? and again and once again and cause its gorman, its funny if fikester does it.........shouldnt be concerned. [glow=red,2,300] WRONG![/glow]

Take a look back gorman to post #88 ...simply told untiychild glad she like it, but I did not see where it wan any faster than sat according to the speed test logs. Then mr post to post lights the flame torch with post #89 Seems odd to me your always bragging your 1500k sat speeds, now all if a sudden are the same as dial-up Always posting about these special tweaks for these self-hosted systems......this is why you don't like me and bird cause we point these contradictions out No fikester is not a mod or a news anchor, but yes gorman I have been a member longer ......and will not bow down to your attacking my posts with remarks covered by hints of joking. No....I don't hardly think you treat all alike (you make special post toward important members/mods on here)....then name call and try to attack post from some of us. (another example off the top of my head) a post of mine about anti virus programs reviews....mins later bam "look at the date that article was written" bla bla bla. I will not bow down to you or stoop to your childish level of name calling. I think gorman you need now to deflate as your head is getting quite large.... What exactly is not usually tolerated here....its not me name calling, cursing etc..?

Download is slower than sat with one user so I'm sure it would slower with 3users when comparing what comes with the $60plan ......so when taking away the mobile capability by getting only one card the only gain is somewhat better pings....as the equipment cost are at or above sat cost as well as the 2yr contract. Unless you park under the tower, average pings are expected to be 200ms or even higher with EDVO. As for hardcore gamers 150-200ms may very well still complain? - somewhat better pings(still higher than DSL or cable on average) - equipment cost high - extreme high cost to be portable and keep service at the home for family use - unlimited plan no FAP with Sprint Gains over sat...slightly better pings, not any faster speeds, no FAP? So I guess Sirlak that wasn't you who said gaming was "doable" on WB? Seems so hilarious how when a male mentioned spending the same money on a business plan for service.....attack! and so gramps your saying your really not getting these speeds? and I have you and gorman both say.... "FAP is not an issue for me" and gorman say "upload is not important to me". Guess if the lady said the tweaks were useless as other web sites do say for the self hosted systems.....that would be the end of that game too? My point is even it were avaible for me I would not jump on a 2yr contract and spend hundreds of dollars with out looking at the big picture. Obviously to me its not better than cable,dsl, or fios

For one...from what I have been reading the average ping expected for this system is around 200ms which is no doubt better then any sat provider regardless of plan. 150/month which is needed for 3 users to be mobile in the same home to me is hideous. Sirlak....was it you who said "WB pings in the 500-600ms were doable to game on" at one point? http://www.evdoforums.com/thread4836.html According to this link the router would allow sharing of the 3 users in home.....(and what would the speed be shared with 3 users on?) but at this point would be use less when the card holder pulled the card to go mobile. I'm not going to spend 150/month for my 3 users I don't care if the pings are 5ms coast to coast and speeds are 20MB up and down 24/7/365 guaranteed money back. This is not for all of us..... Oh and can you run a server on EVDO at 150/month?..... or is that against policy Seen the same hype when WB rolled out, now look 2000ms pings I think unity's big issue was the FAP and she said she was not going to spend 99 for the small office to get the 500MB bucket or the 179 for the business plan for the 1250MB bucket....because of the price. I did tell her glad she was happy with the EDVO ....in my opinion its a little steep in price for a family plan (3-4 users) and get the benefit of mobile usage with the allowed average pings.

What we are comparing here is 3 connections at around $150/month for the 3 needed connections ...this would easily pay for the business plan on Hughes or Small office. The EVDO may very well be better in some aspects but having to pay 150/month plus taxes and fees for 3 users to me is out of the question? If you only bought one card and paid for one line what would the speed be with 3users using at once in the house and how would other users at home get online while the card holder took it with them? Not for me if each user needs a card at $60/month! http://www.evdoforums.com/thread4836.html I guess if you need a mobile connection that bad....thats what you will need to get. I will deal with the sat latency in the exchange for the need to spend the same amount of money for equipment then $55-70month per user and still have pings higher than DSL or cable.

Theres my first post to her about EVDO......guess since I'm looking at the big picture and not posting any different because unity is a female? Had it been me that posted the exact same lingo about getting the Sprint deal, the post would have been attacked and flamed at just as most are. The pings look better than sat at the moment, but would honestly think they will increase during peak usage time.My point about the cost is the way the deal reads if she didn't buy the special router.....then she is paying 59/month for each line, this is what I wanted to clarify.....and if so then around 150-180 month would not be compred to Hughes home account lets compare it to a business plan or small office at least! Gorman....its seems odd to me you cant justify $10/month considered an upgrade from the old 6000 to a newer 7000 or 7000s for better pings/ more consistent performance/double or better uploads speeds....but yet now EDVO is far superior regardless. When WB first come out a 2yr contract was " bad", "not good"...Hughes 15 months "terrible" ......now all of a sudden 2yr contract is not even a concern. Siryak...was it not you who posted about how when you first got WB how good it was (pings 550-675ms) and you gamed on it etc....now its no good junk (pings 1400-2200ms). Surprised your still using WB and not just plugged in the phone line? Interesting how it could possibly be different now from then

form another poster his pings were posted between 225-1400ms......so if the pings are at best 135ms and will climb higher? Downloading a large file or uploading a large file higher pings will not be noticeable on sat....gaming and web browsing are the main things the ping does hinder...from what I read the EVDO user can see much higher pings as another user had posted awhile back. The speed is also slower as already mentioned with a weaker signal.....so its not the same as DSL or cable. As far as the mobile part there is always hotspots....? So depending on what the ping goes to during busy hours.. hope to see.

ok....and could you clarify the price? $60 for each of the 3 cards plus tax and fees?