micwa1

This fall.

If you have other [better] options, that would be the logical thing to do. Good luck!

I'm sorry for my language. I have tried to "sort it out" in the public forum and in private messages. It's a lost cause with this is person. I can't even post my experience to the official forum without it getting copied over to another forum by some cynical stalker to fuel their sicking agenda. Seriously? :- Anyways, yes I am (as is all people on WB) experiencing some heavy congestion (more than usual) during prime time. But to bitch and moan on WBworld? The mods just work for WB, they don't control what goes on in the sky. They are trying to fix this by launching another sat, but it can't be done until 2011. So we must wait til then, and hopefully it tones down the congestion like promised. These birds can only hold so much, and WB does close down beams regularly, but they still have to have more customers to come in, regardless, to pay the bills. I mean duh. Nothing is perfect.

So glad to know I have a f*cking stalker. Get a life. Btw, with HUGHENEEEEEEEEEEEET I hardly EEVEEEEEEEEEEER had connectivity. Piss off dude.

marsh_0x, frankster has a long history baiting people using Wildblue. Just about every post he makes on the Wildblue boards is "post speeds", "Hughesnet is better". That's trollish behavior. He has been blocked numerous times on Wildblueworld.com for doing the exact same thing. So, no it was not uncalled for. Thank you.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that you're a troll.

No I was comparing the "bucket" to WB and HughesNet. Sorry you missed that. Honestly, I don't know why you're so concern with WB anyways. Doesn't make any sense. You're not the one paying them every month for an unreliable service (for some people that post). Why are you so hot and bothered? You seem to forget that I once had HN, and the FAP and I didn't see eye to eye. That's one reason why I switched.

I would bust that bucket in an hour. Also, just wait until Spaceway 3 starts filling up to the max, then post your speeds and pings.

Fikester how much do you pay?

Prime times speeds are to be expected. It sucks, but it's reality until WB can shoot more sats in the sky (2011 is the current date). Unfortunately they can't just shit them out. Unfortunately.

Just from 5 days of using the free trail (keep in mind that I have had it on and off during browsing, and I have the option to compress the graphics off)

It's through the proxy Propel (and no that's not an accurate speed, just a glitch). See here: http://wildblueworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2867. Propel is an accelerator that we are so hoping WIldBlue starts to test it and use it for its customers. It would save on bandwidth (because it compresses data) and faster speed. You all know what my speeds are with wildblue, so there is no point in doing a daily or hourly test on here to further fuel some people's agenda. Satellite currently doesn't ever have a CONSISTENT speed, and thus it would be silly to expect more. Thank you. ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 1074 Kbps about 1.1 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Download Speed is:: 131 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/11/12 - 2:59pm Bottom Line:: 19X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 7.82 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 7.726 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 22.46 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-BT2380GMY User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; Tablet PC 2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) w:PACBHO60

Well, well, well.... :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 16520 Kbps about 16.5 Mbps (tested with 25600 kB) Download Speed is:: 2017 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/11/12 - 1:43am Bottom Line:: 288X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.51 sec Tested from a 25600 kB file and took 12.695 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 1783.69 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-4AWXUKCJ8 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b2) Gecko/20091108 Firefox/3.6b2 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

mudmanc4, tell your INSANE members to stay away from WildBlue World. I thought you all were adults, but it seems fikester is still bitter, that uh WildBlue gets 'worst' speeds than him? He has spammed over 10 posts with the same crap, linking to this post and my speed results. GIVE. IT. UP. Perhaps the basics of this FORUM is to determine which provider is "better". But I did not create THIS POST to be that way. After seeing fikester show his ass like he is part of 4chan or some S#!t, this why I will not be participating anymore on this forum Thank you.

It's really not that difficulty to find that I live in MS. Yeah, pretty hard to work with a company based in CO. Getting old. Yup, I'm really advertising WB by posting true speeds (speeds that way below the normal range). Really bias there. Needless to say, I'm done here.

Also, it's worth noting that we are about to have bad weather and it's very, very, very, very, very cloudy. http://www.accuweather.com/us/ms/seminary/39479/city-weather-forecast.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&u=1

Umm, well I created this thread to show what the speeds are during peak hours, not to debate what which company is "better". ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 270 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Download Speed is:: 33 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/22 - 7:12pm Bottom Line:: 5X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 31.03 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 30.696 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 30.65 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-NCDQT73WK User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 104 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 13 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/22 - 7:14pm Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 78.77 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 45.717 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 71.72 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-05MICJAPU User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) Seriously I don't think WB expected to reach such a huge milestone so quickly in 4 years. I do believe the sats capacity has been reached. Hoping that ViaSat-1 resolves it. It should be noted that I was on HN (I think West 89/87 or something) before SPACEWAY 3 and this was the same results, slower speeds during peak hours. Apparently SW-3 solved that issue. But I still don't like HN as a company. It's like they are trying to be a monopoly with satellite internet access.

This AM: ::::::::::::::::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::::::::::::::::: Download Connection is:: 1013 Kbps about 1 Mbps (tested with 1536 kB) Download Speed is:: 124 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/22 - 7:40am Bottom Line:: 18X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 8.26 sec Tested from a 1536 kB file and took 12.426 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 14.98 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-QD21NAH3I User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) ::::::::::::::::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::::::::::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 135 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 16 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/22 - 7:43am Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 64 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 35.095 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: 90% + Okay : running at 93.1 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-MLPUFX1QY User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) Download is really not the problem, it's the decreasing upload. :- You see it's not better in the AM. @mudmanc4 all those tests go back to when I first got WildBlue in January. I think I skipped a few months (wasn't logged in doing tests). But they are scattered all during the day.

By request to do these tests during prime time, where obviously more people are on. On Select Pak :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 678 Kbps about 0.7 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Download Speed is:: 83 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/21 - 10:25pm Bottom Line:: 12X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 12.34 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 12.245 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 76.96 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-XET6NYMS1 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!] :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 136 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 17 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2009/10/21 - 10:30pm Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 60.24 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 34.767 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: 90% + Okay : running at 93.79 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-7QC3F8VKN User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2b1) Gecko/20091019 Firefox/3.6b1 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

Ok so if they did allow you to sign up (obviously they are over capacity for your gateway) and then you suffer from the SLOW and SLUGGISH speeds. Would you be happy then? They can't just throw a new satellite into orbit whenever they hit their capacity. Hopefully ViaSat-1 will solve some for this (for at least a few years).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88MJ0UEzftc

You can't make everyone happy. No need to be that cynical about everything.

What a WB mod/employee said about it: http://wildblueworld.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18290 Sounds like this could really turn out good.

I can't make anything disappear that's not there. And, THAT is not there. (http://wildblue.com/aboutWildblue/qaa.jsp#5_1) Can you direct me to where it can be found? "lighting fast speeds" The same shit HN preaches. That is marketing, not customer support. If a user was that delusional about Internet access, then they probably shouldn't be on here. A quick search on Wikipedia will tell you what you won't and will expect on satellite. Too bad they weren't that "smart" to research, but smart enough to believe everything someone tells them or reads. While I don't understand the reasoning behind WB's choice to use DAMA, I'm SURE they had good reason. LOL! I'm joking, I promise. Seriously, I don't know WHY they did it, but it seems to be a mistake. HN and WB will be having some competition soon, from O3b. That will use medium earth orbit to reduce latency -- some. Will be interesting to see how that turns out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b_satellite_constellation'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b_satellite_constellation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b "Latency is reduced by putting the satellites in a MEO orbit, less than a twentieth of a second away at light speed as opposed to the half second needed to reach geostationary orbit."