Guest aerodude Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 Speed i've got in forever. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1502 Kbps about 1.5 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 183 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 1:52am Bottom Line:: 26X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.6 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 16.314 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 42.78 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-L8XR6ICYO User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 15 Kbps about 0 Mbps (tested with 97 kB) Upload Speed is:: 2 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 2:11am Bottom Line:: 0X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 512 sec Tested from a 97 kB file and took 51.565 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 14.71 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ISQEW98ZP User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlewis23 Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 thats real nice speed for satellite aerodude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiberOptic Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 But hopefully when TV turns digital, Satelite customers should se a boost because of the less signals interferring with the signals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird Fan Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 Speed i've got in forever. Don't be fooled, you're still only really getting 130-135kb/s.. Take the test a couple times or download a big file, you'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 Speed i've got in forever. ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 15 Kbps about 0 Mbps (tested with 97 kB) Upload Speed is:: 2 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 2:11am Bottom Line:: 0X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 512 sec Tested from a 97 kB file and took 51.565 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 14.71 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-ISQEW98ZP User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 What system is this upload with....gotta be a 4000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted January 7, 2007 CID Share Posted January 7, 2007 That would be a fast D/L for a 4000 as of late. But it could also be a 6000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 DW6000. PRO PACKAGE. Last time the installer was here, he said that my satellite was the fastest he's ever seen. Made me feel good. =] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 on an old laptop....pent II, 6GB HD :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1568 Kbps about 1.6 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 191 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:04pm Bottom Line:: 27X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.36 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 15.632 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 49.05 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-S4T8UL5A0 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 Here i'll test some more. This is on my laptop as of the last one. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1141 Kbps about 1.1 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 139 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:17pm Bottom Line:: 20X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 7.37 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 21.485 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 8.46 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-FX0RBJZ7E User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 884 Kbps about 0.9 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 108 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:19pm Bottom Line:: 15X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 9.48 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 27.719 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 84.03 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-2ALDXKNO3 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] **** that one got sloww.. one more.. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 820 Kbps about 0.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 100 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:21pm Bottom Line:: 14X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 10.24 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 29.906 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 77.95 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-UCXMNATBF User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] I'm going to stop now, while im up. haha. Well i clicked smart test for upload. It uploaded twice.. must of been fast at first. Results: :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 83 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Upload Speed is:: 10 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:23pm Bottom Line:: 1X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 102.4 sec Tested from a 386 kB file and took 37.969 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 81.37 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-BWOM4VRZH User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] again.. :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 103 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Upload Speed is:: 13 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:25pm Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 78.77 sec Tested from a 386 kB file and took 30.766 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 0.98 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-O6UIWENLR User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1 [!] kay im done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 on an old laptop....pent II, 6GB HD ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 1568 Kbps about 1.6 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 191 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:04pm Bottom Line:: 27X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.36 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 15.632 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 49.05 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-S4T8UL5A0 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) ****. I wish i had that. I have a Intel centrino duo, 2GB RAM, 160 BG HD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 you are prolly paying the same price as I am for the 7000 pro uploads are also improved ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 200 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 24 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:27pm Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 42.67 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 41.547 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 96.08 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-AOJH0E1LP 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) The old one does just as good as this new one.....as far as connection speed. Takes forever just to boot windows! My kids used to play on it, now they wont touch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 you are prolly paying the same price as I am for the 7000 pro uploads are also improved ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 200 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Upload Speed is:: 24 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/01/07 - 5:27pm Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 42.67 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 41.547 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 96.08 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-AOJH0E1LP 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) I guess, they took $130 out last month. Some charges for Modem Decompression or something, i guess to upgrade.. idk what new price will be.. old was $59.99/month. I hope its only $69.99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 Think thats what I pay is $69.......mine is not the 7000s , but the older 7000 like mine they just mail it to you. Self install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 dont you have to pay like so much extra for the 7000 its like back to $100/month Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 The way mine worked I had a choice of $399 with no contract or $50 and a 15month contract.......then 69 monthy. Sat equipment already paid for. So unless you need a staitic IP wouldnt see why you would pay $100/month. Again some upgrades may require a re-point....mine did not. http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589%5D%5D here use the upgrade link.....http://hughesnet.myway.com/ you will need your site ID to see your offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 The way mine worked I had a choice of $399 with no contract or $50 and a 15month contract.......then 69 monthy. Sat equipment already paid for. So unless you need a staitic IP wouldnt see why you would pay $100/month. Again some upgrades may require a re-point....mine did not. http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5B71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589%5D%5D here use the upgrade link.....http://hughesnet.myway.com/ you will need your site ID to see your offers. psh im happy with what i got. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 psh im happy with what i got. lol I would be also. I have the 6000 also. All the 7000's get is a tad bit more U/L. Not worth another jail sentence contract for 15 months to me. Especially if something better comes along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aerodude Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 I would be also. I have the 6000 also. All the 7000's get is a tad bit more U/L. Not worth another jail sentence contract for 15 months to me. Especially if something better comes along. haha very true =]] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 I would be also. I have the 6000 also. All the 7000's get is a tad bit more U/L. Not worth another jail sentence contract for 15 months to me. Especially if something better comes along. I thought about it and thought about for almost 6 months when I got a notice to upgrade to DW7000 for $199.99 or $49.99/15month sign up. My sentence will be up in a few months and still no other ISP options seen in this years' or next years' future. My ODU is old, but then again some say I am too. 'S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 8, 2007 CID Share Posted January 8, 2007 Damn. I wish i had that. I have a Intel centrino duo, 2GB RAM, 160 BG HD Sorry....thought maybe you wasn't familiar with available options or upgrades In my area there is little to no chance in DSL coming anytime soon, and as far as Hughes getting the Ka band up......I'm sure it will be at least Nov. before it might, might be available for the brave (its not gonna be a freebie).......just my opinion even a used 7000 off ebay to get better pings, more consistent download speeds and way faster uploads. All for just about the same monthly price, is worth it. The 6000's do about the same download speeds........at 1am, not during the peak hours, speeds are much different and the uploads are slower than dial up in most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostmaster Posted January 9, 2007 CID Share Posted January 9, 2007 The main reason to upgrade to a DW7000, (don't go to a HN7000s, its a f*ckin waste of money), is a much more improved browsing experience. This is in part due to the web acclerator processing on the modem, and due to lower ping times. I average about 300ms lower latency going from a 6k to a 7k. Pinging www.testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=776ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=796ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=801ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=861ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=771ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=861ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=721ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=811ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=811ms TTL=47 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 721ms, Maximum = 861ms, Average = 805ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fikester Posted January 9, 2007 CID Share Posted January 9, 2007 The main reason to upgrade to a DW7000, (don't go to a HN7000s, its a f*ckin waste of money), is a much more improved browsing experience. This is in part due to the web acclerator processing on the modem, and due to lower ping times. I average about 300ms lower latency going from a 6k to a 7k. Pinging www.testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=776ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=796ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=801ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=861ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=841ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=771ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=861ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=721ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=811ms TTL=47 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=811ms TTL=47 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 721ms, Maximum = 861ms, Average = 805ms yes...I remember seeing a 2000ms and 3000ms more than once with the 6 banger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeddlar Posted April 3, 2007 CID Share Posted April 3, 2007 Well I wouldn't say the HN7000S is a complete waste of money. :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 277 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 34 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/04/02 - 10:12pm Bottom Line:: 5X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 30.12 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 17.094 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 161.32 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1485 Kbps about 1.5 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 181 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/04/02 - 10:14pm Bottom Line:: 26X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.66 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 16.5 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 41.43 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.yahoo.com Pinging www.yahoo.com [69.147.114.210] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=51 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=765ms TTL=51 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=710ms TTL=50 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=699ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 69.147.114.210: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 699ms, Maximum = 765ms, Average = 722ms C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.pcpitstop.com Pinging www.pcpitstop.com [64.29.201.21] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=676ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=720ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=690ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=700ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 64.29.201.21: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 676ms, Maximum = 720ms, Average = 696ms C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.testmy.net Pinging www.testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=771ms TTL=48 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=48 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=48 The download speed is by far the worst I have had since I had the dish remounted and peaked properly. You will find my pastes elsewhere on this boar and see it is normally 2.5 during off peak times and 1.6 to 2.0 during peak times and my pings are never worse than these aside form an occasional rogue reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kol Posted April 3, 2007 CID Share Posted April 3, 2007 have the dw6000 heil to ur masta- :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1550 Kbps about 1.6 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB) Download Speed is:: 189 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/04/03 - 4:37am Bottom Line:: 27X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.42 sec Tested from a 1496 kB file and took 7.906 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 47.62 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-Z08GF5B2Q User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Windows-Media-Player/10.00.00.3990) [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostmaster Posted April 4, 2007 CID Share Posted April 4, 2007 Well I wouldn't say the HN7000S is a complete waste of money. ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 277 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 34 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/04/02 - 10:12pm Bottom Line:: 5X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 30.12 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 17.094 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 161.32 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 1485 Kbps about 1.5 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 181 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Server 1) Test Time:: 2007/04/02 - 10:14pm Bottom Line:: 26X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.66 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 16.5 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 41.43 % faster than the average for host (direcpc.com) Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] © Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.yahoo.com Pinging www.yahoo.com [69.147.114.210] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=717ms TTL=51 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=765ms TTL=51 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=710ms TTL=50 Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=699ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 69.147.114.210: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 699ms, Maximum = 765ms, Average = 722ms C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.pcpitstop.com Pinging www.pcpitstop.com [64.29.201.21] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=676ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=720ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=690ms TTL=243 Reply from 64.29.201.21: bytes=32 time=700ms TTL=243 Ping statistics for 64.29.201.21: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 676ms, Maximum = 720ms, Average = 696ms C:Documents and SettingsKay.KEVIN>ping www.testmy.net Pinging www.testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=771ms TTL=48 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=48 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=726ms TTL=48 The download speed is by far the worst I have had since I had the dish remounted and peaked properly. You will find my pastes elsewhere on this boar and see it is normally 2.5 during off peak times and 1.6 to 2.0 during peak times and my pings are never worse than these aside form an occasional rogue reply. The main difference is that your are on a SOHO plan, with a larger dish and transmitter. You would get the same speeds with a DW7000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.