How is your ping times?

[zeddlar]

Well Maybe that is an assumption but it is based on fact. I was on wildblue when it was shiny and brand new and the pings were just fine being around the same as my hughesnet system is now. I know the formula for sattelite ping times vs distance and I also know that a transponders traffic can and most definatly will slow ping times but what I was getting at is that for one if you research on thier forums you will find that for one even though the peak time pings were not really any good they were usable  and off prime time pings were pretty decent back in July and a couple of months there after and then if you go forward in time on those forums you will find that wildblue did an update and everybody's ping time went in the toilet all at once on that bery same day and never improved thereafter. And I was making the point that this person was "supposedly" on the new satt which would make him one of the first and that his/her ping times were no better than the ones on the oversold service. I appoligise if this offended some but I am just stating facts that I have been part of and I did say this guy was suppose to be on the new satt. I never said I knew he was. If you cant find the facts to support all I have said here then look at the wilblue.cc forums and you will find all you need.

[upsurfer]

Well said......

Welcome to the forum 

[Sparticus]

If you think about it ping times with satletite are going to be high no matter what. I mean everything is going to space.

[Siryak]

If you think about it ping times with satletite are going to be high no matter what. I mean everything is going to space.

Not this high...The signal going through space only accounts for about 500ms of the latency. The rest is in their gateways.

Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=2045ms TTL=46

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1210ms TTL=46

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1893ms TTL=46

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1250ms TTL=46

Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:

    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 1210ms, Maximum = 2045ms, Average = 1599ms

[rjventre]

Check out these ping times for HughesNet!

Pinging www.yahoo.com [69.147.114.210] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=845ms TTL=51

Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=804ms TTL=50

Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=774ms TTL=51

Reply from 69.147.114.210: bytes=32 time=743ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 69.147.114.210:

    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 743ms, Maximum = 845ms, Average = 791ms

[Roco]

I get 123 ms from the UK over 13 hops  ISP pipex.com UK 

oops wrong topic , sorry guys ,

[Nos7667]

I get 123 ms from the UK over 13 hops  ISP pipex.com UK 

oops wrong topic , sorry guys ,

Haha, I did the same thing, Its just so tempting to post your own ping times.

[zeddlar]

I ran a ping to testmy, it was 100 pings in length as you can see. I am not going to paste the whole string here unless someone really wants me too but I will post the results. Keep in mind this string was done in the rain and I was goin down my favorites list constantly loading 1 page after another during this entire run and also it was done right at the opening of peak times at 3 minutes till 7pm cdt.

Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85:

    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

    Minimum = 660ms, Maximum = 1838ms, Average = 810ms

All except for one page the pings would bounce up to just over 1000 for one or 2 pings during the initial search and load of each url, one page that I loaded which is always crowded (eqplayers) is the one that got the 1838 spike and had a total of 5 pings ranging from 915 to that 1838 all other pings were 750 or less.