WildBlueBalls Posted September 29, 2007 CID Share Posted September 29, 2007 :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1582 Kbps about 1.6 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 193 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/09/29 - 10:29am Bottom Line:: 28X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.31 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 15.492 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 10.71 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-WKFQ70HS2 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1) [!] :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 256 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Upload Speed is:: 31 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/09/29 - 10:17am Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 33.03 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 95.707 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 132.73 % faster than the average for host (wildblue.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-63Y29KSF5 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1) [!] Ping statistics for 72.14.207.99: Packets: Sent = 99, Received = 98, Lost = 1 (1% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1126ms, Maximum = 2968ms, Average = 1369ms Good news...latency has improved over the last week approximately 300ms and DL and UL performing at maximum speeds! Bad news...latency still sucks compared to the 700ms I expected when I purchased WB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBlueBalls Posted October 5, 2007 Author CID Share Posted October 5, 2007 Ping statistics for 128.172.188.188: Packets: Sent = 119, Received = 115, Lost = 4 (3% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 623ms, Maximum = 2991ms, Average = 1327ms 9:15pm EST on Thursday, 10/4/07. Hmmmm the minimum has decreased but average is consistent with last reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinlay Posted October 5, 2007 CID Share Posted October 5, 2007 You getin some pretty good speeds there!! Yah the latency is horrible, but thats with any sat service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBlueBalls Posted October 5, 2007 Author CID Share Posted October 5, 2007 Yes, but I was hoping for reasonable latency for satellite somewhere in the range of 600 -800 ms. Gaining an extra half second from where I am now would be real nice! I really feel the pain when dealing with IMAP and HTTPS. But wow do my downloads fly compared to dial-up. All in all...I would say I am extremely satisfied. I am paying $79/month for the pro package but I get $10 knocked off for coupling my bill with Direct TV. I was paying $20/mos for two dial-up connections along with $35/mos for callwave, a landline, and the call forward on busy feature. Therefore, I am actually paying $14 extra per month to have excellent DL(30x faster)/UL(I think landline is faster than 56k), and the ability to connect throughout my home via a wireless router. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubles Posted October 7, 2007 CID Share Posted October 7, 2007 Latency speeds are normally high with any satelite. Yes it cost a lot of money to have the service. But for those who have to have it, If your not getting a good signal, have them come re-peak and point your antenna. Most time that's all you need done to have a stronger signal. They have a thing now that if you pay 119.00 they will come out and check your service and replace anything that is not up to par for the next 90 days at no extra charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starship_troopers Posted October 7, 2007 CID Share Posted October 7, 2007 Latency speeds are normally high with any satelite. Yes it cost a lot of money to have the service. But for those who have to have it, If your not getting a good signal, have them come re-peak and point your antenna. Most time that's all you need done to have a stronger signal. They have a thing now that if you pay 119.00 they will come out and check your service and replace anything that is not up to par for the next 90 days at no extra charge. good advice. and WELCOME to the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubles Posted October 7, 2007 CID Share Posted October 7, 2007 Thank You for the welcome.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBlueBalls Posted October 16, 2007 Author CID Share Posted October 16, 2007 2:40 pm EST Tuesday Ping statistics for 64.233.187.99: Packets: Sent = 72, Received = 71, Lost = 1 (1% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 715ms, Maximum = 2661ms, Average = 1258ms Getting a little better on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted October 16, 2007 CID Share Posted October 16, 2007 More consistent is the term I'd use. Start: 10/16/07 6:39:34 PM PING from: 192.168.2.2 to: 64.233.187.99 (64.233.187.99) Every 500 mSecs PKT# RESULT TIME(ms) LENGTH Min Avg Max Timestamp 1 success 1215 40 1215 1215 1215 10/16/07 6:39:35 PM 2 success 1309 40 1215 1262 1309 10/16/07 6:39:37 PM 3 success 1165 40 1165 1229 1309 10/16/07 6:39:38 PM 4 success 1222 40 1165 1227 1309 10/16/07 6:39:39 PM 5 success 1490 40 1165 1280 1490 10/16/07 6:39:41 PM 6 success 1196 40 1165 1266 1490 10/16/07 6:39:42 PM 7 success 1169 40 1165 1252 1490 10/16/07 6:39:43 PM 8 success 1212 40 1165 1247 1490 10/16/07 6:39:45 PM Packets out/in/bad/%loss = 8/8/0/0.0 Round Trip Time (ms) min/avg/max = 1165/1247/1490 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted October 16, 2007 CID Share Posted October 16, 2007 . . . and the speeds for prime time are decent. [value-beam 35] :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 111 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 14 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/16 - 4:44pm Bottom Line:: 2X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 73.14 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 42.717 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: 90% + Okay : running at 99.11 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-I1BY52UGM User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/419.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3 [!] :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 581 Kbps about 0.6 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Download Speed is:: 71 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/16 - 4:45pm Bottom Line:: 10X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 14.42 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 14.3 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 43.95 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-HPBKJZSMO User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/419.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3 [!] P.S. I use relatively small files to mirror my real life usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupurr Posted October 17, 2007 CID Share Posted October 17, 2007 :::.. Upload Stats ..::: Upload Connection is:: 205 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 25 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/17 - 12:16am Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 40.96 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 23.123 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 4.59 % faster than the average for host (smartbro.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-YI1FMQLDB User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7 [!] :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 425 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 52 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/17 - 12:21am Bottom Line:: 7X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 19.69 sec Tested from a 386 kB file and took 7.451 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 61.33 % of your hosts average (241.202) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-3LN68TVX5 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7 [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupurr Posted October 17, 2007 CID Share Posted October 17, 2007 Ping statistics for 64.233.187.99: Packets: Sent = 4 Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 347ms, Maximum = 362ms, Average = 355ms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justinlay Posted October 17, 2007 CID Share Posted October 17, 2007 ::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::: Upload Connection is:: 205 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 25 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/17 - 12:16am Bottom Line:: 4X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 40.96 sec Tested from a 579 kB file and took 23.123 seconds to complete Upload Diagnosis:: Looks Great : 4.59 % faster than the average for host (smartbro.net) U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-YI1FMQLDB User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7 ::::::::::.. Download Stats ..:::::::::: Download Connection is:: 425 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 52 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/17 - 12:21am Bottom Line:: 7X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 19.69 sec Tested from a 386 kB file and took 7.451 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 61.33 % of your hosts average (241.202) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-3LN68TVX5 User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7 Not bad speeds for smartbro, but this thread is for wildblue users Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted October 17, 2007 CID Share Posted October 17, 2007 , . . . . but this thread is for wildblue users We can use all the help we can get! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBlueBalls Posted October 18, 2007 Author CID Share Posted October 18, 2007 "P.S. I use relatively small files to mirror my real life usage." Interesting...so a 100 kbps upload speed using a smaller file represents a realistic measure because it factors in the lag more appropriately??? I guess I like to see the larger file upload speed because it indicates to me that I am capable of reaching speeds that I am paying for. Am I right in what I am thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 18, 2007 CID Share Posted October 18, 2007 They have a thing now that if you pay 119.00 they will come out and check your service and replace anything that is not up to par for the next 90 days at no extra charge. If you did not have Hughes for very long you would be still under warranty for things like that. That could be a bummer. So that is how WIld Blue does it then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terridavis Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 What's weird is how much faster my test is when I'm using AOL. they are both going through Wildblue, but I get about half the speed on Internet Explorer alone :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 3373 Kbps about 3.4 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 412 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/24 - 3:23pm Bottom Line:: 59X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 2.49 sec Tested from a 2992 kB file and took 7.266 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 56.79 % of your hosts average (aol.com) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-MWVYO78F0 User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts) [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 Thats because AOL does not give real speeds. It is cached. Meaing like it is in the memory and just reloading the page. Instead of downloading for real. That is why when you go to test it says turn off all accelerators before testing. So you get the real speeds. Try AOL on a page you have never been to before. It will be slow again. I would never have AOL anything on my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terridavis Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 Thanks for the info. I only use it now because I started out with them as my email and have too many customers with that address to change. I try to stay outside of it and just check my email from Explorer, but the convenience of just clicking the mouse always draws me back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terridavis Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 here's what I get outside of AOL. From what I'm understanding, I'm still slower than I should be, but it's faster that my son-in-law's who has HughesNet :::.. Download Stats ..::: Download Connection is:: 1004 Kbps about 1 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB) Download Speed is:: 123 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main) Test Time:: 2007/10/24 - 3:37pm Bottom Line:: 18X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 8.33 sec Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 8.265 seconds to complete Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 77.59 % of your hosts average (wildblue.net) D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-OQI078YXP User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProducts) [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kol Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 switch to sprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted October 24, 2007 CID Share Posted October 24, 2007 So try this test, it might give you even better speeds. That was too small of a test. http://www.testmy.net/dl-2992 It might not have given it time to warm up. So it might have been slow because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedb3rd Posted November 6, 2007 CID Share Posted November 6, 2007 I would be interested to see how others on WB1 Duluth beam (or anybody on WB1 at least) compare to this crap--at peak and off peak time. I'm on the 'middle' of the 3 packages and these are the results I've been getting since I upgraded a few weeks back. Note: This test was done at 10:12PM local (EST) time. The service used to be great when I first signed up for WB back in May '07. I've watched it slowly go to hell. By end of the year, if this projection doesn't change, I'll be doing the equivalent of dial-up. Basically, I'll be paying $50/month to not use the phone line that we never use anyways. :::.. testmy.net test results ..::: Download Connection is:: 162 Kbps about 0.16 Mbps (tested with 386 kB) Download Speed is:: 20 kB/s Upload Connection is:: 56 Kbps about 0.1 Mbps (tested with 97 kB) Upload Speed is:: 7 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net (Main) Test Time:: 2007/11/05 - 8:12pm D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-G3W84YLKC U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-O50AZY7UB User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9 [!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommie gorman Posted November 6, 2007 CID Share Posted November 6, 2007 That is bad. Have you tried this page? And welcome to the forum. http://www.testmy.net/t-4257 Do you restart your modem, defrag, and diskclean every time you start. It always helped me when I was on hughes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tedb3rd Posted November 6, 2007 CID Share Posted November 6, 2007 Thanks for the suggestions, but I've done all that. I tweaked the browser a while back and that did help somewhat. The speed slow-down has to do with peak/off-peak times. If I test at 8:00AM it's much faster--more like it should be. It has nothing to do with weather because I am located right in the middle of the drought area (if you've seen on the news) and there have only been about 3 days in the past month when skies were something besides 'clear' as defined by the National Weather service... and even then it was 'partly cloudy' or 'cloudy'. The last time the weather was inclement was on 8/29--it was defined as 'thunderstorms' and my speed was measured at 262kbs down / 101kbs upload at 8:45PM (local time). At that time, I was on the basic plan. Now I'm beginning to wonder if my dish is out of alignment or something--that's why I was asking if anybody else on the same beam / satellite saw the same slow down in the evenings as much as I am. But I doubt that because, if that were the case, I would have slow down at all times (not just in the evening). Again, I appreciate the suggestions but I don't think there is anything else I can do software-wise. The next thing would be to hack WB, I guess, to tweak my QOS. 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.