Jump to content
guitarjim

HughesNet response to my BBB complaint

Recommended Posts

I currently have a $206.38 dispute with Hughes and Mastercard.  I disputed my last month of service (the one where my speeds went from 1.5mpbs to 400kbps... This was day 33.  I also disputed their installation charge since I cancelled it just right after. ECC didn't want to hear me complaining anymore.......

In Hughesnet's rebuttal to the dispute, all they send back was a bunch of invoices, emails, and phone calls I'd made.  That didn't prove anything.  IN FACT, it made Hughes look bad!  I was told by the bank with all the documentation I'd submitted, I wouldn't have to pay it, but it had to be finialized.

Thank goodness, I put a block on that card and got a new #.  No teling what Hughes would have tried to charge on there by now.

I got a credit card linked to the account.....at least a person could dispute a charge? Had a gut feeling that would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way you can get paper billing back is to have THREE declined credit card attempts.

They'll put you on paper billing and charge you $5.00 extra a month.

At that's what happened to me.  The declined credit card attempts were after all the issues I had with them, and I changed the #.

I had the choice of snail mail 2 or 3 years back when I was with them. If I was still with them I would still pay that way. I like to see my bills and money go through my hands. Old fashioned that way I guess. Or maybe a control thing.  :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way you can get paper billing back is to have THREE declined credit card attempts.

They'll put you on paper billing and charge you $5.00 extra a month.

At that's what happened to me.  The declined credit card attempts were after all the issues I had with them, and I changed the #.

But it's so environmentally friendly to go green with paperless billing. :bs:  :cussing:

And various Government Attorney General's don't care for it either. But if the company dropped the 'green' bullshiat and companies could send out a abbreviated bill.

With all the debit card fraud out there, why give a company easy access to your bank account.

Hey maybe the next try at a class action could be for the massive charge for paper based billing?

http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220000676

T-Mobile Won't Charge For Paper Bills

A plan designed to promote paperless billing was dropped after telecom regulators and the carrier's customers cried foul.

By W. David Gardner

InformationWeek

September 16, 2009 11:39 AM

T-Mobile's attempt to charge users $1.50 for their monthly paper bills has been nipped in the bud after subscribers and regulators complained.

T-Mobile backed off the $1.50 charge stating it will "be taking more time to determine the fairest way possible to encourage people to go paperless." The change had been planned to go into effect last Saturday, but the protests made an impact on T-Mobile management. The firm is the fourth largest mobile phone service provider in the U.S.

Many online retailers and service providers have been urging their customers to use online billing systems, but consumers without computers have found it nearly impossible to pay online. In addition to the inconvenience, some consumers have raised security and privacy issues, because they don't want to give out the details of their banking and other financial accounts in order to pay their monthly bills.

Most retailers and service providers still don't charge for providing paper bills, but increasingly they are tacking on additional and new charges for paper bills. Waste Management, for instance, now adds at least $2 to consumer bills when they aren't paid online.

State regulatory agencies were flooded with complaints over the proposed T-Mobile charges. In New York State, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said his office would "not sit back and let a company change its prices under the guise of 'going green.'"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats bull crap to charge for paper. Like insinuated its just so they get their money when they want. Not for convenience or records. I still say I want my paper checks returned from the banks. And low and behold the gov't considered it a waste. Butt wipes. So now how do I prove who cashed the checks and when or did they? Their is no receipt anymore. That really burns my hide.  :knuppel2: :knuppel2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks as though hughes cant get it right, after upgrading from the Ku system for big time slow downs in the peak hours.......guess what. Thats right the Ka system gives me 1600/225 all day long around 7pm takes a dump! My download speed during peak hours is at times below 200k....now the upload stays good at 200+ go figure. Back to square one on this issue as basically with below 200 download speed and web response time over 20 secs.....useless to me during evening hours and seems to me the Ku system was better at this point in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad I ran into this thread. I have asked DTV if they could offer me internet through sat. and they said yes. But then the sales/tech started asking me about my phone.  I told him there was no phone lines and why would I need one?  Turns out they were just selling me a DSL I couldn't possibly use.  DSL is not SAT.  I was going to look into HughesNet but from what I am reading I don't want them either.  My son suggested we should all just mount 10 to 12 cantennas on our roof tops and tell the corporations to byte me.  :evil6:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks as though hughes cant get it right, after upgrading from the Ku system for big time slow downs in the peak hours.......guess what. Thats right the Ka system gives me 1600/225 all day long around 7pm takes a dump! My download speed during peak hours is at times below 200k....now the upload stays good at 200+ go figure. Back to square one on this issue as basically with below 200 download speed and web response time over 20 secs.....useless to me during evening hours and seems to me the Ku system was better at this point in the game.

You've got to wonder if they forget to purge some peoples old KU speed parameters user file. So you can get stuck with what is close to KU throttles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad I ran into this thread. I have asked DTV if they could offer me internet through sat. and they said yes. But then the sales/tech started asking me about my phone.  I told him there was no phone lines and why would I need one?  Turns out they were just selling me a DSL I couldn't possibly use.  DSL is not SAT.  I was going to look into HughesNet but from what I am reading I don't want them either.  My son suggested we should all just mount 10 to 12 cantennas on our roof tops and tell the corporations to byte me.  :evil6:

I could go for that.  :2funny: :2funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOLD YA!  And wait til day 32-33......it will get even worse ! ! !

Well it looks as though hughes cant get it right, after upgrading from the Ku system for big time slow downs in the peak hours.......guess what. Thats right the Ka system gives me 1600/225 all day long around 7pm takes a dump! My download speed during peak hours is at times below 200k....now the upload stays good at 200+ go figure. Back to square one on this issue as basically with below 200 download speed and web response time over 20 secs.....useless to me during evening hours and seems to me the Ku system was better at this point in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least WIRELESS broadband is pretty consistent . . . .

:::.. Download Stats ..:::

Download Connection is:: 1447 Kbps about 1.4 Mbps (tested with 1536 kB)

Download Speed is:: 177 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

Test Time:: 2009/09/25 - 4:40am

Bottom Line:: 25X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.79 sec

Tested from a 1536 kB file and took 8.697 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 74.55 % faster than the average for host (myvzw.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-38T1PJ2XQ

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; msn OptimizedIE8;ENUS) [!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least WIRELESS broadband is pretty consistent . . . .

And no jet lag 20000+ feet to a satelite and back.  :grin2:

Once more satelite sucks. For years its been wildblue is better VS Hughesnet is better.

They all suck.  :evil6:

Unless you spend bookoo bucks. And not worth it then. I could have T-1 for less than decent satelite. And it blows satelite out of the water.

Satelite is barely better than dial up. At least you have upload. I used to break a sweat with hughes to get 75 upload. On a  freaky day maybe 100 UP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest my brother is pointed at Spaceway3 and on the same beam as me....no slow downs, and what really pisses me off he is on the basic plan?  :angry:

Some more fancy numbers of the Spaceway3.

The microcells help to spread out land areas of high use.

Most Spaceway maps show only the 112 uplink beams, rather than trying to show the 784 microcells used for downlinks. Microcells used in order to be able to push out more bandwidth to the needed areas in a spot beam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more fancy numbers of the Spaceway3.

The microcells help to spread out land areas of high use.

Most Spaceway maps show only the 112 uplink beams, rather than trying to show the 784 microcells used for downlinks. Microcells used in order to be able to push out more bandwidth to the needed areas in a spot beam.

we are both on the same uplink and downlink cell. 59/497

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are both on the same uplink and downlink cell. 59/497

Well how about this...... Your IP ranges? I think your speed test here showed up as DirecWay. Does his show up the same too?  I've seen the occasional example post of getting a IP range changed, to deal with weird speed issue.

Or can you do a 'reset' of the HN9000 Modem, and of course it having to re-download it's firmware updates, since manufacture.

I think one firmware update helps the HN9000 modems to run a little bit cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was your brother a "NEW INSTALL (eg, never had hughesnet before)" or an "UPGRADE".....???

I would think an new install would experience better speeds than an "Upgrade"..........For the mere fact that they're trying to impress a new user with higher speeds, but dont really care about existing customers.

My opinion though

Honest my brother is pointed at Spaceway3 and on the same beam as me....no slow downs, and what really pisses me off he is on the basic plan?  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was your brother a "NEW INSTALL (eg, never had hughesnet before)" or an "UPGRADE".....???

I would think an new install would experience better speeds than an "Upgrade"..........For the mere fact that they're trying to impress a new user with higher speeds, but dont really care about existing customers.

My opinion though

brand new install....also got the better ravens style dish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, my SECOND dish was different from my original.  In only two months, they'd changed dishes.

The installer said this one was more lightweight, and had a handle on it where he could carry it to the roof.

the LNB and feedhorn looked the same (elliptical).

Can't really say if it worked any better (well, I guess it worked GREAT but then the NOC dicked me over.)

brand new install....also got the better ravens style dish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe its above 200k this time of the evening.

::::::::::.. Download Stats ..::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 1650 Kbps about 1.7 Mbps (tested with 1544 kB)

Download Speed is:: 201 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

Test Time:: 2009/09/25 - 6:46pm

Bottom Line:: 29X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.09 sec

Tested from a 1544 kB file and took 7.667 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 89.22 % faster than the average for host (DirecWay.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-DQ9CHLP0M

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDC; .NET CLR 3.0.30729)

:::.. Upload Stats ..:::

Upload Connection is:: 196 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 24 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

Test Time:: 2009/09/25 - 6:49pm

Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 42.67 sec

Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 42.313 seconds to complete

Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 28.1 % faster than the average for host (direcway.com)

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-JK7L1IZEX

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDC; .NET CLR 3.0.30729) [!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly irratic though . . .but still an improvement, eh?

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:31:32 pm  DN 1013 kB 179 Kbps (22 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  CH1TDUINE IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:20:18 pm  DN 512 kB 251 Kbps (31 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1OGI4DZWA IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:06:02 pm  DN 3072 kB 1625 Kbps (198 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1ZQSBK4R6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:46:00 pm  DN 1544 kB 1650 Kbps (201 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  DQ9CHLP0M IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:37:00 pm  DN 1544 kB 1642 Kbps (200 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  E5ANQJG3O IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:36:43 pm  DN 1536 kB 1571 Kbps (192 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  K8OW5I4UB IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:38:17 pm  DN 1544 kB 259 Kbps (32 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  FKHVM3B06 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:20:35 pm  DN 1544 kB 842 Kbps (103 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  43FE8J1XL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:20:06 pm  DN 4096 kB 793 Kbps (97 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  P3K7QAUF1 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:11:26 pm  DN 1013 kB 288 Kbps (35 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  MB8CFVIL1 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:10:27 pm  UP 1013 kB 197 Kbps (24 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  XDYO6M4HU IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:07:08 pm  UP 579 kB 204 Kbps (25 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  QOFWVL5DE IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:06:29 pm  DN 1536 kB 1436 Kbps (175 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1XNS6LG3T IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:01:49 pm  DN 1013 kB 885 Kbps (108 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  9RLWF6Y3Q IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:01:19 pm  DN 1013 kB 305 Kbps (37 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  X5BTKDF2Q IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:00:19 pm  DN 1544 kB 411 Kbps (50 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  P5M4YWRVL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 1:38:48 pm  DN 4096 kB 1634 Kbps (199 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  VAWLX032N IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 12:22:32 pm  UP 1013 kB 243 Kbps (30 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  489W25YZ6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 12:21:29 pm  DN 4096 kB 1609 Kbps (196 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  49YATQKS6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 11:15:47 am  UP 1013 kB 249 Kbps (30 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  6HIPXF53K IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 11:14:50 am  DN 4096 kB 1612 Kbps (197 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  4PYBK80S7 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:08:18 am  UP 1496 kB 260 Kbps (32 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  9Y0T1MRZL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 2:23:11 am  UP 579 kB 227 Kbps (28 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  IHLPBRAYW

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 2:22:37 am  DN 4096 kB 1616 Kbps (197 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  2TEJ7009B IMG

I cant believe its above 200k this time of the evening.

::::::::::::::::::::::::.. Download Stats ..::::::::::::::::::::::::

Download Connection is:: 1650 Kbps about 1.7 Mbps (tested with 1544 kB)

Download Speed is:: 201 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

Test Time:: 2009/09/25 - 6:46pm

Bottom Line:: 29X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 5.09 sec

Tested from a 1544 kB file and took 7.667 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 89.22 % faster than the average for host (DirecWay.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-DQ9CHLP0M

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDC; .NET CLR 3.0.30729)

:::::::::::::::::.. Upload Stats ..:::::::::::::::::

Upload Connection is:: 196 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 24 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

Test Time:: 2009/09/25 - 6:49pm

Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 42.67 sec

Tested from a 1013 kB file and took 42.313 seconds to complete

Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 28.1 % faster than the average for host (DirecWay.com)

U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-JK7L1IZEX

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDC; .NET CLR 3.0.30729)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly irratic though . . .but still an improvement, eh?

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:31:32 pm  DN 1013 kB 179 Kbps (22 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  CH1TDUINE IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:20:18 pm  DN 512 kB 251 Kbps (31 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1OGI4DZWA IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 6:06:02 pm  DN 3072 kB 1625 Kbps (198 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1ZQSBK4R6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:46:00 pm  DN 1544 kB 1650 Kbps (201 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  DQ9CHLP0M IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:37:00 pm  DN 1544 kB 1642 Kbps (200 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  E5ANQJG3O IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 5:36:43 pm  DN 1536 kB 1571 Kbps (192 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  K8OW5I4UB IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:38:17 pm  DN 1544 kB 259 Kbps (32 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  FKHVM3B06 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:20:35 pm  DN 1544 kB 842 Kbps (103 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  43FE8J1XL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:20:06 pm  DN 4096 kB 793 Kbps (97 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  P3K7QAUF1 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:11:26 pm  DN 1013 kB 288 Kbps (35 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  MB8CFVIL1 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:10:27 pm  UP 1013 kB 197 Kbps (24 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  XDYO6M4HU IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:07:08 pm  UP 579 kB 204 Kbps (25 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  QOFWVL5DE IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:06:29 pm  DN 1536 kB 1436 Kbps (175 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  1XNS6LG3T IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:01:49 pm  DN 1013 kB 885 Kbps (108 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  9RLWF6Y3Q IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:01:19 pm  DN 1013 kB 305 Kbps (37 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  X5BTKDF2Q IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:00:19 pm  DN 1544 kB 411 Kbps (50 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  P5M4YWRVL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 1:38:48 pm  DN 4096 kB 1634 Kbps (199 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  VAWLX032N IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 12:22:32 pm  UP 1013 kB 243 Kbps (30 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  489W25YZ6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 12:21:29 pm  DN 4096 kB 1609 Kbps (196 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  49YATQKS6 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 11:15:47 am  UP 1013 kB 249 Kbps (30 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  6HIPXF53K IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 11:14:50 am  DN 4096 kB 1612 Kbps (197 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  4PYBK80S7 IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 3:08:18 am  UP 1496 kB 260 Kbps (32 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  9Y0T1MRZL IMG

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 2:23:11 am  UP 579 kB 227 Kbps (28 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  IHLPBRAYW

Fri Sep 25 2009 @ 2:22:37 am  DN 4096 kB 1616 Kbps (197 kB/s) fikester 1598607392790 DirecWay.com  2TEJ7009B IMG

Not under FAP green light....record speed @ 27Kbps! The only thing steady is the upload....not usable in the evening at all, and my 30days are not up.....worse than the Ku band system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...