Miserable Hughes Performance

[jaandbill]

On March 21, my Hughes system failed. After about a week an installer came. He replaced the radio, the cables and the modem. At about 9:00 PM on the second day we started up the new system. Download speed was slower than dial-up. The installer had to leave.

The next morning the system was working OK -- about 500K downloads. The installer called, and I told him that the system seemed OK.

That night, Dial-up again.

To make a very long story short -- Today, Apri 25, after countless hours on the phone with Tech Support, Advanced Tech Support and Tier 4, and another visit from an installer, I am experiencing download speeds below 200K in the evening and 500 to 600 at low load times.

Tomorrow, I plan to tell Hughes managerment to either fix this mess or I will go to DSL.

Comments?

[zalternate]

Are you on the old KU satellites?(hn7000 units).

Maybe they switched transponders on you and you got a stuck with one that is overcrowded. Sometimes called load balancing.

You could complain to 'executive customer care' to get a upgrade to the HN9000 units on the spaceway3 satellite(KA band). Some people get free install upgrades with contract. Or no contract and pay the install. And others that have a lot of problems on the old KU's have gotten away with no contract and free install.

The spaceway3 may be seeing higher demand now in some areas.

And if you have DSL at the door? Why bother with Satellite.

DSL speeds may be Dependant on distance from the node. Even 500Kbps DSL will be faster than 500Kbps satellite, due to LAG time.

click to enlarge

Edited April 25, 2010 by zalternate

[tommie gorman]

What package are you on also. At one time they had a package that was 500/50. So it depends on that also. And that would be right in line.

[fikester]

What package are you on also. At one time they had a package that was 500/50. So it depends on that also. And that would be right in line.

If your on the newer Ka band HN9000 modem....you should not be seeing that much slowdown as the lowest plan is 1000/128k

mine is the 1600/250......working fine, however show me dsl and the sat is gone for sure.

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

Download Connection is:: 2699 Kbps about 2.7 Mbps (tested with 3064 kB)

Download Speed is:: 329 kB/s

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

Test Time:: 2010-04-26 00:25:35 GMT

Bottom Line:: 47X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 3.11 sec

Tested from a 3064 kB file and took 9.301 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 202.24 % faster than the average for host (direcway.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-K6GD54L8A

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) [!]

[jaandbill]

Are you on the old KU satellites?(hn7000 units).

Maybe they switched transponders on you and you got a stuck with one that is overcrowded. Sometimes called load balancing.

You could complain to 'executive customer care' to get a upgrade to the HN9000 units on the spaceway3 satellite(KA band). Some people get free install upgrades with contract. Or no contract and pay the install. And others that have a lot of problems on the old KU's have gotten away with no contract and free install.

The spaceway3 may be seeing higher demand now in some areas.

And if you have DSL at the door? Why bother with Satellite.

DSL speeds may be Dependant on distance from the node. Even 500Kbps DSL will be faster than 500Kbps satellite, due to LAG time.

click to enlarge

[jaandbill]

Thanks for your response!

You have probably diagnosed the problem. I can't imagine why nobody from Hughes mentioned it. (I have 8 case numbers!)

I do have a 7000s. As everything in my system is new, it's obvious that the problem lies elsewhere. I had decided that the 7000s was being shoved aside by the 9000s.

I was going to contact Executive Customer Care, but a letter came in the mail saying DSL was now available. I didn't pay much attention to it at first because we had tried to go with DSL before we got the satellite. We were screwed around for two years before we were told that there were not enough customers close to us and that we could not get the service. I checked again some time back and was told we could get DSL, but the cost was $25 per 256k.

Today I followed up on the latest letter. 2 -3 Megs for less than the 150 - 600 K I am getting from Hughes. We are waiting for the installer!

[jaandbill]

Thanks for your response!

You have probably diagnosed the problem. I can't imagine why nobody from Hughes mentioned it. (I have 8 case numbers!)

I do have a 7000s. As everything in my system is new, it's obvious that the problem lies elsewhere. I had decided that the 7000s was being shoved aside by the 9000s.

I was going to contact Executive Customer Care, but a letter came in the mail saying DSL was now available. I didn't pay much attention to it at first because we had tried to go with DSL before we got the satellite. We were screwed around for two years before we were told that there were not enough customers close to us and that we could not get the service. I checked again some time back and was told we could get DSL, but the cost was $25 per 256k.

Today I followed up on the latest letter. 2 -3 Megs for less than the 150 - 600 K I am getting from Hughes. We are waiting for the installer!

Just ran this -

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

Download Connection is:: 166 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 507 kB)

Download Speed is:: 20 kB/s

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

Test Time:: 2010-04-27 00:10:49 GMT

Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 51.2 sec

Tested from a 507 kB file and took 25.094 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 17.01 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-CRHQLS09I

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC EA 2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

[tommie gorman]

As another satelite user moves along. I love stories with a great ending where they live happily ever after.

But as fast as they get removed, hughes/wildblue get more daily. It a never ending saga for sure.

I quit while with the 6000. Yeah the 7000's now an obsolete dinosaur also.

Edited April 27, 2010 by tommie gorman

[zeddlar]

I got my system upgrade for free but I am on a contract with the agreement that if my service doesn't satisfy me at any time during the 2 years I can get out free of charge. The only problem I see is that they replaced my $800 2 watt system with the new smaller cheap KA system and I am not sure but what they listed me as a residential customer so I am suppose to get a call from exec. customer care's tech support person this evening to get all that straightened out. Good luck with the DSL, even if you get speeds like 128 k it should still have hughes beat for the most part.

[jaandbill]

Just ran this -

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

Download Connection is:: 166 Kbps about 0.2 Mbps (tested with 507 kB)

Download Speed is:: 20 kB/s

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

Test Time:: 2010-04-27 00:10:49 GMT

Bottom Line:: 3X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 51.2 sec

Tested from a 507 kB file and took 25.094 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: May need help : running at only 17.01 % of your hosts average (direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-CRHQLS09I

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC EA 2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

Thanks to all for responding!

Got DSL plus an upgrade to the phone service for $10 less per month than Hughes - and that includes renting the DSL modem. We bought the Hughes modem.

Latest

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

Download Connection is:: 2502 Kbps about 2.5 Mbps (tested with 3064 kB)

Download Speed is:: 305 kB/s

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

Test Time:: 2010-04-30 19:35:19 GMT

Bottom Line:: 44X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 3.36 sec

Tested from a 3064 kB file and took 10.031 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 117 % faster than the average for host (rittct.net)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-FOD14RBMX

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC EA 2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

This is the slowest I've seen - day or night, peak or slack time.

And there's no limit to amount I can download.

We live about 6 blocks from the end of nowhere. If we can get this type of DSL performance. I would think almost anyone can. I can't see any need for Hughes.

[zalternate]

Thanks to all for responding!

Got DSL plus an upgrade to the phone service for $10 less per month than Hughes - and that includes renting the DSL modem. We bought the Hughes modem.

Latest

This is the slowest I've seen - day or night, peak or slack time.

And there's no limit to amount I can download.

We live about 6 blocks from the end of nowhere. If we can get this type of DSL performance. I would think almost anyone can. I can't see any need for Hughes.

You'll like DSL. IT keeps the same speed 24/7 , unless the ISP is a bit cheap in it's backbone.

[zeddlar]

Thanks to all for responding!

Got DSL plus an upgrade to the phone service for $10 less per month than Hughes - and that includes renting the DSL modem. We bought the Hughes modem.

Latest

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

Download Connection is:: 2502 Kbps about 2.5 Mbps (tested with 3064 kB)

Download Speed is:: 305 kB/s

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

Test Time:: 2010-04-30 19:35:19 GMT

Bottom Line:: 44X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 3.36 sec

Tested from a 3064 kB file and took 10.031 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 117 % faster than the average for host (rittct.net)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-FOD14RBMX

User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; MS-RTC EA 2; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) [!]

This is the slowest I've seen - day or night, peak or slack time.

And there's no limit to amount I can download.

We live about 6 blocks from the end of nowhere. If we can get this type of DSL performance. I would think almost anyone can. I can't see any need for Hughes.

Yeah well DSL on standard copper wire at least has an 18000 foot limit from the phone office which translates to you getting DSL if you live roughly less than 3.5 miles from the phone office. I live 9 or 10 miles from the nearest. Of course there is fiber if you live close enough to a big city for one of the major carriers to have taken the time to install fiber. I live about 90 miles from the nearest one of those and I live pretty close to the dead center of the US, I would hate to see how long it will take some of the people in the mountains and deserts to get anything but Satt.