Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jdirty

Hughesnet Unbelievable Performance!

Recommended Posts

Your connection is: 4752 Kbps or 4.8 Mbps

You downloaded at: 580 kB/s

You are running: 83 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 1.77 second(s)

Member Ident:Username:jdirty CompID:896143566650

Test Time:: 2010-10-16 19:50:02 GMT

Test Browser and OS info: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.63 Safari/534.3

Test ID: VM73KPW9Q (if this is a screenshot go to testmy.net to see if this is fake)

Diagnosis: Seriously? Are you kidding me?: You are running at 486% of your hosts average (direcpc.com)

This was tested from a 25600 kB (25MB) file and took 44.13 seconds to complete

- HughesNet BETA team member

This information reflects performance using an HN9000 modem on the Elite Premium service plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your connection is: 4752 Kbps or 4.8 Mbps

You downloaded at: 580 kB/s

You are running: 83 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 1.77 second(s)

Member Ident:Username:jdirty CompID:896143566650

Test Time:: 2010-10-16 19:50:02 GMT

Test Browser and OS info: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.63 Safari/534.3

Test ID: VM73KPW9Q (if this is a screenshot go to testmy.net to see if this is fake)

Diagnosis: Seriously? Are you kidding me?: You are running at 486% of your hosts average (direcpc.com)

This was tested from a 25600 kB (25MB) file and took 44.13 seconds to complete

- HughesNet BETA team member

This information reflects performance using an HN9000 modem on the Elite Premium service plan.

Very nice, looks like they're moving in the right direction.

share2-VM73KPW9Q&dual=yes&q2=OW03SEUN9&.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you pay for those speeds? How large is the FAP bucket?

I pay nothing for those speeds, I am a HughesNet BETA team member.

Although you probably do not want to hear what it cost's, I will provide an answer.

In order to reach the 4.5 - 5.2 Mbit range, you would need to have the Elite Premium package, which is the highest level service plan available to consumers. The plan starts at $199.00/Month, but if you absolutely need those kinds of speeds, then it may be worth it to you.

You can get a frac T1 for the same price, but try getting a frac T1 in the middle of nowhere, cant do it.

The FAP bucket is 625MB (please keep in mind that ALL service plans have a higher allowance than what HughesNet currently advertises. All service plans should have a 25% increase over the advertised amount (ProPlus = 525 but is only advertised at 425))

There are MANY things happening behind the scenes at HughesNet right now, expect service and performance increases, along with improvements to Turbo Page and the FAP algorithm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAP is what get you, even downloading at speeds like that you still can't get yourself a decent movie without being hit, and for $200 a month I would expect a 10ms Ping time. At the end of the day its still satellite and the latency is the biggest issue with it.

Great speed..... I like that. But certainly not for $200 and a 625Mb Bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great speeds, thanx for sharing. Hopefully the speeds go up for the price paid per plan someday but to be honest I am very happy with the service I get now and as far as the pings go they won't improve past 650ms and I am happy with that is I could get it most of the time like I used too but really they are not that bad right now. I would do a test and show off my speed but it is super foggy outside and things are a bit slow this evening so I will wait and at it tomorrow evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pay nothing for those speeds, I am a HughesNet BETA team member.

I have been a Hughesnet customer for over 5 years now, have been thru 4 modem upgrades because the service would run fine for a while then crap out. Each time, they would send out a tech who would spend hours trying to make it work. Then out of frustration I would take the plunge and upgrade the system.

Right now I have the Pro package, HN9000 (two months old), and my speeds are still crappy. I am also upset that I lost 75mb of FAP because I now have the HN9000. Used to have 375mb. Now only have 300mb. I live in the high desert area 45 minutes north of Los Angeles, so the weather is clear 98% of the year. I have several computers from 3 years old to a brand new laptop, so my equipment is NOT an issue. Before you ask, yes, I have a router, but I have also tested the HN9000 using a direct connect. Makes no difference in the level of performance. Check out my test scores. https://testmy.net/quickstats/JCDisciple

I am not a paranoid-type, but I suspect the Hughesnet business model is designed to initially meet the demand of the consumer, then gradually phase out QOS, forcing an upgrade periodically.

HOW DO I QUALIFY TO BECOME A HUGHESNET BETA MEMBER? I think I deserve some sort of compensation for the many lost hours of phone time with the CSR, down time, and total anxiety and frustration I have experienced. I depend on my ISP for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okies, here go's.

Download Connection is:: 1844 Kbps about 1.8 Mbps (tested with 6152 kB)

Download Speed is:: 225 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-10-22 14:32:58 GMT

Bottom Line:: 32X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 4.55 sec

Tested from a 6152 kB file and took 27.332 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 201% of hosts average (Direcway.com)

Your connection is: 200 Kbps or 0.2 Mbps

You uploaded at: 24 kB/s

You are running: 3 times faster than 56K and can upload 1 megabyte in 42.67 second(s)

Member Ident:Username:zeddlar CompID:169226882257

Test Time:: 2010-10-22 14:36:24 GMT

Test Browser and OS info: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; FunWebProducts; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; FDM; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET4.0C; Creative AutoUpdate v1.40.01)

Test ID: F38ER5167 (if this is a screenshot go to testmy.net to see if this is fake)

Diagnosis ^info^: Awesome!: You are running at 127% of your hosts average (direcway.com)

Not to shabby, the download speed will drop in a couple of hours down to 1.6 or 1.7 during primetime. Thats a far sight better than my old hn7000 system and hopefully it stays that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you become a BETA team member?

Good question.. I'll get to that in just a moment.

First, let me post another amazing download speed test that I just ran:

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

Download Connection is:: 6993 Kbps about 7 Mbps (tested with 6152 kB)

Download Speed is:: 854 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-10-22 23:48:09 GMT

Bottom Line:: 122X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.2 sec

Tested from a 6152 kB file and took 7.207 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 716% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/VHQXT3CW1

That is 7 Megs over a satellite link. Anyone able to pull the actual fastest speed recorded for Direcpc.com and compare?

Note: HughesNet Elite Premium - HN9000 - Consumer dish/radio

(Please also note that this is not my actual service plan. I am currently testing on this service level, and was able to get speed tests. My normal service plan is ProPlus)

While I'm pretty sure they are not accepting new betas, the only process that I know of is the application process that was made available to HughesNet customers only after signing in to the Customer Care website. I know that applicants were screened based on information submitted on application, site usage patterns, and overall system reliability/performance. We do not receive any special treatment or discount (other than maybe the benefit of having some faster speeds while conducting tests). I say that I dont pay anything for those speeds because I simply pay my normal service plan fee, and I do not have to pay for Elite Premium while testing it, I still have to pay my normal service plan fee for ProPlus. We simply test and improve and we are focused on providing HughesNet with the most accurate data possible so that the dev team can provide the best improvements.

While that may seem hard to believe, after reading all the horror stories. But people only bother with reporting the problems, and the downtimes, so that's all people see.

I have been a HughesNet customer for 6 years. I signed up when the DW7000 was the new modem. The only issue's I've ever had with my system was FAP related, and completely my fault. A random outage here and there, but thats it. Speeds are always on par, and while it's not impressive performance in the broadband arena, considering the technology involved, the service is excellent. I'm in an area that will likely not see broadband solutions for a very very long time, if ever. I'm also in an area where there is a large collection of HughesNet customers, my road is only a quarter mile long with 8 houses, and 4 of us have HughesNet. And it's the same all over around here.. so that would translate into me being part of a crowded uplink cell, but I never have issue's other than rain fade problems at whatever NOCC I'm connected through at that time. (Las Vegas NOCC is a good one, hardly ever rains)

People need to stop expecting land-based broadband performance from HughesNet. Yeah we got a 500ms avg ping response, yes the signal travels over 30,000 miles before it even reaches the NOCC, and while we can do it at under a second, it just is not fast enough for some. Maybe we should string cables from the terminals all the way to the bird, and see what kind of ping response time you get then.

Yea, the FAP sucks, but as MANY MANY of us have already done, you need to deal with it, learn to adjust your usage patterns to comply with the policy, and just get used to it, or get dial up, whichever makes you happier. I have 4 PC's wired in to a dd-wrt router, all 4 machines are used throughout the day with no consideration of allowance usage, all 4 machines are actively used and we still dont come close to hitting FAP. From time to time, heavier usage might cause us to have to take it easy on particular activities until the reset.. but it's still an infinite amount better than 56k, and anyone who claims that dial up is better than HughesNet is just talking out of there rear end and they need to be horse-whipped.

All of my equipment is backed up by VR-based APC UPS's, I've had an 87 day uptime on an HN9000. That is incredible, considering the hardware and sophistication of what that little box is actually doing, and shows that the terminal code is solid/stable. Turbo Page is tricky, but no matter what anyone says, it improves performance of web site loading over satellite transactions, by reducing back and forth communications. Not only is it a huge performance benefit, it's a FAP saver! Turn off Turbo Page and watch your usage. Turning it off increases data sent over the spacelink, wasting your FAP allowance. It's not planned that way to punish someone for not using Turbo Page, it just goes to show you exactly how much it is actually helping!

Do not fall victim to the lazy installer that only wants to sell you a pole mount. I have had 3 actual install's, two of which would have been complete failures if I had not been supervising. I was not here for the last install (for an HN9000) it was so poorly done, a different install company (the orginal install company went out of business) had to fix problems such as impromper ground block placement, improper ground, improper cable splice and a coax connector that came apart. When I say impromper, I mean the system was not grounded at all, and the coax was not going through a ground block before entering the house.

HughesNet payed for a whole reinstall, basically.. replacing all cables, and properly grounding everything.

I can almost guarantee that a majority of the problems reported are completely unrelated to the actual HughesNet service. Slow speeds and unknown usage.. something else is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.. I'll get to that in just a moment.

First, let me post another amazing download speed test that I just ran:

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

Download Connection is:: 6993 Kbps about 7 Mbps (tested with 6152 kB)

Download Speed is:: 854 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-10-22 23:48:09 GMT

Bottom Line:: 122X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.2 sec

Tested from a 6152 kB file and took 7.207 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 716% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/VHQXT3CW1

I haven't had a chance to read over your whole post... about to leave my house. But DAMN, 7Mbps off satellite is awesome. Can you sustain that over a larger download though? I saw a test of yours that was 25MB @ ~5Mbps... but I don't know what the conditions outside were. Post up results from a larger test with clear skies if you could please.

- CA3LE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

The FAP bucket is 625MB (please keep in mind that ALL service plans have a higher allowance than what HughesNet currently advertises. All service plans should have a 25% increase over the advertised amount (ProPlus = 525 but is only advertised at 425))

There are MANY things happening behind the scenes at HughesNet right now, expect service and performance increases, along with improvements to Turbo Page and the FAP algorithm.

Are all of these improvements for the 9000 series modems only, or do those of us on the Ku Band get to see some of these gains also? Overall the service is very usable and I'm grateful I have it (ProPlus + fixed IP). The 11PM to 4AM PDT FAP free download is also a huge improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAP is what get you, even downloading at speeds like that you still can't get yourself a decent movie without being hit, and for $200 a month I would expect a 10ms Ping time. At the end of the day its still satellite and the latency is the biggest issue with it.

Great speed..... I like that. But certainly not for $200 and a 625Mb Bucket.

Last time I had Hughes, it sucked. THEN once we switch away, it doesn't. BS if you ask me.

I prefer MetaLink (My current ISP) as they don't have a FAP limit, and it's always a 1Mb connection, Rain, Snow, whatever. (It's an antenna-based service.)

I just pinged TMN 4 times with 1024bytes (1Kbyte), and got an average latency of 66ms. Beats the hell out of the old 300ms Hughes timing. (I can actually play my Xbox 360 online with Metalink.)

I tried to test my connection, but FF keeps pausing at 88% on the download test. So it's saying it's slower that it actually is. I'll get one later.

Edit:

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

Download Connection is:: 1395 Kbps about 1.4 Mbps (tested with 1.5 MB)

Download Speed is:: 170 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-11-03 14:42:45 GMT -7

Bottom Line:: 24X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 6.02 sec

Tested from a 2 MB file and took 9.02 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 151% of hosts average (Metalink.net)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/NSC5UAMRF

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E) [!]

(1Mbps Connection, getting 1.4. And that's consistent.)

Thanks,

EBrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I had Hughes, it sucked. THEN once we switch away, it doesn't. BS if you ask me.

Satelite will always suck unless you just have to have it. IMO No matter the speed there will never be a way to stop signal lag of a 45.000 mile signal journey. :buck2:

You also have to own all your own euipment, which is outdated by them often. So yeah it will always 'suck'.

Edited by tommie gorman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satelite will always suck unless you just have to have it. IMO No matter the speed there will never be a way to stop signal lag of a 45.000 mile signal journey. :buck2:

You also have to own all your own euipment, which is outdated by them often. So yeah it will always 'suck'.

You do not have to own anything. I pay a simple 10 bucks a month to lease the equipment. Not only is that a reasonable fee for the technology involved, but it also guarantees a warranty on everything you are leasing. If you own it, you gotta replace it if it breaks.

anyways..

Here is another test, only 6MB size but most of my downloads are small, so this is relative to the actual performance I am used to.

Sat Nov 06 2010 @ 12:09:28 pm Download = 6 MB Speed= 6.41 Mbps (783 kB/s) Comp ID: 896143566650 Host: direcpc.com Test ID: EXIC30AT8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to own anything. I pay a simple 10 bucks a month to lease the equipment. Not only is that a reasonable fee for the technology involved, but it also guarantees a warranty on everything you are leasing. If you own it, you gotta replace it if it breaks.

anyways..

Here is another test, only 6MB size but most of my downloads are small, so this is relative to the actual performance I am used to.

Sat Nov 06 2010 @ 12:09:28 pm Download = 6 MB Speed= 6.41 Mbps (783 kB/s) Comp ID: 896143566650 Host: direcpc.com Test ID: EXIC30AT8

they sure changed in the last couple of years then. So by leasing can you leave at the drop of the hat also? If so not sure why everyone one would not go that way. Not being strapped to a contract would be nice. As to those speeds, yes those are nice. :smitten:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they sure changed in the last couple of years then. So by leasing can you leave at the drop of the hat also? If so not sure why everyone one would not go that way. Not being strapped to a contract would be nice. As to those speeds, yes those are nice. :smitten:

It's a 2 year commitment. Contract's suck, we all know that. But not bad if Hughes is your only broadband provider. I do not have to worry about finishing out a contract if landbased broadband makes it to where I live, because it will never happen. So the commitment is not a problem, the 2 years I'm in a contract, is 2 years that I have some leverage (others may see it the other way), but I have used the contract's stipulations several times to gain advantages (such as an installation repair that went sour).

People also must keep in mind that Hughes has a prime directive. PROTECT GUARANTEED BANDWIDTH AT ALL COST

They provide connectivity for a lot more than some people know about. A major service they provide to gov. and business contracts is guaranteed bandwidth. Some people dont realize (with the correct hardware) the satellite link can do 30Mbits down and 16Mbits up. Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive, and must be protected at all costs.

They also advertise the ability to link several spot beams in order to move up to 440Mbits, allowing major networks the ability to move a whole lot of data over the space link very quickly. This bandwidth is protected, and measures are built in to guarantee the availability of bandwidth to enterprise customers who pay for it.

Keep in mind, the consumer side is the 'bottom feeders'... they just sell leftover bandwidth to the consumer (and dont guarantee it). People think 100 bucks a month is steep, those bus. and gov. contracts are of the highest importance to Hughes, as well should be.

And to prove consistency, and show off another sweet test result:

Your connection is: 9043 Kbps or 9 Mbps

You downloaded at: 1104 kB/s or 1.1 MB/s

You are running: 158 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 0.93 second(s)

Member Ident:Username:jdirty CompID:896143566650

Test Time:: 2010-11-07 09:20:27 GMT -7

Test Browser and OS info: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

Test ID: YX1DH5T6B (if this is a screenshot go to testmy.net to see if this is fake)

Diagnosis ^info^: Seriously? Are you kidding me?: You are running at 838% of your hosts average (Direcpc.com)

Yes, I know it's only a 6MB file, but as stated in a previous post, most of my downloads are around that size, so that is an accurate display of performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a 2 year commitment. Contract's suck, we all know that. But not bad if Hughes is your only broadband provider. I do not have to worry about finishing out a contract if landbased broadband makes it to where I live, because it will never happen. So the commitment is not a problem, the 2 years I'm in a contract, is 2 years that I have some leverage (others may see it the other way), but I have used the contract's stipulations several times to gain advantages (such as an installation repair that went sour).

People also must keep in mind that Hughes has a prime directive. PROTECT GUARANTEED BANDWIDTH AT ALL COST

They provide connectivity for a lot more than some people know about. A major service they provide to gov. and business contracts is guaranteed bandwidth. Some people dont realize (with the correct hardware) the satellite link can do 30Mbits down and 16Mbits up. Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive, and must be protected at all costs.

They also advertise the ability to link several spot beams in order to move up to 440Mbits, allowing major networks the ability to move a whole lot of data over the space link very quickly. This bandwidth is protected, and measures are built in to guarantee the availability of bandwidth to enterprise customers who pay for it.

Keep in mind, the consumer side is the 'bottom feeders'... they just sell leftover bandwidth to the consumer (and dont guarantee it). People think 100 bucks a month is steep, those bus. and gov. contracts are of the highest importance to Hughes, as well should be.

And to prove consistency, and show off another sweet test result:

Your connection is: 9043 Kbps or 9 Mbps

You downloaded at: 1104 kB/s or 1.1 MB/s

You are running: 158 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 0.93 second(s)

Member Ident:Username:jdirty CompID:896143566650

Test Time:: 2010-11-07 09:20:27 GMT -7

Test Browser and OS info: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12

Test ID: YX1DH5T6B (if this is a screenshot go to testmy.net to see if this is fake)

Diagnosis ^info^: Seriously? Are you kidding me?: You are running at 838% of your hosts average (Direcpc.com)

Yes, I know it's only a 6MB file, but as stated in a previous post, most of my downloads are around that size, so that is an accurate display of performance.

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

Download Connection is:: 6461 Kbps about 6.5 Mbps (tested with 6 MB)

Download Speed is:: 789 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-11-08 07:44:26 GMT -7

Bottom Line:: 113X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.3 sec

Tested from a 6 MB file and took 7.8 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 594% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/JE10ZXNWC

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 [!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Download Connection is:: 7211 Kbps about 7.2 Mbps (tested with 6 MB)

Download Speed is:: 880 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-11-09 16:53:59 GMT -7

Bottom Line:: 126X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.16 sec

Tested from a 6 MB file and took 6.989 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 664% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/MDBFV7PQN

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 [!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Download Connection is:: 8277 Kbps about 8.3 Mbps (tested with 6 MB)

Download Speed is:: 1010 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-11-10 08:49:41 GMT -7

Bottom Line:: 144X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.01 sec

Tested from a 6 MB file and took 6.089 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 761% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/SWLQ5VPEX

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 [!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have fixed their goofed update cause I am at half my plan speed and have been at least that the last couple of days, I was at 10% speed for about a week and a half or 2 weeks. Will be glad if they got it all worked out.

There has been issue's with the Elite level service plan (Note: that Elite Plus & Elite Premium does not seem to be affected - maybe regular elite is oversold?), I am noticing quite a few reports of dramatic slowdowns on Elite, but as far as I know, only Gen4's were affected. Do you know what generation terminal you are using? I am using Gen3, and from what I have seen, Gen3's are unaffected. More reports from users stating their generation model terminal might be able to shed a little light on what's going on.

I am on Elite Premium, and I do not notice any degradation of speeds during the PITs, but web responsiveness definitely seems to be slightly affected, however I do not notice drastic improvements with web browsing at 5-7 Mbits, once you hit around 3.5 - 4 Mbits on satellite, the web browsing aspect does not speed up anymore, it's really only beneficial for the download side of the equation.

Elite Premium is sold as the highest consumer tier available, and starts at $349.00/month. But as you can see from my speed tests, if you cant get 5 Mbit because of geographical location, it may be worth it to some of the few who have that much to spend on it. Large (20MB) downloads average 4.8-5.0 Mbits, but if you are downloading smaller items, expect to see 5.0-8.0 Mbits. Still only 300kbps upstream (which is the same as advertised for Elite/Plus) But I dont personally care about uploads, my network rarely needs to use uploads except for maybe pictures to facebook and whatnot, and the uplink side does not affect FAP allowance. You can stream up all day without impacting your daily usage. Which is kind of good, if you do have to rely on uploading throughout your activities online.

Most recent speed test results:

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

Download Connection is:: 7657 Kbps about 7.7 Mbps (tested with 6 MB)

Download Speed is:: 935 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Dallas, TX USA)

Test Time:: 2010-11-13 17:21:03 GMT -7

Bottom Line:: 134X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 1.1 sec

Tested from a 6 MB file and took 6.582 seconds to complete

Download Diagnosis:: Running at 702% of hosts average (Direcpc.com)

D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/db/102ALNHVO

User Agent:: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 [!]

Download 7 Day Stats (Overall Average = 5874 Kbps :: 717 KB/sec)

Upload 7 Day Stats (Overall Average = 258 Kbps :: 31 KB/sec)

Download 30 Day Stats (Overall Average = 5420 Kbps :: 662 KB/sec)

Upload 30 Day Stats (Overall Average = 213 Kbps :: 26 KB/sec)

Direcpc.com download average = 1.1 Mbps or 134 KB/s 5217 records found

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must have fixed their goofed update cause I am at half my plan speed and have been at least that the last couple of days, I was at 10% speed for about a week and a half or 2 weeks. Will be glad if they got it all worked out.

Could you please specify what your commissioning software version is, along with the operating version too.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...