Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CookeSat

New remote Sat connection. Test Results.

Recommended Posts

I just got a new sat connection for my business.  I live in a very remote area and sat was my only option.  So far I am very pleased with the results.  I get these results any time of day. 

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

Connection is:: 2763 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB)

Download Speed is:: 337 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:28:49 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 49X faster than 56K 1MB download in 3.04 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 40.97 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-LP3EMDN76

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

Connection is:: 2816 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Download Speed is:: 344 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:29:57 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 50X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.98 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 43.6 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-QL32W05X8

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

Connection is:: 2804 Kbps about 2.8 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Download Speed is:: 342 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:31:08 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 50X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.99 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 42.92 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-S6JGPTWA8

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

Connection is:: 334 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 579 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 41 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:32:10 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 24.98 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 43.97 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-NSO5AJQ3W

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

Connection is:: 366 Kbps about 0.4 Mbps (tested with 1013 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 45 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server1)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:35:13 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 7X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 22.76 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 57.76 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-A8RB3M560

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

Connection is:: 347 Kbps about 0.3 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB)

Upload Speed is:: 42 kB/s

Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2)

Test Time:: Thu Nov 03 2005 17:38:41 GMT-0700

Bottom Line:: 6X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 24.38 sec

Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 49.57 % faster than the average for host (wctc.net)

Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-2PEHW9L8D

Now I will read and see about any tweaks.  Im using a Surfbeam modem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a bit more than Dway contracts, although there are many plans for lower speeds which dont cost more or much more than the Dway plans.  The most important thing, in my mind is that I actually get close to or at the advertised speeds no matter what time of day.

For instance 1.5 down .128 up is $109,  1 down .128 up is $89, .5 down .128 up is $69.  I realize Dway advertises higher rates than those for similar prices but do you get them every time you log on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went with www.skyvistasat.com.  They definitely seem to be a newer up and coming, but after talking with many of the different companies, I felt good about going with these guys.  I really havent found many other users on the forums out there yet at this point.  The setup is a 1.2m dish w/ 4 watt transmitter, although you can get the more affordable 2 watt setup.  I got the 4 watt setup so that I could go with as big or little plan as I wanted in the future, upgrade or downgrade my plan according to seasons for my business.  It also uses a Surfbeam modem which is a cable modem setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its still Satellite no matter what so for pings there are barriers that dont seem to be broken.  BUT here are some results.  I have done many other websites and they all come back similar.  These results seem very good compared to other satellite users results.

network182-40:~ Robert$ ping yahoo.com

PING yahoo.com (216.109.112.135): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=638.717 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=644.156 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=650.712 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=646.417 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=657.697 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=642.419 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=637.337 ms

64 bytes from 216.109.112.135: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=604.116 ms

^C

--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good speed, decent pings. no way to tweak the speed of light though. too bad there's no low earth orbit network for sat access. well, there is, iridium, but 15 bucks a minute or so for a 64 k connection. arrgh.

btw that's what the cnn and other news blocky videophone thingy uses, they bundle two iridium channels to get 128k to send that glorified webcam crap from anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PING testmy.net (67.18.179.85): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=609.177 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=698.194 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=696.99 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=689.438 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=700.09 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=656.545 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=651.724 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=649.728 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=649.46 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=663.232 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=650.67 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=660.209 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=614.192 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=13 ttl=54 time=609.186 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=14 ttl=54 time=612.379 ms

64 bytes from 67.18.179.85: icmp_seq=15 ttl=54 time=615.416 ms

^C

--- testmy.net ping statistics ---

the signal is strong as always in some pretty heavy snowfall right now also. 

My next question is tweaking the settings on my Mac.  I ran BO and changed the settings several times.  Maybe I saw a 100k change and maybe I didnt.  It could have just been luck of the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dn0 I have noticed that on this board there are a few guys who had snowmobile avatars.  I am in Cooke City, Montana.  The snotel site got up to 32.4" last night and that is generally and indication that higher up in the riding area could be double that easy in places.  We (Cooke City) are a favorite destination for snowmobiling generally ranked in the top 3 in the nation every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dn0 I have noticed that on this board there are a few guys who had snowmobile avatars.  I am in Cooke City, Montana.  The snotel site got up to 32.4" last night and that is generally and indication that higher up in the riding area could be double that easy in places.  We (Cooke City) are a favorite destination for snowmobiling generally ranked in the top 3 in the nation every year.

You lucky SOB. That is some beautiful country you live in.

Been through there a long time ago.

I live in NE now, but lived in Oregon a few years back.

When I took vacation to come back home, I always drove so I could basically go exploring.

Drove all around Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc.

If I recall, isn't there a section of Hwy 212 that is at 12,000 feet elevation to the W/SW of you? Or is that a different highway I am thinking of.

Enjoy the snow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the HWY.  We are on 212 as you come out the NE entrance of Yellowstone.  Then 212 goes up in the Beartooths and over Beartooth Pass.  It drops down the other side to Red Lodge, MT.  Granite peak, the highest peak in MT is in the Beartooths.  212 is a very windy twisty road, named one of the most scenic in the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the HWY.  We are on 212 as you come out the NE entrance of Yellowstone.  Then 212 goes up in the Beartooths and over Beartooth Pass.  It drops down the other side to Red Lodge, MT.  Granite peak, the highest peak in MT is in the Beartooths.  212 is a very windy twisty road, named one of the most scenic in the country. 

That's what I thought, I have been through your town.

So, what do you do for vacation?

Do you drive through the Nebraska plains? Or visit the corn fields in Iowa? :haha: :haha:

I definitely miss the mountain life, I was never bored, and I am one of the few that likes snow as opposed to 95

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...