Forum Discussion
Buffering!
Thanks for the quick response, and I apologize for my satellite technology ignorance. I am old guy, so you can understand my thinking that a gateway in Wyoming would have more latency then one closer. Your explanation was very good, thank you.
As for the lanes, I was referring to channels, but stand corrected, there are a set number of channels. Here is a link about the channels - https://us.hitrontech.com/blog/what-are-network-channels-and-how-does-it-affect-my-wifi/ . So, I'm assuming the tech switched my channel from whatever it was on to channel 1, 6 or 11.
If I made anything up, it was not intentional and I apologize for the confusion.
Follow up question on latency, - if the distances are always the same, why do I get different latency values when running speed tests?
The WiFi itself is how the satellite internet is delivered to your devices and is completely independent upon satellite latency and speed. Depending upon the protocol used, your WiFi signal may use multiple channels to widen the available bandwidth from 20MHz, up to 80MHz. The only way this can be impeded is if you have one or more neighbors whose personal WiFi may be using one (or more) of those channels, therefore interfering with it and creating a problem with your local WiFi usage. Usually, WiFi systems will analyze the local environment and pick the first unused set of available channels, but there are WiFi channel scanners for computers that can detect them as well.
Regarding the latency values in speed tests: You shouldn't put any faith in them, primarily because of the way satellite internet works. The latency tests weren't designed for the inherent latency that occurs due to the sheer distances involved, nor the additional effects of beam and gateway loading from high intensity of pings that result from server-intense activities such as streaming. The results would be all over the place at any given time. The only credible latency test that should be used is the one provided in the System Control Center's Connectivity Test, which provides an accurate assessment of the latency between your computer and your particular ground station (Wyoming) that includes radio signal latency as well as any processing delays due to user congestion. Given that, any additional latency from the internet backbone, that the ground station is connected to, is negligible for all intents and purposes (basically milliseconds as compared to 600+ milliseconds).
Thanks for the great explanations. You knowledge of this is impressive. Perhaps you can explain
why it I get so-so streaming between 12pm and 4-5pm, then unusable streaming from 5ish to 11-12
and then so-so streaming again? I have plenty of data tokens, so shouldn't be throttled for that reason.This is why I was thinking congestion was the problem.
Could the 'beam' distribution you mentioned above be the problem?It is congestion: Other people are trying to stream at the same time, which is pounding the **bleep** out of the ground station. It doesn't take much to disrupt one person streaming, and it doesn't take too many people trying to stream to disrupt a ground station. Streaming is a very ping-intensive operation and the inherent latency impacts the timing required. It just gets exponentially worse as more people are banging away at constantly eroding time windows until the system just becomes unresponsive.
Thanks for the quick response, so if I understand correctly, the problem is that HughesNet has too many customers per ground station. Since they'll never limit the amount of customers, they should add more ground stations.
Is there anyway to tell what ground station I'm using and the number of users hitting it?I'm assuming snice you know these facts that HughesNet does also. If there are any HughesNet reps out there
what are you doing to remedy this situation?
For reference, regarding the streaming, you might want to look into PlayOn Cloud. It plays and records your chosen item on a 'cloud' based DVR, converts it to an mp4 file, then sends you a link so you can download it, whether manually, automatically or by scheduling, and then you can watch it on anything you have that can play mp4s, including Smart TVs. It doesn't work with all streaming services, but it supports most of the big ones.
Though it's not the same as streaming, it gets around the buffering, uses less of your data, and you can keep what you download forever, watching it anytime and however many times you want. maratsade and I both use it, and I've built up quite a library over the last few years. A library of hundreds of movies and TV shows. So many that I have an 8TB USB external HDD nearly 60% filled so far, which I keep connected to my TV.
It's just an idea, but compared to streaming the movies or TV shows you really want to watch it ends up being worth it.
Thanks for the info. I'll definitely look into it. How much of the cost will HughesNet cover, since it's needed because of
their poor service? (Just kidding, they'd probably charge extra if they found out)
