Forum Discussion
Control of Tokens for Customer Speed Controls?
Hello, First post, so greetings! I feel that the data allowance is too small for the money spent, and would prefer "anything" other than satellite, but so far being with HughesNet on Gen5 for...
I appreciate the input and suggestions, but I beg to differ on a couple points:
I disagree that people would leave if ground-based (or viable cellular) service came to be. There is always a cost, and sometimes being able to deal with "the devil you know" is easier. So if the "product" (Hughesnet service) were set up to be such that people didn't feel they were being ripped off and angry in order to have what is fast becoming recognized as an important part of modern life (we'll leave that debatable value for another discussion, eh?) then they might opt to retain it. I might, in fact, if it came to pass, since my property is down a very long lane, and is very secluded. So regardless of the speed and reliability, or even a cheaper month to month cost, I would weigh the benefits of changing over very carefully before dropping HughesNet IF (big IF) the plans were tailored more to actual people and actual usage.
I had an 80GB cap on my DSL service in my last location. What really rankled were the 1M upload speeds. 10M down, 1M up, 80GB cap, BUT .. with data rollover ... yeah .... so I never really had to worry, as my usage drops considerably in the summer, and then I could use the rollover (data I PAID for) in winter. Other than the stupid slow upload speed, it worked well. I was very happy with 10M download, and could actually stream Vimeo. However, with what speedtest reports for me now, as 35M down, I cannot stream Vimeo. So it's not a 1:1 comparison anyway. The speed itself, due largely to latency, most likely, is another red herring. Fast, yes, and I LOVE the faster upload!, but the speed test results are not "real world".
So usability is a thing, yeah. There are times when the several seconds "wait time" rankles, but I get over that quickly. I don't mind not being able to play games online (I'm not allowed to anyway, marital bliss being the primary factor) and since cellular service works here so well, I no longer have need for VOIP. So it's "mostly" working for me.
I have the data of my usage. I can look at my history. So I know what I want, and how I want to use it. But it seems like internet and cellular companies design their services to PREVENT people from customizing their accounts. Yes, they do. And they do it for one reason: If people actually were able to avoid spending thier money in wasteful ways, they would not pay as much, and the subsidization of the "deadbeat" customers (yeah, those who pay attention, and curtail their spending) would not occur, and the company would not make enough money to pay for theri own expenses, much less make a profit. I get that.
My usage usually is NOT just downloads. I manage video on sites, and upload, and tag, etc. A lot of my usage is not just upload/download, but actual activity, which requires me to be somewhat awake. Like now. (lay off the coffee, buddy)
But I am very very surprised that no-one else has thought of being able to control data tokens (on/off). I've always wanted one, but never had one (original thought) ... so I'm a little bit complimented, but again, really surprised no-one has conceived of such a thing.
Speaking of tokens, you did not mention my comment regarding "satellite internet is limited" in that I stated I could buy a thousand 50GB tokens ... how is that limited? I would like your thoughts on that, if you please. (not being snarky ... I really think it is a DECISION to artificially limit the bandwidth, especially here in Alaska, where we share a time zone with ... um ... no-one ... in order to maximise profit at the expense of customer's happy feelings).
I do like hearing that the company has ears though, and if a way could be found to allow for the use of data token control, there would be a lot more happy customers and perhaps the satellites would not become space junk so soon.
At least HN is light years better than Starband!!! (which I had 2002-2005, and I HATED them ... !)
Lollipop wrote:I appreciate the input and suggestions, but I beg to differ on a couple points:
I disagree that people would leave if ground-based (or viable cellular) service came to be. There is always a cost, and sometimes being able to deal with "the devil you know" is easier. So if the "product" (Hughesnet service) were set up to be such that people didn't feel they were being ripped off and angry in order to have what is fast becoming recognized as an important part of modern life (we'll leave that debatable value for another discussion, eh?) then they might opt to retain it. I might, in fact, if it came to pass, since my property is down a very long lane, and is very secluded. So regardless of the speed and reliability, or even a cheaper month to month cost, I would weigh the benefits of changing over very carefully before dropping HughesNet IF (big IF) the plans were tailored more to actual people and actual usage.
Well, I can say that myself, and most people that I've seen post in here, and others that I know who have HughesNet, feel differently. A service that is expensive, data restricted, not cord cutting or gaming friendly, and one that cuts out during bad weather, vs a service that is less expensive, has a very high or zero data restriction, is cord cutting friendly and isn't susceptible to bad weather. For me, it's a no brainer, and I like HughesNet very much. With HughesNet I have to watch my data usage carefully, I can't stream on a regular basis nor connect my DirecTV receiver to watch On Demand titles, I can't game, and I can't utilize if for the "Ticket to Work" program from Social Security because it's not reliable enough (that's my own and wouldn't apply to most), as well as a few other things. There just isn't a comparison, and for me, no matter how loyal I may feel about HughesNet, I'm a consumer, and I want the best I can get for the money I pay.
Lollipop wrote:Speaking of tokens, you did not mention my comment regarding "satellite internet is limited" in that I stated I could buy a thousand 50GB tokens ... how is that limited? I would like your thoughts on that, if you please. (not being snarky ... I really think it is a DECISION to artificially limit the bandwidth, especially here in Alaska, where we share a time zone with ... um ... no-one ... in order to maximise profit at the expense of customer's happy feelings).
How is it limited? Well, I suppose if you're well to do and you don't mind spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per month on data tokens so you can do the same things as an average user of ground based services, or $150,000 for your argument, it's not limited. That's kind of a silly argument, though. For the average user, it's limited. Actually, technically, it's unlimited, as you aren't cut off when you exhaust your monthly data allotment, but I'm speaking of high speed data.
And you're absolutely right, it is a decision to limit bandwidth, and necessarily so. The system has a finite throughput, and a throughput that is considerably smaller than ground based systems, and having high speed data caps keeps the system usable for everyone. Get rid of those data limits and it turns into this...
You can't drive 100,000 cars per hour across a bridge that's designed for a maximum of 5000 per hour, and not having data caps would create a situation like in the picture above, slowing the entire system to an absolute crawl. Much of the ground based infrastructure, which is used by many service providers, has very high throughput, but the satellite is a bottleneck, like the mentioned bridge. The data caps must be in place to limit the digital traffic. People are forced to decide when and for what they use their monthly data. And before you say anything about buying 1000 50GB tokens, the number of tokens people buy and use doesn't affect the system very much because the instance of such is relatively low.
