Re: Data limits - Page 2 - Hughesnet Community

gaines_wright · ‎07-01-2018

Why are there data limits?

At first glance, data limits seem to make sense. at least for satellite systems, due to the high cost of putting a satellite in orbit, etc. OTOH I suspect that no one has ever been been turned down when trying to purchase more data. "Sorry, we can't sell you more data. our satellite is fresh out".

Or, is that why one sees so many people here having speed problems with Hughes? Is someone who's sharing the same satellite resources constantly streaming movies?

Unfortunately This practice has also spread to cable internet suppliers. Where it absolutely makes no sense at all.

I've read that at one time cable isps spent about 20 percent of their revenue on basic infrastructure. Now, the cost of routers, switching equipment and other related gear has declined so much that a typical companys infrastructure costs are now only around 1.5 percent.

Why is it just now that some companies are implementing data limits? Is it because of movie streamers like netflix and hulu? Since some of these same companys have cable tv assets. are they trying to discourage cord cutting?

Of course, cable data limits are as large as 1 terabyte, which we Hughes users can only dream about.

"A generation which ignores history has no past—and no future."
Lazarus Long

gaines_wright · ‎08-08-2018

mikef's issue has absolutely nothing to do with Hughes and everything to do with the internet becoming more data intensive as time goes on.

Well, I just reread all of his posts, and I certainly can't see how you could come up with that conclusion.
I guess it's like Leonard Cohen sang: "everybody knows".

But, with that said, we're so very lucky that you're here to set us all straight, gaines_wright!

I'm afraid it's a hopeless task! One couldn't cut the smug condescension around here with a machete!

GabeU · ‎08-08-2018

@gaines_wright wrote:
mikef's issue has absolutely nothing to do with Hughes and everything to do with the internet becoming more data intensive as time goes on.

Well, I just reread all of his posts, and I certainly can't see how you could come up with that conclusion.

All two, or did you miss his second one on the other thread? And, considering his only mention of anything actually having to do with the service was his "piece of the pie getting smaller" over time in reference to data limits, you may want to read his two sentences a little more carefully. Perhaps you can enlighten me with YOUR conclusion. Again, make sure to re-read "all of his posts." All two.

@gaines_wright wrote:
But, with that said, we're so very lucky that you're here to set us all straight, gaines_wright!

I'm afraid it's a hopeless task! One couldn't cut the smug condescension around here with a machete!

If the shoe fits. And you're the one who made the inflammatory comment about what was simply an informational reply, explaining why his piece of the pie is getting smaller over time.

Brooke · ‎08-08-2018

Hi MikeF, I notice you're replying to old threads. To get better assistance, if you have any concerns you'd like for us to address, please start your own and state in detail what issues you're experiencing and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Brooke

GabeU · ‎07-01-2018

@gaines_wright

As touched on by maratsade, data limits for HughesNet are required because of the limited throughput. They keep the service usable for everyone. Without data limits it would be like trying to drive 50,000 cars per hour down a road designed for 5,000. Not only would the beams and gateways be stressed, but system would, as a whole. Think a digital traffic jam. The data limits force people to make a choice as to when they use their high speed data, keeping the system usable for everyone.

As for purchasing more data: Purchasing tokens doesn't affect the system very much because it's a drop in the bucket, so to speak. The number of people who buy tokens is comparatively small, as is the token data purchased. Upgrading to a higher data package, OTOH, can affect the system quite a bit, which is why the data packages available are now being regulated in areas where the beams and/or gateways have a higher load. I used to have the 50GB package available to me. I can only upgrade to the 30GB package, today. It's the same for new customers in my area. The 30GB package is the highest they can get.

As for ground based services, it is very likely due to all of the streaming, which is the most data intensive activity being done on the net. The components of the infrastructure may be coming down in price, but that doesn't mean the infrastructure is in place to support the much higher loads as of late. If everything were unchecked the load a year from now might be twice what it currently is. Without something like data limits in place, again, the system slows to a crawl. The infrastructure isn't growing at the same rate as data demand. And, again, the vast majority of that is due to streaming. Plus, there is a lot of 4k streaming now, which stresses the system even more. What a few homes used two years ago, data wise, one home uses now. That's not exact, of course, but I think you understand what I mean. 4k streaming requires more than six times the bandwidth of HD streaming.

debbie.jean.bro · ‎07-01-2018

I agree with GabeU. If everybody bought massive tokens monthly, it would overload the system quickly. But people hate spending extra money and tokens are expensive enough that very few customers, relatively speaking, buy lots of them regularly.

Obviously, video streaming takes up the most bandwidth, followed by music, followed by text, which takes up so little that I can do research all day every day and barely put a dent in my data allowance. Even playing iTunes really doesn't use up all that much. But watch a couple of movies...oh boy!

Gabe, I could only dream of 30 gb per month! My limit is 20 out here. OTOH, maybe that's why I never have any problems...they're keeping only 3,000 cars on that road, lol! 😀

GabeU · ‎07-01-2018

@debbie.jean.bro

I get by pretty well with the 20GB plan I currently have. With the exception of one time, about three months ago, I have never come close to going over my data limit. A lot of times I use less of my Bonus Zone data than my Anytime Data, if you can believe that. As of today I have four days left before my cycle starts again, and this is what I have left....

When I had Gen4 I had the 10GB plan, and, most likely due to Gen4's data compression being so good, I rarely ever used more than 6GB of Anytime Data, and even less Bonus Bytes.

And, the following is not a joke...

That's my folks, who have Gen4. Mostly Facebook and baseball related sites, and they use it nearly every day, or I'd say six out of seven days of the week. And people used to joke that I was a data miser! LOL. They don't try to do this (using so little data), it's just the way it works out. That fantastic Gen4 data compression, again. They use a Windows 7 laptop, and that's it, so it probably uses very little data in the first place (they do have automatic Windows updates set up).

gaines_wright · ‎07-02-2018

. And, again, the vast majority of that is due to streaming. Plus, there is a lot of 4k streaming now, which stresses the system even more.

I quickly learned that streaming would quicky use up all of my data. Back in those days, data usage was by the day and they would throttle you down to dial up speeds when exceeded, which made it impossible to stream.

Now the throttling isn't so bad. Can one still stream after being throttled? If so, we're back to my theory that data caps are more about money than anything else.

HISTORY, n.  An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant,
which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly
fools.  The Devils Dictionary

GabeU · ‎07-02-2018

@gaines_wright wrote:

Now the throttling isn't so bad. Can one still stream after being throttled? If so, we're back to my theory that data caps are more about money than anything else.

The ability to stream while in FAP depends on what your speed is and how loaded your beam is. Some people have been able to. Only in SD or lower, though, as far as I know.

Though you may have one, there's no theory necessary to explain data caps as the reason they're in place has been explained over and over again. It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with system capacity and throughput. Data caps were around long before the first bit was ever streamed.

gaines_wright · ‎07-02-2018

@GabeU wrote:
@gaines_wright wrote:

Though you may have one, there's no theory necessary to explain data caps as the reason they're in place has been explained over and over again. It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with system capacity and throughput. Data caps were around long before the first bit was ever streamed.
Well, that's the isp companies line.
OTOH there are other theories::
https://www.cio.com/article/3075975/internet-service-providers/what-big-isps-dont-want-you-to-know-a...

GabeU · ‎07-02-2018

@gaines_wright

So, your "OTOH refutation" is an article about data caps on ground based services that have hundreds, if not thousands of times more throughput and total capacity than satellite internet? SMH.

Perhaps it's this "ISP companies (sic) line" because it's based in fact.

There's no point in continuing this discussion, at least from my end. Facts, and the reasons based on those facts, don't seem to matter to you. Conjecture, OTOH, does.

Have a great day.