cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Latency Or Satellite Shortcomings?

New Poster

Re: Additional info about latency

I've already stated I've done the basics and the obvious. Google, Yahoo, ATT, Amazon and several more. I've used multiple devices in various ways and settings over several months using Ping. Testing.net gives consistently similar results even with ping being somewhat obsolete especially with IP6.

Let's go ahead and end this. I'm getting the same treatment that I did on the phone with Hughsnet concerning my dish being out of alignment. For months I was told there was nothing wrong. After corporate got involved with 2 different service calls it was finally resolved.

I'm certainly not going to go through that again on this medium.

Charles Benjamin Lucas
Highlighted
Professor

Re: Additional info about latency


@MarkJFine wrote:

 

A traceroute is even better, because it will show around three different values for each 'hop' in the route, and will allow you to determine which hops are creating the largest lags, thus allowing to pinpoint the problem.


Traceroutes are usually quite illuminating about the sorry state of the backbone. 

Professor

Re: Additional info about latency

As you wish, Charles, but you may want to wait to see if the corporate reps have an answer for you next week.  

Distinguished Professor IV

Re: Latency Or Satellite Shortcomings?


@Cblucas3 wrote:
There is all this talk of distance affecting latency which doesn't seem to wash. If the signal has to travel 88,000 miles latency shouldn't be an issue when the speed of light is considered.  

It's actually higher than that, because you aren't on an island on the equator, directly "under" the satellite.  It's more like the mid 90s or so.  The latency due soley to distance will be at least somewhere around 500ms, and the further your location and your gateway's location from the satellite, the higher it will be.   Add the infrastructure the signal has to travel through and that adds another 100ms or so.  

 

As others have stated, testmy's latency calculations of very often off by quite a bit, and consistently.  As also stated, the best latency calculations you can get are by running traceroutes.  

 

The ES19 satellite has a capacity of around 200 - 225Gbps.  HughesNet has approximately 1.4 million customers.  How many of those customers are connected to the ES19 sat is anyone's guess, but it's likely no more than half, as there are still numerous people connected to the ES17 and older satelites, though the older ones are dwindling.


AMD FX-6100 | Samsung 250GB 840 EVO SSD | Western Digital Blue 500GB HDD | 16GB DDR3-1866 | EVGA Geforce GTX 550ti | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Junior

Re: Additional info about latency


@Cblucas3 wrote:
You say testmy.net is not accurate. I believe it to be "real world".

 

Testmy is extremely accurate, no matter how much the white knights here want to protect HughesNet. I've found it to be very reflective of the latency issues that I am having as well, and apparently you are having as well.  I can't even get Facebook pages to load today without timing out.

 

Good luck getting HughesNet to acknowledge a problem. As you can see, they locked my thread where I was reporting it.

 

My guess is actually a data clog by CenturyLink.  You may be able to see this yourself by running a traceroute.  But then, that is just a guess.  HughesNet would actually know, but they aren't talking.

 

Other possibilities are oversaturation (overselling) of a beam, but I don't think so.  Bad traffic management or data shaping is also something to be considered.  These options would be the best possibilites, because HughesNet could actually do somethng about it. If it really is CenturyLink, it becomes harder as HughesNet may or many not have options available.  If they can route their data around CenturyLink, then the problem is fixable.  If CenturyLink is their connection to terrestrial internet, they we are all in a hole.

 

Good luck.  Hope it all works out for you.

Distinguished Professor IV

Re: Additional info about latency

@lighthope1 

 

They locked your threads because you keep blaming your issue on HughesNet and wanting them to fix it when it has been clearly demonstrated that the problem is with Century Link.  They can't fix a problem with Century Link any more than someone's vehicle manufacturer can fix potholes in roads around their home.

 

And you can claim all you want, but facts are facts.  Traceroutes are the most accurate demonstration of latency.


AMD FX-6100 | Samsung 250GB 840 EVO SSD | Western Digital Blue 500GB HDD | 16GB DDR3-1866 | EVGA Geforce GTX 550ti | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
New Poster

Re: Additional info about latency

No, I told the moderator I did not want to pursue it any longer especially in this medium. It took me a few months with the telephone to finally get a tech to my home. He had to come out a second time to finally fix an alignment issue with the dish.
It took that long because I was treated the same way here. Denying there was a problem and wasting time on simple fixes that are obvious to most people. Like checking if the modem is plugged in properly to the AC outlet. Absurdity!
Charles Benjamin Lucas
Assistant Professor

Re: Additional info about latency

Speed of light is not instantaneous, it's roughly 186,282 mi/sec. If the ground station is in San Diego, round trip for me in Virginia is roughly 97,462 miles. Simple math: 97,462 / 186,282  = 0.523 sec (or 523 mSec).

 

This is just for the four legs of the radio path of a 20GHz signal (me->sat->gs and back to me), which does not include any processing time at the satellite or internal to the ground station (roughly 75mS), nor any additonal latency between the ground station through it's provider on the terrestrial internet.

 

Should add that a traceroute shows all of this in real time.


* Disclaimer: I am a HughesNet customer and not a HughesNet employee. All of my comments are my own and do not necessarily represent HughesNet in any way.
Professor

Re: Additional info about latency

It seems the OP doesn't want any help unless it corroborates his incorrect assumptions, so it seems this thread should perhaps be closed. Mods?

 


@MarkJFine wrote:

Speed of light is not instantaneous, it's roughly 186,282 mi/sec. If the ground station is in San Diego, round trip for me in Virginia is roughly 97,462 miles. Simple math: 97,462 / 186,282  = 0.523 sec (or 523 mSec).

 

This is just for the four legs of the radio path of a 20GHz signal (me->sat->gs and back to me), which does not include any processing time at the satellite or internal to the ground station (roughly 75mS), nor any additonal latency between the ground station through it's provider on the terrestrial internet.

 

Should add that a traceroute shows all of this in real time.


New Poster

Re: Additional info about latency

As I stated before, if I'm missing something please let me know. What I posted are not assumptions. They are facts based on current physics. I did not intend to make any assumptions or statements without proper information. For instance I asked what the throughput of the satellite I am connected to. How many requests can it handle simultaneously? With 1.2 million subscribers I began wondering about overload.
So once again I ask. What am I missing that is causing my latency issues?
At 5 am I went online to visit many web sites. I began with being connected to Hughsnet. At this time of the morning I get fantastic download speeds and latency was tolerable. Maybe even within established parameters. However as the morning progressed I found myself thinking that if I don't switch to mobile data via my cellular provider I will be here all day.
I'm open to any suggestions or tips but please keep in mind I have the the basic level of troubleshooting and most likely all intermediate ones.
Charles Benjamin Lucas