cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

100gig, but 30gig for streaming

Highlighted
Senior

100gig, but 30gig for streaming

Since streaming services eat up so much internet traffic, why not a plan that ups the amount of data we have so we can download updates and other apps that are usually one-time downloads, but limit the amount of data from streaming sites?

 

So you get 100 gigs.  But if you download more than..say...30 gigs from Netflix, any more data from Netflix gets throttled.

 

More data available, but stops that bandwidth hogs.

5 REPLIES 5
Highlighted
Associate Professor

Re: 100gig, but 30gig for streaming

Because you're still potentially doubling people's allowance when the bandwidth isn't even there to support the current situation. You'd just be making it a lot worse and making people even more angry.


* 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.
Highlighted
Senior

Re: 100gig, but 30gig for streaming


@MarkJFine wrote:

Because you're still potentially doubling people's allowance when the bandwidth isn't even there to support the current situation. You'd just be making it a lot worse and making people even more angry.


 


@lighthope1 wrote:

Since streaming services eat up so much internet traffic, why not a plan that ups the amount of data we have so we can download updates and other apps that are usually one-time downloads, but limit the amount of data from streaming sites?

 

So you get 100 gigs.  But if you download more than..say...30 gigs from Netflix, any more data from Netflix gets throttled.

 

More data available, but stops that bandwidth hogs.


 It's the streaming that is killing the internet right now.  And before.  One of the problems customers have is that updates eat a lot of data.  But they are infrequent.

 

Really, just tossing ideas out there to drag HughesNet kicking and screaming into the 21 century.  Their data plans don't match what users need these days.  Especially since I think the Leos are going to eat them up.

 

Yes, equipment limits them.  That is a "them" problem.

Highlighted
Distinguished Professor II

Re: 100gig, but 30gig for streaming

Also, HN sells bandwidth; they don't tell people how to use it.  It's up to the user to decide how they will use their allowance. If HN restricted data by use, people would be up in arms. 

 


@MarkJFine wrote:

Because you're still potentially doubling people's allowance when the bandwidth isn't even there to support the current situation. You'd just be making it a lot worse and making people even more angry.


 

Highlighted
Associate Professor

Re: 100gig, but 30gig for streaming

Actually, it's a cost/profit/marketability problem.

 

Imgine the sunk cost in launching a satellite, running and maintaining around 20 ground stations with connections to the internet, and then having the staff to solve problems and do software/hardware maintenance.

 

Now imagine the number of terminals and the price to sell it at that's required to make it a profitable and sustainable business... Needs to be lots and lots of people, and there's still limited internet resources - the bandwidth you can actually pass through said satellite at any given time and still stay relatively operational, or:
    Total Bandwidth / # users = bandwidth available to each user

 

I think we once figured out that all you need are about 8000 people (400 per ground station) running an HD stream at any given time to bring the whole system to it's knees. Given that there are millions of subscribers, that's not hard to do.

 

What I'm trying to explain is that there are 2 immutable facts:
1. The system has limited resources that can't be changed without increasing the capacity of the satellite.

2. The system will always have a minimum 500mS lag time as long as it's geosynchronous, and due to other technical reasons, is not optimum for streaming, or any kind of real time communication (video or audio) when trying to apply terrestrial technologies that demand better responsiveness.

 

Bottom line, in order to contain the problem, we need less people streaming and eating up resources, not more.

 

They are already involved in LEOs and will move to it when it's ready for 2-way communications. Right now all you have is receive/only (e.g., SiriusXM) and that's because the orbit (actually a constellation of satellites) is constantly moving so it can stay aloft. Imagine having to have a tracking gimbol on your current dish to track a moving satellite just so it can transmit to it.


* 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.
Highlighted
Distinguished Professor IV

Re: 100gig, but 30gig for streaming


@MarkJFine wrote: 

Bottom line, in order to contain the problem, we need less people streaming and eating up resources, not more. 


Bingo.  


AMD Ryzen 5 3400G | XPG SX8200 Pro 500GB M.2 NVMe SSD | Western Digital Blue 500GB HDD | 16GB Corsair DDR4-3000 | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit