It sort of seems like the current plans are simply designed to get users to run out of data, pushing them to theoretically purchase tokens, and/or reduce network stress. Even the highest data caps are laughable at this point. I reduced my plan to the lowest cap simply becuase I run out in less than a week, so what's the point? As far as I'm concerned Hughes offers a 1 down, 1 up service with a short turbo period. I'm also assuming there is some kind of incentive to say that you offer the (Eff See See's....the acronym is not allowed in this board lol) current definition of broadband at 25/3.
More realistically, a 5/1, 3/1, 3/3 (etc...) combination would keep data usage down and allow them to either vastly increase or eliminate the cap altogether!
We would all be streaming very decent SD quality to our hearts content, or just downloading software updates in a reasonable amount of time.
I ran out of data after TWO DAYS this period. I don't even try to stream so it's just my day to day usage. 35gb goes fast when you are a photographer and need to send files to clients. I normally accept my usual 1-2mbps down speed, but the past week I've been seeing Speedtest readings at .43 down, and .6 up. It's really bad!
Actually, the plans are designed to get as many subscribers as comfortable as possible on one gateway without bringing the whole network down. Each satellite and ground station has limited resources for people to use across the country. Compare that to a local internet provider that might just have a small server room 3 miles from your house for use by you and those in just a 10 mile radius.
Oh, and technically, your stream buffering problem is likely a latency issue, not a speed issue.
I have a feeling that things are going to change soon. With 4 other large corporations planning to shoot up 20,000 new satellites, offering high speed Internet, no data cap, for a possibly lower monthly fees, the 3 large corporations that providing satellite Internet today, have to catch up to the new ones' promises. If not, the new ones are going to win the race and take all the subscribers/clients of the old Internet Providers. I would say 1, maybe 2 years and the Satellite Internet is going to change to the better. (That's what the news promises since the other corporations started their projects.) 1 shot up 2 and another one shot up 6 test satellites already. Hughes should start shooting up new ones and doing radical changes and upgrades in a very short time. Or at least that's what I would do if I would be in charge. :-)
Hughes should start shooting up new ones and doing radical changes and upgrades in a very short time. Or at least that's what I would do if I would be in charge. :-)
No, you wouldn't, because if it were that simple they would already be doing so. HughesNet is not a LEO company. LEO internet uses many small satellite that are relatively cheap per unit. GEO internet uses large satellites that each cost well over 100 times that of a LEO satellite, and the technology is very different. It's not anywhere near as simple as "shooting up new ones".
Also, it wouldn't at all be surprising for LEO companies to first concentrate on areas of the world where there is very poor existing service, if any service at all.
I just don't know why a 3/3 unlimited connection or similar would stress the network more than a small number of people on 25/3, and the rest on 1/1 or lower. It doesn't add up unless you want to incentivise purchasing tokens. Also the fact that the tokens are availalbe at all is proof that they have data to give!
It doesn't add up to you, because you clearly don't understand how satellite internet works and how a potential 75km round trip datalink plus provider delays impact congestion.
Also the fact that the tokens are availalbe at all is proof that they have data to give!
Compared to the system impact of offering unlimited high speed data, token data purchased has very little. As well, people limit token data purchased due to cost.
Sure, a few people on a beam with a 3/3 unlimited plan might not impact much but......multiply that by hundreds, maybe thousands, then you're talking huge impact. Many would simply load up their download managers and download 24/7 all month long. Of course eventially it would cascade and 3/3 wouldn't be obtainable consistantly either.
If I remember correctly, the combined bandwidth of the ES17 and ES19 is somewhere around 300Gbps to 325Gbps. Let's say it's 325Gbps. If all conditions were perfect, and the bandwidth could be divided evenly between subscribers, that's 108,333 people that could sustain a one way data transfer of 3Mbps at the same time. That's it. HughesNet currently has over 1,000,000 customers, and I don't know if that number includes government contracts and such. If not, that's even less bandwidth available for each subscriber.
Thankfully, not every customer is online and requiring a sustained data transfer at the same time. But, this is just an example of how little bandwidth there really is to go around. And, like BirdDog suggests, an unlimited package, even at 3Mbps, would cause some subscribers to transfer data nontstop, which would likely result in even more congestion than there is at present.
The soft data caps cause people to prioritize, enabling that relatively small amount of overall bandwidth to be enough, for the most part. This is why, contrary to some peoples' belief, the soft data caps are a necessity.
That's a best-case scenario. Just to complicate things: Divide everything by 18 or 19, to split total bandwidth by ground station. Now account for those ground stations/beams that service densely HN-populated areas. Imagine if you had a few of those 3/3 on Beam 5...