OK Keith, try this:
Two weeks later you are at the same exact place you were in the beginning .....
Please try and understand the following:
The phone support people you talked to were tier 1 support people, They are primarily script driven. They are not in a position to discuss "overhead" or "command & Control"
Chris, the forum Mod who responded to you here in the Community is a the corporate level and works in the Germantown MD corporate headquarters.
You were asked by Chris to run a modem isolation test and post the results.
You have yet to do so.
You claimed to not know how to post a screenshot which is part of the process. I have posted links on how to do so ... twice.
#1: Learn how to take a screenshot
#2: Run the Modem Isolation Test
#3: Post the results
I have the same issue since going to GEN5 in April. On 6-4-18 I disabled all wifi functionality on this modem. BTW this is the third modem model HT2000W and installed about 7-10 days prior to this day. Each modem had a data consumption test run with wifi diabled and nothing plugged into ethernet ports and each time modem is consuming data.
The ticket number above was generated by the TECH sent out on Wed 6-6-18. He was here in person, verified the modem was set up properly was not connected to anything but power and satellite. On route he did the ovm test which indicated that my modem was working properly, no packet loss but noted it rebooted 50 times during his watch. He called tech support and they added 1 GB data to my account. Then watched it for 10 minutes as it consumed 300MB. I am frustrated to say the least. I would like a way to prevent my data from being eaten up by unknown source and after a month of trying to work with Hughesnet regarding same I have zero resolution. I understand my ticket above was escalalated to engenering for same but no fix yet. I feel I have been a victim of hackers at this point in time and would hope Hughesnet would delve deeper to finding a resolution for this problem since it is a service they provide at a cost to me.
I've addressed your concern in your separate thread, so I will close out this old one.