Hughesnet Community

Slow internet but speed tests show high numbers

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
moosecreeklane
Spectator

Slow internet but speed tests show high numbers

Newly installed hughesnet internet.

 

Normal internet usage is painfully slow. Websites load slowly, social media constantly buffering and not loading, video calls for work are interrupted, etc.

 

When I run speed tests, the numbers come back high, like more than 40mbps. But this is NOT a 40mbps internet experience.

 

What are my options?

 

https://testmy.net/quickstats/mgreene

22 REPLIES 22
maratsade
Distinguished Professor IV

You are probably suffering from a combination of congestion, latency, and network optimisation that prioritises some things and not others. Satellite internet has been hit hard by everyone staying at home to work and study.

It probably isn't going to get better any time soon, though HughesNet continues tweaking things to optimise everyone's experience, and they have succeeded in fixing a lot of stuff already, so you may just have to wait a bit. 

 

moosecreeklane wrote:

Newly installed hughesnet internet.

 

Normal internet usage is painfully slow. Websites load slowly, social media constantly buffering and not loading, video calls for work are interrupted, etc.

 

When I run speed tests, the numbers come back high, like more than 40mbps. But this is NOT a 40mbps internet experience.

 

What are my options?

 

https://testmy.net/quickstats/mgreene


 

erehwontsol
Freshman

Just wanted to commiserate -- same exact story here in BFE Nevada. Hughes is still charging full price for less than half the service. Yet on chat yesterday, a rep named Eder ignored questions then (hung up on me?) when I expressed curiosity about the speed situation and the price of it. I asked what to do/how to afford their service when I must be able to work online in order to pay the bill! I had to drop from the 30G plan to 20G because the service is so slow I'd have to sit at my desk 24/7 loading byte at a time in order to even use up that much data. A bit crazy-making.

maratsade
Distinguished Professor IV

  • Satellite internet has been hit hard by everyone staying at home to work and study.
  • Bandwidth for satellite systems is finite and can't be added to without a lot of time and expense, so HughesNet does the next best thing and optimises the network as much as they can. 
  • This optimisation may still not work for everyone and is probably dependent on specific beams, and you may be in a very congested beam.
  • The issue probably isn't going to get better any time soon, even with HughesNet working round the clock.
  • If it doesn't work for you I would explore other options if available. 
  • I imagine this is likely not what you want to hear, but it's the reality of satellite internet systems in times like what we're going through now, and while commiserating is nice, this site is for tech support, so it'd be more effective if you helped, or if you sought help.  If you just want to commiserate, you ought to go to a social media site.

 

erehwontsol wrote:

Just wanted to commiserate -- same exact story here in BFE Nevada. Hughes is still charging full price for less than half the service. Yet on chat yesterday, a rep named Eder ignored questions then (hung up on me?) when I expressed curiosity about the speed situation and the price of it. I asked what to do/how to afford their service when I must be able to work online in order to pay the bill! I had to drop from the 30G plan to 20G because the service is so slow I'd have to sit at my desk 24/7 loading byte at a time in order to even use up that much data. A bit crazy-making.


 


@erehwontsol wrote:

 I had to drop from the 30G plan to 20G 


Yeah, that's one thing that has sort of been bothering me during this time.  What exactly are folks (including myself) paying for if we have a plan above the minimum?  From what I can tell, it's not clear that there actually is any real tiering to the plans given that data caps have been relaxed, and more importantly, the network performance is less than the marketed throttling speeds that I'd get if I went over the cap anyhow.

 

Maybe HN should consider no longer selling different capacity plans and/or putting all existing customers on a base plan, since that's really the performance we are getting.

 

 

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV

@Michael57 

 

Maybe that's your experience, but the plans are what they are for people to have more high speed data before being throttled.  Increased throttle speed does not mean no throttling, and those who exhaust their monthly allotment of high speed data will still be throttled.  There is no reason whatsoever for HughesNet to eliminate the plans.

Do you have data to indicate the percentage of subscribers regularly getting above the published throttled speeds, which if memory serves is 1-3mbps?  I don't, so I can't say with any real authority what should be done, but without that data it's also hard to argue the flip side, especially with terms like "no reason whatsoever".  At the very least, some homogenization of plans should be looked at given that the current state is likely to persist for some time.

 

I joined just about 2 months ago and have yet to get above those marketed throttled speeds, unless I'm doing a speed test.  That point is important because it implies my results are a caused by prioritization/congestion and would be the systemic for others browsing the same content.  What would my experience be if I went over my data cap?

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Michael57 wrote:

At the very least, some homogenization of plans should be looked at given that the current state is likely to persist for some time.


Why?  Because of your alleged speed issues?  

 

There's no reason to remove customers' ability to choose how much high speed data they get because of your alleged speed issues.  None.  

 

If you want to drop to lower plan level, have at it.

 

The speed is a symptom, caused by increased congestion which is forcing prioritization according to HN's own announcements .  Priortization is occurring to presumably, large swaths of customers, if not every customer.  Given that this situation has been going on for a couple of months and likely to continue for many more, it's starts to get disingenuous to continue to offer and charge for an unrealistic level of service, so a review is indeed warranted.

 

I'm not suggesting my price needs to be lowered, but I am suggesting that the parameters that distinguish the plans may no longer make much sense.  This isn't specific to HN, lots of industries and corporations are doing and/or have done similar reviews. 

 

Lastly, ease up a bit on the attitude, I'm not here bashing HN nor are my comments based solely on my specific experience.  As has been said here many times by representatives of HN (and even yourself) congestion is high, priortization is occurring, caps are being modified, and it's clear that the combinations of those things are having significant impacts for lots of folks, relative to what was normal.  Normal, was when the parameters of the plans were established, given the significant differences in the current environment and the duration, it's a beyond reasonable point of view.

maratsade
Distinguished Professor IV

Michael, you mention "the parameters that distinguish the plans." What parameters are those, outside of the difference in amount of bandwidth?  I'm likely forgetting something here and I sense a facepalm coming, but aren't all the plans equal except for amount of bandwitdh? (and of course, price, which depends on the bandwidth package). 


@maratsade wrote:

Michael, you mention "the parameters that distinguish the plans." What parameters are those, outside of the difference in amount of bandwidth?  I'm likely forgetting something here and I sense a facepalm coming, but aren't all the plans equal except for amount of bandwitdh? (and of course, price, which depends on the bandwidth package). 


That's a good question.  You're right, today the only difference is the amount of data you can consume before your bandwidth is reduced.  However, there are several "knobs and buttons" that can be pushed to change the behavior or plans if it made sense.  Obviously, I know very little about the HN's specific capabilities and how they can be integrated into their billing system, so I can only speak in generalities, but things like:
Tiered Caps (with more realistic speeds)

Different after hours timing

Different prioritization profiles

are doable with most networking equipment.

 

Assume a customer signing up today (or even when I signed up in March), how can they make an educated decision as to which plan will meet their needs?  It's actually really hard...Today the data caps have been relaxed and prioritization is happening, but there's been no specific information provided about the prioritization or the way the new caps behave. School and business apps have been prioritized, but which ones and to what degree?

 

No one alerted me to the current situation when I called to sign up, in fact the rep specifically told me that 25mbps is available at my address.  Now that really just meant I had access to a gen5 satellite, and I understand that's more of an "up to" statement, but a rep saying that today to someone at my location, is not making a good faith statement unless they also disclose the current situation (and I'm not saying they are or are not doing that).

 

Since my speed tests are at or above the advertised speed, the obvious culprit for my slow speed when accessing any other resource over the internet is the prioritization which is a result of the high congestion.  Given that prioritization is spanning the network, it's safe to assume that the vast majority of subscribers are seeing speeds that are susbstantially less than normal.  How many and to what degree?  I have no idea, but that would be the driving factor behind re-calibrating the plans.

 

And @GabeU you're being a righteous jerk, to put it very mildly.  I'd go back to the first question I asked, do you have any data on the speeds folks are seeing across the network?  Obviously, the need to put things like prioritization in place, to pick and choose which conent to throttle and how hard, is a good indication of high levels of congestion that could otherwise cripple a network.  Look, I'm totally fine with disagreement, and can agree that I could be wrong, but you are using a straw man when characterizing my statements and basically dismissing my perspective out of hand, without providing any real substantive data.  To each their own, I guess.

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Michael57 wrote:

Since my speed tests are at or above the advertised speed, the obvious culprit for my slow speed when accessing any other resource over the internet is the prioritization which is a result of the high congestion.  Given that prioritization is spanning the network, it's safe to assume that the vast majority of subscribers are seeing speeds that are susbstantially less than normal.  How many and to what degree?  I have no idea, but that would be the driving factor behind re-calibrating the plans.

You might want to read that prioritization policy again and not make the mistake of assuming all of your issues are the result of prioritization rather than system load and congestion. 

 


@Michael57 wrote: 

And @GabeU you're being a righteous jerk, to put it very mildly.  I'd go back to the first question I asked, do you have any data on the speeds folks are seeing across the network?  Obviously, the need to put things like prioritization in place, to pick and choose which conent to throttle and how hard, is a good indication of high levels of congestion that could otherwise cripple a network.  Look, I'm totally fine with disagreement, and can agree that I could be wrong, but you are using a straw man when characterizing my statements and basically dismissing my perspective out of hand, without providing any real substantive data.  To each their own, I guess.


No, but evidently you do.  After all, you seem to want to put all subscribers into a category of extreme speed issues.

 

And I never said the system wasn't experiencing congestion, nor have I dismissed the significance of the prioritization policy they have in place.  And I'm not dismissing your perspective, just your baseless assumptions, including the two above.  

 

And a righteous jerk?  That's nice.  I'm simply refuting your assumptions, as stated, but if you want to consider me a righteous jerk for doing so, have at it.


@GabeU wrote:

You might want to read that prioritization policy again and not make the mistake of assuming all of your issues are the result of prioritization rather than system load and congestion. 

 

Actually, it's not an assumption (and to be fair, I did say the prioritization is a result of congestion).  If congestion or system load were the primary factor, then a speedtest would result in similar speeds to other traffic.  Congestion, without prioritization, is a ceiling.  

 

 


@GabeU wrote:


No, but evidently you do.  After all, you seem to want to put all subscribers into a category of extreme speed issues. 

 

Actually, I stated just the opposite.  That I don't have this data, and I have said a couple of times that this data should be what would drive any evaluation of the plans.  Again, a straw man...I never said that everyone should be treated as if they have extreme speed issues. 

 

I am, however, making an educated guess that since system wide changes were put in place (ie. prioritization and cap changes), that there are system wide effects.  It's a very reasonable assumption.  You can also see it in the comments here, I've seen many folks here (even the advocates) indicate that things like streaming, are pretty much impossible across the board.  That's a significant change from normal.

 

Look at some point, when X% of your customers can no longer be served at good faith advertised values, it's time to take a look at those values, to check and see if should be re-evaluted, if customer segements need to be created, or if customers can be better served with more tailorable options that better fits their habits, or all of the above.

 

 

 

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Michael57 wrote:

@GabeU wrote:

You might want to read that prioritization policy again and not make the mistake of assuming all of your issues are the result of prioritization rather than system load and congestion. 

Actually, it's not an assumption (and to be fair, I did say the prioritization is a result of congestion).  If congestion or system load were the primary factor, then a speedtest would result in similar speeds to other traffic.  Congestion, without prioritization, is a ceiling.  


SMH.  Yes, an assumption, because you're not only assuming that the level of congestion is constant and the same across the board, but that every source reacts to congestion in the same way, neither of which is the case.  If your argument was the case, all activities would suffer during periods of congestion, and at the same level, which isn't at all the case, nor has it been since long before the pandemic came around the pike, and with many people.  Servers and and infrastructure along the path can and do react to congestion in varying ways. 

 

And I'm not even going to bother with the plan argument anymore.  If people want to lower their plan level they can and have always been able to.  For those whose plans are the size they want and works for them, they don't need to.  There's no need to punish those whose plan fits their needs and works fine for them by forcing them into some one size fits all plan because some people are having issues.    

 

Take it from someone who's had this service for over fifteen years and knows a little more about how it works, how it doesn't, and how it reacts to system load and congestion.  You've had it for two months and started when the traffic load was beginning to increase.  Your experience with this service is primarily when it's at its worst and it's shaping your opinions and beliefs about it.  

 

I'm done.  

You can "SMH" all you want, but it's 100% prioritization and it's not even debatable.  I very much understand in great detail (which, by the way, you've acknowledged in other threads where my opinion matches yours, I guess when it's convenient...), how the internet works, how latency works, what happens upstream, how congestion affects networks, and how to determine the speeds I'm getting.  Yes, there are many factors at play, but none really addresses the magnitude of the difference nor the consistency of it.  It's very obviously, prioritization.  

 

I am definitely not suggesting that plans be downgraded.  If customers are getting good bandwidth, then that makes no sense.  Honestly, my last suggestion was highlighting ways that plans could be much better tailored for individual usage and provide much more realistic performance allowing customers to pay for what they get and want.  Again, that was high level stuff, the devil is in the details...

 

You are misreading my opinions about the service, I understand the limitations of satelite and I understand the speeds that we are seeing and the challenge of improving on them.  I'm not suggesting that HN isn't doing what they can to provide the best experience that they can.  Prioritization is actually very difficult to get right, and we've seen lots of tweaks to it to improve some things over the last 8 weeks. 

 

I'm not complaining about the speed even.  I'm saying that we are now 2 months into a scenario where I'm willing to bet a significant portion of the customer base isn't seeing performance that is consistent with published information on the plans or the faq.  At what point does current capacity get reflected in the plans and the options available to customers?  I don't know what the right amount of time is, but I can certainly understand the frustrations, and believe a review of plans, their structure, and the actual performance customers are seeing should probably happen (much of the rest of the country is doing this too).  I hope I'm wrong, but we aren't likely to see a massive change in customer habits, at least in the US, for the rest of this year.  

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Michael57 wrote:

You can "SMH" all you want, but it's 100% prioritization and it's not even debatable.  


Whether you like it or not I will refute misinformation, just as I have and will continue to do since my first days on this community.  

 

Many of the problems people are seeing, other than those related to high volume activities, which are falling under the prioritization policy, are the result of congestion and system load.  That's a fact, just as it has been since long before the pandemic ever occurred.  The prioritization policy didn't and doesn't change that fact, no matter how many times you claim it.

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Michael57 wrote:

I'm not suggesting my price needs to be lowered, but I am suggesting that the parameters that distinguish the plans may no longer make much sense.  This isn't specific to HN, lots of industries and corporations are doing and/or have done similar reviews.  


Sure it does, because people can still choose how much high speed data they get each month before they are throttled.  Some subscribers having speed issues does not mean all subscribers are having speed issues.  As well, the vast majority of the speed complaints are regarding streaming, which is one activity.  If someone is having speed issues significant enough for there to not be much of a difference between throttled and unthrottled they have the option of lowering their plan to whatever level they like, including the lowest, and that option has always been there.  They also have the option of troubleshooting the issue, and if the issue can't be fixed they likely have the additional options of a discount or cancellation.  I like my plan and I would like to keep it, and I'm sure many others would like to keep their plans as well.

 

And don't concern yourself with my attitude.

I've been on the Internet since the dial up days; I've been a web developer for 20 years; I know what slow Internet is. We certainly have not been able to stream video once since activation, much less barely log into this website (the Captcha times out!). Often I just walk away from the computer while waiting for a site to load.

 

"Alleged." Your gaslighting mojo is strong, Gabe! Smiley LOL

maratsade
Distinguished Professor IV

"much less barely log into this website (the Captcha times out!)."

 

There's a captcha for this website?  

Yes @maratsade, there is a Goog Captcha for retrieving/resetting a password, at least.

maratsade
Distinguished Professor IV

Wow. I've never seen it.  Not disbelieving you, mind. 🙂

 


@erehwontsol wrote:

Yes, here is a Goog Captcha for retrieving/resetting a password, at least.