HughesNet Community

Slow speeds only in prime time hours

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
dhorwath
Sophomore

Slow speeds only in prime time hours

I see there's other complaints but I'm not sure what was resolved with this issue.  I have the 15mg plan, using the HT1100 modem.  In the mornings I get 20+ download speeds using testmy.net.  Afternoon it drops some, then during prime time I'm down to 1mb.  I called tech support and they thought I need to re-point the satellite but that makes no sense if I'm getting good speed during the morning hours.  Can you offer any solutions?
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Amanda has been working on my issue behind the scenes, so I thought I'd come on and mention that we are working through it.  The result is that I'll be switching to Gen 5 on a lower data plan than what I currently have.  With the compression of data on streaming that is used on Gen 5, I should be able to stay within the 30g.  Even if I go over 30g the throttled speed is better than what I have today so it's a no-brainer.

thanks Amanda!

View solution in original post

105 REPLIES 105
Amanda
Moderator

Hello dhorwath,

I got a response very quickly, he called me right away on the phone. Looks like it is scheduled for tonight, but there were some delays with one that was done last night which could cause a problem. The engineer on the case asked me to call him back on Friday to see the status. 

Thanks
Amanda
dhorwath
Sophomore

thanks.  I'm out of town for a few days, I'll see how it's going Saturday
dacarrigan
Spectator

Why is it that when we run the test all we get back is gobbledy Gook.  I ran test with what is on the sped test on Hughes Net, and TestMy Net and both are below the national average for DL speeds and UL speeds.  when is Hughes net going to get with the program and provide what their TV advertisement is saying.  Fast it ain't
 
GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@dacarrigan wrote:
Why is it that when we run the test all we get back is gobbledy **bleep**.  I ran test with what is on the sped test on Hughes Net, and TestMy Net and both are below the national average for DL speeds and UL speeds.  when is Hughes net going to get with the program and provide what their TV advertisement is saying.  Fast it ain't
 

Comparing Hughesnet's speed results to the national average, which include fiber optic and cable and non consumer systems, is like comparing apples and oranges.  Satellite internet is not fiber optc, nor is it cable, and they are "with the program" with satellite internet.  The national average includes systems that consumers don't use and have speeds that we won't see for quite some time.

 

A satellite ISP is, for the most part, an ISP of last resort.  Very few people would choose to get satellite for their internet when cable or fiber optic are available to them.      

 

 

 


Ryzen 5 3400G | MSI B450M Pro-M2 MAX | 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 | XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB NVMe | Windows 10 Pro
dacarrigan
Spectator

The test I ran on both TestMyNet and the Hughes net speed test are below the national averages.  Hughes Net TV advertisements are extremely misleading

ran a speed check and still got 1mg last night.  Can you inform the engineers?

dhorwath
Sophomore

ok I thought this was a forum where problems can be solved, maybe it's not.  I've heard plenty from those on this board that choose to post in defense of the Hughesnet company, and it's your perogative to post here.  However, I'm more interested in what the admins like Amanda and Liz have to say about my issue and with what can be done.  I don't know if you're having the same issue as I am, but for me, I am beyond frustrated to be locked into a 2 year commitment where the company has not held up their end of the bargain.  

@dhorwath,

Amen sir!

I would be willing to put money that several of the people "posting" on here are hughesnet employee's.  It sounds like you and I are in the same boat.  I work for a ISP but happen to live in the country where they are unavailable.  Isp's have issues.  Sometimes they are quick fixes and sometimes they are more complicated.  Satelight internet is bound to have more issues due to the technology.....I get it. I get all of it.

With that said the customer service and lack of attention I have gotten from hughesnet has been nothing short of horrific.  If I had a customer tell me my story and the things I have been told by different reps I would be so embarrassed.  Another 2 year contract to solve a issue that they created.  And more money to boot??? 

I am sorry you are not getting better help.  I have not either.  This community board is nothing more than a way to string customers out in hopes they can get another month out of them. 

 

I gave Hughesnet net every opportunity to do something, anything for me.  I have now logged complaints with the Fedral communciations commision and the Better business bureau.  

 

Good luck to you and your continued fight.

C0RR0SIVE
Associate Professor

rlucken,

If you have filed complaints with those agencies, you will recieve responses with in the time alloted by each agency.

As for "to solve a issue that they created", I would like to know how Hughesnet created this issue?  It is a known fact for any satellite provider to be profitable, they have, and MUST oversell the service and impose data caps to help stave off the impending congestion.  I am sorry you feel they created an issue and should bend over backwards and not make you sign a contract to help them pay off a new satellite system, but they aren't here as a non-profit.  They do have to make money, and they must recover costs.  The only way to do that is by one, having people commit for a minimum time period to a service, regardless of if they are past present, or a future customer.  Two, they must oversell the system.

Or would you have been happier to have been told, "sorry, but we can't provide you any service what so ever" when trying to find a new ISP, like VSAT does?

Just to be blunt, this will happen every time a system becomes overloaded and a new system is brought online to help alleviate the issue.  Happened going from HN7000 to SpacewayIII, and happened going from SpacewayIII to Jupiter One, and it's happening again going from Jupiter One to Jupiter II.  

As far as the whole, "I would be willing to put money that several of the people "posting" on here are hughesnet employee's" statement...  The only direct employees here are Moderators and Administrators.  There are a few independent installers such as @gokartergo24 and El Dorado Network that post here, but aside from that, the rest of us are typical customers.

Mr. Corrosive,

 

Overselling the network is understandable, as you say.  I can accept the fact that it is going to happen.  Glad to hear that Hughesnet is making profits.  The thing that makes me frustrated is that they have a new satellite.  Those of us that have had speed issues for 5+ months in my case, should automatically get moved to it and not expect to pay more or start over on a contract.  Seems reasonable to me.

If I was getting the speeds that you are, you never would have seen or heard from me at all.  I would have been happy with my service and renewing it at the end of 2 years.  I'm not one of those nerd types sitting around in my boxers all day checking in on bulletin boards and coming down on others.  Until you have gone 5+ months with 1mg or less speed after expecting at least 15 or 60% of 15 at night which is what I was sold, you have nothing to bring to the post I started back in January.

C0RR0SIVE
Associate Professor

"If I was getting the speeds that you are, you never would have seen or heard from me at all."

You mean speeds like these? Where two results are litterally as slow as Dial Up?
h8IA73i9x

YI24QXlAh

yE6rIGLj8

Sorry to say, but, I know why those speeds occured, and I accept the fact of why they happened.  And no way in heck would I try a 12MB download test at those speeds, ever download a 12MB file on dial up? LOL

Did Hughes "fix" my issue? Yes and no, they offered me Gen5 when Gen4 was at capacity and I jumped ship.


@dhorwath wrote:

Mr. Corrosive,

 

I'm not one of those nerd types sitting around in my boxers all day checking in on bulletin boards and coming down on others.


dhorwath,

There are a number of long time HughesNet users that post regularly here in the Community in an effort to help our fellow users. For many issues we can offer work arounds that can get a user up and ruuning in the period between when an issue is first posted and when a Mod is able to address the problem in an oficial manner.

We also help the process along by asking questions or posting procedures that we know the Mods will ask so that the users problem is at least partly framed up when the Mods do get to the users post.

We regulars, unlike the lower teir support folks actually use this equipment daily.

There are many reasons for slow speeds and we try to help eliminate the ones that we as long term fellow users, 13 years in my case, know can effect your performance. Over crowding or other Gateway related issues willl be what is left after all other items are eliminated.

It is a process of elimination. In some cases its not Hughes related at all but instead is rooted in a router configuration or adaptor setting.

 

I understand your frustration and I agree with your statement that Hughes could have, should have, done more to make your service work much better than it does even if it meant a 'sweetheart' upgrade.

I have to say though that I find your above quoted comment to a fellow user to be  ..... less than civil.

 

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV


@Gwalk900 wrote:

@dhorwath wrote:

Mr. Corrosive,

 

I'm not one of those nerd types sitting around in my boxers all day checking in on bulletin boards and coming down on others.


dhorwath,

 

I have to say though that I find your above quoted comment to a fellow user to be  ..... less than civil. 


Ditto.  

 


Ryzen 5 3400G | MSI B450M Pro-M2 MAX | 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 | XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB NVMe | Windows 10 Pro
BirdDog
Assistant Professor


@GabeU wrote:

@Gwalk900 wrote:

@dhorwath wrote:

Mr. Corrosive,

 

I'm not one of those nerd types sitting around in my boxers all day checking in on bulletin boards and coming down on others.


dhorwath,

 

I have to say though that I find your above quoted comment to a fellow user to be  ..... less than civil. 


Ditto.  

 


Ditto Ditto.

 

dhorwath,

 

You wrote: " The thing that makes me frustrated is that they have a new satellite.  Those of us that have had speed issues for 5+ months in my case, should automatically get moved to it and not expect to pay more or start over on a contract.  Seems reasonable to me."

 

Your statement seems reasonable to me.

 

Best, Curtis

I live in the rural area outside a small town. Several years ago an alternative to satellite internet (Hughes and their competitor) appeared on the scene - wireless internet and a tower just down the road from me. Unfortunately at the time they could not offer the speed I needed - so I stayed with Hughes.  When the current problems with Hughes started (speed at primetime hours), I called them to see if they had improved the speed on their system --and they yes they had.  However, they were not putting any new customers on the local tower.  To go on their system you had to go on a waiting list.  I was told that they would not overbook, because they wanted to keep their current customers happy - and overbooking was only doing damage to all. 

This company started out literally in a barn -the idea of one man.  Today they serve over 400 cities and towns, with locations in Missouri, Illinois, Texas, and 31 other states.

And yes - there is a long waiting list!

Just thought you might like to know that an Internet company does not have to neglect their current customers in order to be profitable.

Bkeeper

C0RR0SIVE
Associate Professor

Just thought you would like to know, a WISP has a much lower operational cost.  $20,000 tower vs. $500,000,000 satellite and $1,000,000 support facilities?

TO, Gwalk900, Corrosive, (and anybody interested)

I agree with you on the above -- the point I was trying to make was that a company DOES NOT have to neglect their current customers in order to be profitable and grow.

 

Why in advertising alone Hughes must spend thousands upon thousands of dollars just to maintain their customer base.  Think of the customers they lose to the "little" guy because the customer is unhappy.

And that "little" guy is growing by leaps and bounds.  I predict that the "wireless" Internet providers,  AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. are the future.  

I am copying this and sending it to Corrosive, because I agree with him also - there is a tremendous difference in the initial (and maintenance) cost of each system -- but profits can still be there without neglecting the current customer.  I hope you don't think otherwise?

Bkeeper 

GabeU
Distinguished Professor IV

Is there a problem with the system not showing posters that their reply is posted, causing them to post it again minutes later?  


Ryzen 5 3400G | MSI B450M Pro-M2 MAX | 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 | XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB NVMe | Windows 10 Pro


@bkeeper1 wrote:

 

Just thought you might like to know that an Internet company does not have to neglect their current customers in order to be profitable.

Bkeeper


Ground based ISP's are able to build, repair and expand their systems as demand grows. When they invest in a piece of equipment they can use it year after year. If a fiber-optic cable is layed to supply service to an area or as a backhaul to a cellular tower they will be able to utilize that investment for decades to come.

 

It was said the Echostart 17 had a price tag of about $500 million dollars. Many more $$$ were spent for launch and insurance costs. To that is added the costs of building and maintaining the 17 or so Gateways and 2 NOC's.

The issue is that despite very high costs, that satellite can not be repaired, it can not be expanded and it only has a service lifespan of about 15 years  before it must be replaced. No building up upon previous investments here.

 

I haven't heard any numbers of Echostar 19 but I have read the that Exede's soon the launch ViaSat-2 had a cost of about $625 million dollars for the satellite and about $107 million more for insurance and launch services.

 

These satellites take years to build, launch providers can be another issue.

Trying to fold the new equipment into the Gateway network system can have some bumps in the road as we are seeing with the introduction of ES19.

I think that profitability line is much thinner than we think.