cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Text 'FAST' for Hughenet service - WHAT? fAST?

Professor

Re: Text 'FAST' for Hughenet service - WHAT? fAST?

I lurk on their forums and I beg to differ with you -- the complaints are basically the same as here.  But I think people are entitled to drop a service and pick another one if they so desire.  And they definitely should if they're not happy with the service.

Professor

Re: Text 'FAST' for Hughenet service - WHAT? fAST?

"What criteria did they use to rate HN as the "No 1 service provider of satellite internet"?  I didn't see what standard they used. "

 

The report is titled Measuring Broadband America. It's 78 pages long and may provide all of the answers you seek.  It can be found via a Google search, as can all the data that can answer your other questions and concerns.

 

 

Highlighted
Sophomore

Re: Text 'FAST' for Hughenet service - WHAT? fAST?


@maratsade wrote:

"What criteria did they use to rate HN as the "No 1 service provider of satellite internet"?  I didn't see what standard they used. "

 

The report is titled Measuring Broadband America. It's 78 pages long and may provide all of the answer you seek.  It can be found via a Google search, as can all the data that can answer your other questions and concerns.

 

 


I read the report and nowhere did it say HughesNet was the "No 1 service provider of satellite internet," which is what you claimed.

 

Perhaps I missed it.  Could you dig up the relevant quote, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

I will, however, quote some parts of it.  Mind you, I am only quoting for HughesNet, not anyone else.  So no comparisons are being made or claimed.

 

This report is also from 2016, a bit old.  But the most recent one.

 

Hughes’ actual vs. advertised speeds ratio went down from 203% to 152%

 

The best performing ISPs, when measured by this metric, are Optimum, Charter, TWC, Verizon-Fiber and Hughes; more than 85% of their panelists were able to attain an actual median download speed of at least 95% of the advertised download speed

 

On the other hand, the performance during the testing period of both Hughes' and ViaSat’s satellite-based services and Frontier’s fiber-based service deteriorated this year

 

Hughes whose packet loss increased from 0.2% to 0.8%

 

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in this report did it call HughesNet "number one" at anything.

 

Fair note: This report was written before Jupiter 2 (I just love that they called it that even though I am not a fan of the show!) was launched.  I expect that things are quite different now.  Would be interested to read a more up-to-date report.

Senior

Re: Text 'FAST' for Hughenet service - WHAT? fAST?

@maratsade The proof is in the pudding. My beam and gateway are perfectly capable of giving me more than acceptable speeds as seen in speed tests. After a few minutes the speed drops to a slow crawl - as seen in speed tests.

 

Something is preventing continual acceptable speeds.

 

There is nothing wrong with the equipment as seen in super speeds. The super speeds are short lived, as short as a few minutes.

 

Once I had a speed of 16 Mbps and took advantage of it for all of the downloads and upgrades that were waiting for acceptable speed. I had to use that speed during the 2am-8am time. Never again was that speed realized. This morning, as usual, download speed of .6 Kbps.

 

Telling people that they can leave Hughes does not solve the Hughes problem. That is what needs to be done.

 

As my beam and gateway are more than capable of delivering the appropriate speeds, why do the speeds suddenly drop minutes later?

 

I will not stop in my quest to find answers and neither you nor this community can stop me.