I have complained about the throughput speed before and there was no real solution Sometimes downloads are near what one would / should expect, but most often very unsatisfactory. No way for me to prove it, but all evidence available points to Hughsnet gateway bottlenecks. Sometimes the download speed may be (sort of) OK, but the actual throughput is usually very slow due to "waiting" - periods of inactivity in responding to a request.
I have a 101 signal strength, plenty of data, recently power-off reset the modem, Ethernet connection to moder, ect. Near dialup true throughput persists in spite of the indicated fast speeds by testmy.net.
Also, Testmy.net (recommended by HN) does not seem to be reporting acturately. The most recent run indicated the speed topped out at 98Mbs. It has reported speeds in excess of 200 Mbps Yeah, right!
https://testmy.net/db/62oQU7mpa Here are others: https://testmy.net/db/UDZZeu0Q3 https://testmy.net/db/-aL2Zg~-R
A test by speedof.me (HTML5 Test) produced results that reflect what throughput speed I actually receive:
https://i.speedof.me/190925232454-2087
Sometimes the crazy high latency reported in this test are more a more realistic value, around 660. However, the speed is still slow.
My question is will HN ever fix the problem that I (and many, many others) are plagued with?
Thanks,
Woody - KZ4AK
What resolution are you expecting?
hamradio wrote:I agree, but my only point of contact is with HN. They need to apply pressure to CL to get the problem fixed, I cannot. Engineering did not call back today as promised. Apparently they don't care, so I have contacted the "Fed Com Comm" to see if that will get their attention. Don't know what else to do.
--Interesting the the abbrevation for that agency is not allowed on the forum - would not post if it was in content. Had to use "alais"--
Reply to me from Fed Com Comm :
--
Hi Norvell,
Thank you for your submission. Based on our review, your Ticket No. 3621612 was served on your provider on Oct 28.
Here's what you can expect from the "commission"s informal complaint process:
- Your provider should contact you directly in an effort to resolve your issue.
- The "commission's" role in this process is to facilitate a conversation between you and your provider.
- Your provider is required to submit to the "commission" a written response regarding your issue no later than 30 days from today.
- The "commission" will not contact you until we receive a response from your provider.
I am certain the organization you mention well knows there's a problem with CL, and have for at least a year now. They won't do anything.
Hopefully you didn't mention HN as the problem, otherwise you may have inadvertently put yourself in arbitration wrt to any support resolution.
I'm wondering what kind of resolution the OP is expecting. There's only so much HN can do, and if they have already offered the standard good faith resolutions, not much more can be done, even via arbitration. If the OP is expecting that by contacting the feds he will force HN to complain to CL, that's not a realistic view of how these processes work (not to mention it's likely that HN has already complained to its providers and that CL has chosen not to address the complaint, or has promised it will be addressed in the future).
@MarkJFine wrote:I am certain the organization you mention well knows there's a problem with CL, and have for at least a year now. They won't do anything.
Hopefully you didn't mention HN as the problem, otherwise you may have inadvertently put yourself in arbitration wrt to any support resolution.
I have considered moving my bot from my personal server space to the web server in Europe, but then I'd lose a perfect indicator that CL is messed up.
This is a traceroute while ssh'd into my server:
% traceroute twitter.com
traceroute: Warning: twitter.com has multiple addresses; using 104.244.42.129
traceroute to twitter.com (104.244.42.129), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 xxxx.xxxx.xxx (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 7.208 ms 0.182 ms 0.191 ms
2 192.168.1.14 (192.168.1.14) 0.315 ms 0.435 ms 1.537 ms
3 8-1-2.bear1.Pittsburgh3.Level3.net (4.7.80.9) 1.154 ms 1.193 ms 1.951 ms
4 * ae-2-4.bear1.Washington111.Level3.net (4.69.210.174) 6.910 ms 6.473 ms
5 4.15.136.126 (4.15.136.126) 6.821 ms 6.741 ms 7.090 ms
6 * * *
7 104.244.42.129 (104.244.42.129) 24.658 ms 24.815 ms 24.800 ms
That said, it *used to* only be 2 hops between, now it's 4. Hop 1 is the server in Pittsburgh and hop 2 looks like an intermediate LAN before it goes out to Level3/CenturyLink. Then it just rattles around CL's backbone until it hits Twitter on hop 7.
Hop 6 never IDs, though hop 4 reports some of the time. Judging from the time, the delay in this path is mostly somewhere in to or out of hop 6. Need to capture the full 60 second delay for proof.
Thanks for all the comments. I really don't know what to expect but having exhausted all other avenues, gave the Commission a try - Even if it may prove fruitless... Since I do not have a direct association with CL nor direct proof that they are responsible for the problem, this was the last approach that came to mind. Failure of HN engineering to cooperate and respond has not helped my attitude. If it is CL, engineering should know, call me back, and say so. I can only hope that if CL is the culprit, it will inspire HN to become more aggressive in applying pressure on CL to fix their issues - and/or point the finger at CL to the Commission in their response. I expect (hope) HN has a performance clause in their contract with CL.?. If so, it needs to be enforced. However, to expect the Commission to do much either way is rather optimistic.
Certainly open to any suggestions as to how to otherwise address the CL problem!
Thanks again, Woody
Good luck to you, Woody, and I hope things get resolved to your satisfaction soon!
Hey, been there, bought the tee shirt.
I tried going directly to CL, even calling them out on Twitter. They wanted me to DM them with my account number. After I gave them proof like the above (captured the delay), told them it was about their backbone and not their user service and that I was not even their customer they dropped the conversation. So... good luck with that.
And a nemesis was born.
@MarkJFine wrote:Hey, been there, bought the tee shirt.
I tried going directly to CL, even calling them out on Twitter. They wanted me to DM them with my account number. After I gave them proof like the above (captured the delay), told them it was about their backbone and not their user service and that I was not even their customer they dropped the conversation.
That is exactly what I expected would happen if I tried to communicate directly with CL. I feel the frustration.
I guess the solution, at this time, is to live with the problem and hope the providers (user and backbone) will get their act together.
Will post any future developments in my quest.
Woody - KZ4AK
Just to show how positively schizophrenic this whole problem is: I've not been able to trace a delay nor has there been any problem with any of my twitter bots today. Go figure.
Interesting... It seemed that a little earlier there was less "waiting" for returns from sites, then I saw your post. Watched several youtubes as a crude check. The first few exhibited almost no buffering. As time went on (now 7:45 PM Eastern) more and more buffering occurred. Still not as bad as it often has been...
Schizo or mutiple personality disporder? 😉
_W_
Evenings will still get somewhat congested, and it tends to get worse as Winter sets in, especially on days that NFL and College football is on: Thursday and Monday nights, most of Saturday, and practically all day Sunday. It's like clockwork. Lucky for me if I ever need to stream a football game (the round kind) it's on GMT, not EST. lol
I'm seeing the same thing from the Results page, though with different times due to them showing correctly for me.
What I meant was the page where you got that snapshot of the single test It should have showed some indication of it being a test for HughesNet internet. Still, though, it shouldn't matter if it did or didn't. Even if it didn't detect it as a HughesNet test it should still be showing up in your results, as it should show ALL tests you've run while being signed in, and that it doesn't is very odd. But, it's possible that testmy is detecting that it's not a legitimate result with it being so wacky, so it's not saving it in your results. I'm not really sure.
Again, though, whether it detected it as a HughesNet test or not doesn't really matter, so please disregard me even asking about that. I'm overtired and was conflating that thought with something else.
There's no doubt that you've got some type of serious problem happening. Not only should you not be seeing so many extreme results, you shouldn't be having any connection issues with the test. Though I've had an occasional wacky result, that's something I've never seen.
I really hope the engineers can figure out just what in the heck is going on.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I tried that video in the link you posted and it worked without issue. Just another indication that something is seriously wrong with your service.
1. I couldn't really say for sure. I know for me, at least, the results are almost always lower due to both HughesNet's speed tending to fluctuate throughout a test, with it being worse as congestion increases, and speedofme's test result being that of the spreed it's seeing at the very end of the test, rather than it being an average across the whole test like testmy gives for its results. This may be why it's doing it for you, too, but you should be able to see if this is the case by watching the progress of the speedofme test. If the test has speed spikes, then it drops back down again, this is likely what's happening.
It's also possible that it's because they test in different ways. With testmy, I believe the test involves downloading a temporary file, and they measure the speed throughout that download. With speedofme, I think the test is a constant, more like a stream rather than a file, and where it keeps running until the testing protocol is satisfied, though I don't know what that threshold is, as in whether it's a time or it has to meet or exceed a specific size. This is only a guess, though, and only based on how the test seems to run.
2. It's possible that what you're seeing, at least in that example (with the extreme results) is a glitch test, which testmy occasionally does. I don't know that this is the case, as I can't really see what you're seeing to know where or what to check, but it may be the case.
It's also possible that what you're seeing is as a result of other people's test results being mixed in with yours. I'll explain that part, and how to stop it from happening, near the bottom of this reply.
BTW, I don't know if you're using the new version of testmy or the old, but if you go to your Results page and click on the share button of one of the tests, it should change to a page that has a URL for that test. The old version actually says "Share" and has a little orage dohickey next to it. The new one just has the little orange dohickey.
Old test...
You can copy and paste that URL into a reply, which will be clickable for that test.
https://testmy.net/db/zg9hXPCtn
Or, you can copy and paste the picture itself, or save it to your desktop (or pictures, or wherever on your computer), then upload it.
Regarding other people's results, if you use the old version of the test, and you haven't already done so, make sure to click "Exclude tests taken on your connection ID that are not logged under KZ4AK", which is just under the results box and to the left on your Results page. It's kind of small. This will ensure that you won't see other people's tests that were on the same Connection ID as yours. HughesNet uses shared IPs, which can cause testmy to have multiple people on the same connection ID. Clicking that will ensure that other people's test results won't show up in yours (they're in yellow if they're there).
Here it is on mine, though it's already clicked, so it's now giving me the option to again include them rather than exclude them...
I prefer the old version, as it seems to run better, but that's just me.
How do I ask a question on this forum
@ejhukle wrote:How do I ask a question on this forum
If it's a tech support related question, like you're experiencing slow speed or you're having some other type of technical issue, or you have a question about something regarding the service, you can start a new topic in the "Tech Support" section by clicking on the section title and clicking the blue "Start a topic" button on the upper right. You can also start it here (it's a shortcut to what I just described). Give the post a title and describe the question or issue you're having is as much detail as you can, then choose a "label" on the right. Then click "Post" on the bottom right of the message body.
If you need help with something related to another topic, such as billing or other account related issues, start a new topic in the "myAccount and Billing" section.
Unfortunatly .... This is a definite pattern with HN recently.
As the "Leading provider of rural broadband" ..... Well lets just see if AT&T will install a dedicated 128Kbps ISDN line for all of us .... it's might be faster & more stable
Uh, yeah! Very poor throughput has been an issue for me on an intermittent basis for quite a while. By throughput, I mean the bottom line internet performance. Apparently, my poor "performance" is not usually a result slow instaneous speeds (by testmy.net) but seem to be due to delays (not a satellite latency issue) between HN and the rest of the world.
I think a reasonably good 125K connection (one with minimal waiting) would be provide the same level of actual throughput provided by HN. It would be refreshing if HN engineering would address / diagnose the problem, inform the users, and effect a fix. I am not holding my breath. 😞
Are you having gateway issues? I have no internet