Last night I tried streaming a video with Amazon for the first time and experienced a lot of pixelating and buffering. Just got the satellite dish a few days ago and would like any ideas and tips.
You can try toggling Video Saving mode. If that doesn't work, you can try disabling Web Acceleration.
Video Saving mode can be changed via the Usage Meter's Video Setting options. Video Saving mode is meant to limit the bandwidth on on some streaming sites to around 360p resolution. Just know that streaming at a higher resolutions will use vastly more data and could possibly choke your (and others') connection.
You can also apparently get to your Video Saving mode settings at: http://my.hughesnet.com/myaccount?_mpsource=Header&_udreq=1&tab=Settings
Web Acceleration can be disabled by going to http://192.168.0.1/limited.html#!/wac/control. Just know that this will likely lower the overall throughput of your connection.
Hope this helps.
C'mon Mark, we all know the real problem...poor Latency. Anything above 100 is garbage latency. Most people mistake this for slow speed. Why is my video buffering? Poor latency.
If HughrsNet wants to compete with cable they have to rectify the latency issue.
C'mon JC, I challenge you to re-write the laws of physics. You can call it Alt-Physics if you like.
When radio waves can go faster than the speed of light into space, miles above the equator and back - twice, call me.
Here are the parameters:
Path 1: Your location to E-19
Path 2: E-19 to your gateway
Path 3: Your gateway to E-19
Path 4: E-19 to your location
Assume total distance = Path 1 + Path 2 + Path 3 + Path 4.
Assume E-19 is at 0.000N 97.107W, 22,236 miles above the surface of the Earth.
Assume a general frequency of 19GHz.
Assume terrestrial latency is negligible.
Solve for total time traversed over the path. GO!
@jc-taylor- Here, I'll save you some time...
I'm in Virginia, my gateway's in San Diego.
Barring any terrestrial lag time, total round trip would take roughly 814.5ms for the round trip radio path.
Most sites measure only one direction, so for benefit of doubt, say: 407.25ms minimum + any satellite/gateway processing and terrestrial internet hop erver lags.
Bottom line: It takes a lot more than your 100ms 'prerequisite' just to get a signal from one site on the ground to or from the satellite - something that can't physically be solved.
I didn't think latency affected streaming I always thought it was bandwidth. Once the stream has started the receivers internal buffer compensates for any variation in latency, at least thats how I thought it was. But whatever I am still an advocate of downloading during the bonus time and watching at a later time, I have had good results from this and its "free data". I like to watch D.I.Y. vids on Youtube and I must admit I get a little annoyed when the video buffers, but I have noticed an increase in bandwith over the last couple of weeks and the buffering is not happening quite as often.
Greatly depends on the technique they use to control things for the type of quality they're trying to achieve and every source does it differently.
Buffer sizes should increase/decrease wrt latency, but it's overall throughput (which includes bandwidth) plays a large part, as you say.
"C'mon JC, I challenge you to re-write the laws of physics."
I second this. About time the laws of physics were changed. They've been untouched for far too long and they no longer serve our modern needs.
I got on a chat with someone from Amazon, and he suggested clearing cookies and brouser history. I'll let you know if it works any better when I get a chance to try it.