About lighthope1

20 second latency spikes tonight. ... View more

You already said you were going to stay out of this thread, @MarkJFine. Please stick with your resolve. You are not a helpful person. To address what you said so others are not confused with your deflection: HughesNet says there is no problem.  HughesNet says that these high latency spikes are normal.  HughesNet says if we don't like it, we can go find another ISP. We are only speculating that CenturyLink is the problem. The fact is, we don't know because HughesNet won't comment on the issue or even acknowledge it. It would be absolutely fantastic if HughesNet jumped in and said: Thank you for your feedback and the data you and others have provided.  Out engineers have looked at the problem and we have found that the latency is coming from our connection to CenturyLink, which is our direct connection from the gateway you use to the main internet.  We are currently working with CenturyLink to resolve this problem and we will give you regular updates on its status and when it will be resolved.  Until then, please continue to report to us latency spikes and anthing you are doing that may help us find a pattern.  Thank you for your contiued patience in this matter. To be honest, though, at this point it would be difficult to beleive even that statement now, as it would be read as them just telling us what we want to hear.  It is something they should have come forward and said right at the beginning. As maratsade said, it is good for the rest of us to share our experiences so we can help isolate this issue, find out what is causing it so maybe a solution can be found, and also so others can see how HughesNet works (or not works) with its customers. @MarkJFine wrote: @lighthope1 wrote: You must be referring to HughesNet since they don't see a problem. No... You. The absolute last thing I'm going to say on the matter:   If Facebook is having a problem, should HughesNet assume responsibility and acknowledge that as well? Because that's precisely the same thing as what you're insinuating. The problem is so much larger than HughesNet that you're having a problem comprehending that. Bottom line: Your internet works from you to HughesNet, to CenturyLink, to whomever, to Facebook, and back. HughesNet's responsibility to you is just that, between them and you. Anything beyond that is OUT OF THEIR CONTROL.   ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: I know... was just reinforcing my earlier comment that others don't want to accept. You must be referring to HughesNet since they don't see a problem. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: It wasn't me asking the question, @MarkJFine .  I was quoting Lighthope. :) Edit: but it does appear that CL is right messed up.  If I had to bet money, I'd say it was CenturyLink that was the actual problem.  The issue we have here is that HughesNet won't even acknowledge there is a problem, and then spout off brain-dead statements like "That is how satellite tech works" and "You can go find another ISP." ... View more

@maratsade wrote:   Thank you, Lighthope.  Earlier on in the thread, you had posted that "I also tried the command prompt ping test. That comes out at 600ms fairly consistently. So now we have to ask the question: Why does a ping test come with low ping, but streaming data have such problems."   Are there specific pages (like the ones you had linked to upthread) that have issues loading, or does everything load slowly or fail to load?   ETA: you don't have to respond if you don't want to.  I'm just curious, as a subscriber, about the experiences of fellow subscribers.    Various pages load slow.  It is inconsistent.  Facebook, however, is one of the worst, likely because it hooks into so many other things.   ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @maratsade wrote: Has HughesNet made any offers to you? (discounts, for example)  From the look of it....   https://community.hughesnet.com/t5/Tech-Support/HughesNet-Tier-4-support-refused-to-help-with-unusual-high/m-p/116071/highlight/true#M78333   "I see that our representatives have already applied a monthly discount to your account, as a form of compensation. Currently, this is the extent of what can be done." In the very next post, I stated that the discount applied was for "the months of detrmental speeds (400K mbps was the lowest recorded speed), and had nothing to do with the high latency that is being experienced now".   So no, I have received no compensation for the high latency spikes. ... View more

No they have not.  Not for this issue anyway. @maratsade wrote: Has HughesNet made any offers to you? (discounts, for example)   @lighthope1 wrote: I have several tools to measure latency. Some are in-programme, some are from testmy.net, some from other stand-alone mesurement tools.   The report goes to HughesNet corporate and will also be published publicly.  I have kept a written log of every interaction I have had regarding this issue including the names of people.  I will be naming names, both of those who have been helpful and those who have not been.   HughesNet can decide if this has been acceptable customer service or not.  And, of course, others can as well.     ... View more

The point is that bad service should not just be "accepted".  We shouldn't learn to live with things that can be addressed but aren't because they know they are a monopoly, because someone is bad at their job, or if someone outright lies about something so as to not take responsibility.   I'm not talking about people who don't understand satellite.  I see a lot of posts from people who burn through their data either from downloading huge movies or because they have devices that suck up data.  I'm not talking about people who don't understand latency and the fact that the satellite is 20K+ miles out there and it takes time for a signal to travel.   What I am talking about is bad data management, bad trafficing, and other issues that are real and either are in the pervue of HughesNet or shoud at least be acknowledged.  I posted very recently about the trouble CenturyLink is giving HughesNet.  Even others have posted about it.  But as we have seen, HughesNet won't even acknowledge that.  Talk about head-in-the-sand!   When HughesNet or anyone has a problem, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.  And accepting it doesn't make it better.   We should never become someone who accepts poor service.  That just encourages more poor service. ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @lighthope1    If you're still subject to the two year agreement, have they offered to allow you to cancel without penalty? I am not subject to it; I've long past it.   Sadly, there is no other internet service in the area.  I can't hit Viasat's satellite because of trees and there is no cell service in the area.   Belive me, if there was any other option, HughesNet would be far in my rearview mirror. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: Where are you getting your latency measurements?  And where do you plan to file your written report? I have several tools to measure latency. Some are in-programme, some are from testmy.net, some from other stand-alone mesurement tools.   The report goes to HughesNet corporate and will also be published publicly.  I have kept a written log of every interaction I have had regarding this issue including the names of people.  I will be naming names, both of those who have been helpful and those who have not been.   HughesNet can decide if this has been acceptable customer service or not.  And, of course, others can as well. ... View more

Still no contact from HughesNet.  No data suggesting that there is any follow-through or investigation into extremely high latency spikes.   Still getting 10K+ latency spikes.  Facebook won't load.  (Though Facebook has its own issues.  It's so full of bloat and spyware, likely it is timing out due to this latency problem.)   I'll give this some extra time before I file my written report to see if they actually do anything.  Giving every chance possible. ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @lighthope1    I think the problem you're going to have is that you're dismissive of anything anyone tells you, even when factual, if it doesn't fit the narrative you've invested in, which is that the problem is HughesNet's and that need to fix it.  The issue is out of their control.   Good luck to you. What issue?  HughesNet says there is no issue.  That it's normal and to be expected.   Good luck to these HughesNet employees if their manager ever sees how they addressed this problem. ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: I'm not going to argue with you. You go right ahead and continue directing your anger to everyone not responsible for your problem. I'm out. If you're not going to be helpful, there's no reason for you to reply. ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: You may be angry, but your anger is misplaced. Why are you getting angry with HughesNet and their representatives, when they only have visibility into what they're responsible for? They're not responsible for CenturyLink's wonky backbone any more than you are. To quote my own post:   The problem is getting HughesNet to even admit something is wrong.    But this outright lie by some HughesNet employees.    To have a problem. To show evidence of a problem. And to have HughesNet blow you off.   That is where the anger comes from.   You: Doctor, I need help.  My arm is severed off.   Doctor: No it isn't.   You: Yes it is.  You can see it's severed off.   Doctor: No I can't.   You: I'm holding my severed arm in my other hand.   Doctor: What you are experiencing are typical side effects due to the current state of arms, just a bit more severe. ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: Qwest is your gateway's internet provider. CenturyLink now owns all of Qwest, just like they own all of Level3. If you didn't think CentryLink was the problem, now you should. Based on some other posts, that was actually my guess.  Qwest/CenturyLink is the source of the data clog.   The problem is getting HughesNet to even admit something is wrong.  For example, take a look at this complete ignorant reply by @Damian.   What you are experiencing are typical side effects due to the current state of satellite internet technology, just a bit more severe.   Seriously?  Seriously?!   And to make it worse, that is the same by-the-book answer I got from another HughesNet employee, indicating that they are trained to disavow any problem rather than address it.   You know, I would have been accepting of an answer that went, "We know there is a problem.  It seems Qwest is throttling our gateway connection to the internet.  We are working on a solution either with them or a work around them.  Please be patient as we continue to address this issue you are having."   I would naturally be frustrated that the problem is continuing, but at least I would know the problem is being acknowledged and worked on.   But this outright lie by some HughesNet employees.  No, I won't say lie.  Perhaps they really are not good at thier job and don't understand how things work.  Perhaps they need to be retained or reassigned.  I will be generous and consider that possibility.   But that is where the real frustration come from.  To have a problem. To show evidence of a problem.  And to have HughesNet blow you off.  And to have one of them...Damian...say well just go find another isp.  Wow, just wow.  I will certainly be mentioning that in the letter to Corporate I'll be sending shortly once I compile some more data on how this issue is being addressed or (currently) not being addressed.   ... View more

Here are some traceroutes.   Interesting that it always times out around the qwest.net one.   Tracing route to dmukx06zie5kn.cloudfront.net [2600:9000:2164:b200:1a:81cc:6dc0:93a1] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 2001:5b0:4fd1:9ad8:280:aeff:fe72:b44 2 622 ms 618 ms 628 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:1101::1 3 619 ms 656 ms 640 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::105 4 611 ms 628 ms 625 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::104 5 622 ms 618 ms 628 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:36:0:1 6 656 ms 608 ms 652 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:e:0:2 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 609 ms 634 ms 623 ms 2600:9000:fff:ff00::300 10 638 ms 668 ms 645 ms 2600:9000:fff:ff01:0:50:102:41 11 609 ms 641 ms 638 ms 2600:9000:fff:ff00::401 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 649 ms 620 ms 581 ms 2600:9000:2164:b200:1a:81cc:6dc0:93a1 Trace complete.   Tracing route to tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com [192.0.79.32] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.42.1 2 613 ms 612 ms 648 ms host174330065208.direcway.com [174.33.208.65] 3 693 ms 608 ms 618 ms host17433005213.direcway.com [174.33.213.5] 4 614 ms 578 ms 636 ms host17433004213.direcway.com [174.33.213.4] 5 611 ms 614 ms 643 ms tuk-edge-14.inet.qwest.net [65.153.170.53] 6 637 ms 620 ms 637 ms sjp-brdr-06.inet.qwest.net [67.14.34.214] 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 646 ms 663 ms 628 ms Comcast-level3-60G.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.75.106] 9 643 ms 648 ms 608 ms 50.248.116.14 10 620 ms 598 ms 599 ms wordpress.com [192.0.79.32] Trace complete. Tracing route to miceage.com [50.63.202.25] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.42.1 2 644 ms 598 ms 629 ms host174330065208.direcway.com [174.33.208.65] 3 605 ms 638 ms 648 ms host17433005213.direcway.com [174.33.213.5] 4 633 ms 628 ms 577 ms host174330033213.direcway.com [174.33.213.33] 5 595 ms 638 ms 638 ms tuk-edge-14.inet.qwest.net [65.153.170.53] 6 634 ms 608 ms 628 ms sea-brdr-03.inet.qwest.net [67.14.41.154] 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 686 ms 659 ms 696 ms 4.69.216.158 9 628 ms 648 ms 656 ms 4.53.228.238 10 691 ms 658 ms 658 ms ae1.ibrsa0107-01.lax1.bb.godaddy.com [148.72.34.7] 11 * * * Request timed out. 12 678 ms 648 ms 678 ms 148.72.32.16 13 652 ms 638 ms 675 ms be38.trmc0215-01.ars.mgmt.phx3.gdg [184.168.0.69] 14 660 ms 668 ms 658 ms ip-184-168-0-102.ip.secureserver.net [184.168.0.102] 15 663 ms 698 ms 654 ms ip-50-63-202-25.ip.secureserver.net [50.63.202.25] Trace complete.   Tracing route to youtube.com [2607:f8b0:400a:800::200e] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 2001:5b0:4fd1:9ad8:280:aeff:fe72:b44 2 635 ms 628 ms 638 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:1101::1 3 624 ms 618 ms 598 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::105 4 * 617 ms * 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::10a 5 674 ms 661 ms 608 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:36:0:1 6 615 ms 608 ms 608 ms 2001:428::205:171:3:129 7 635 ms 608 ms 628 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:2b:0:2 8 640 ms 658 ms 639 ms 2001:4860:0:1041::1 9 615 ms 628 ms 628 ms 2001:4860:0:1::1e6f 10 634 ms 648 ms 595 ms sea15s07-in-x0e.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:400a:800::200e] Trace complete.   Tracing route to testmy.net [2606:4700:20::681a:573] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 2001:5b0:4fd1:9ad8:280:aeff:fe72:b44 2 659 ms 618 ms 658 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:1101::1 3 610 ms 606 ms 636 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::105 4 622 ms * * 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::10a 5 607 ms 638 ms 628 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:36:0:1 6 607 ms 628 ms 648 ms 2001:428:0:1:205:171:0:58 7 865 ms 1028 ms 898 ms 2001:428:a01:a::2 8 644 ms 628 ms 638 ms 2001:1900:2100::457a 9 584 ms 630 ms 626 ms 2606:4700:20::681a:573 Trace complete.   Tracing route to us.blizzard.com [137.221.106.102] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.42.1 2 643 ms 618 ms 608 ms host174330065208.direcway.com [174.33.208.65] 3 649 ms 643 ms 618 ms host17433005213.direcway.com [174.33.213.5] 4 634 ms 628 ms 638 ms host174330033213.direcway.com [174.33.213.33] 5 614 ms 628 ms 658 ms tuk-edge-14.inet.qwest.net [65.153.170.53] 6 634 ms 609 ms 648 ms sea-brdr-03.inet.qwest.net [67.14.41.154] 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 676 ms 668 ms 628 ms BLIZZARD-EN.ear3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.71.135.106] 10 683 ms 674 ms 683 ms ae1-br01-eqla1.as57976.net [137.221.68.33] 11 637 ms 700 ms 668 ms et-0-0-2-br01-swlv10.as57976.net [137.221.65.69] 12 622 ms 656 ms 627 ms et-0-0-31-pe01-swlv10.as57976.net [137.221.83.67] 13 641 ms 677 ms 669 ms las-swlv10-ia-bons-02.as57976.net [137.221.66.19] 14 671 ms 661 ms 664 ms 137.221.105.17 15 677 ms 678 ms 658 ms 137.221.106.102 Trace complete.   Tracing route to google.com [2607:f8b0:400a:803::200e] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 2001:5b0:4fd1:9ad8:280:aeff:fe72:b44 2 596 ms 658 ms 628 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:1101::1 3 624 ms 628 ms 618 ms 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::105 4 646 ms * * 2001:5b0:4f00:fffa::104 5 638 ms 595 ms 621 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:36:0:1 6 637 ms 618 ms 632 ms 2001:428::205:171:3:129 7 640 ms 639 ms 618 ms 2001:428:6402:10:0:2b:0:2 8 624 ms 648 ms 598 ms 2001:4860:0:4::1 9 620 ms * * 2001:4860:0:1::255b 10 619 ms 637 ms 610 ms sea30s02-in-x0e.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:400a:803::200e] Trace complete. ... View more

Don't know how Facebook works, but here is the latest page load time.   Redirect 0 0 App cache --- 0 DNS lookup --- 0 TCP connection --- 0 TCP request 17 6663 TCP response 6680 0 Processing 6682 198506 onload event 205188 59   And for this post page.   Redirect 0 0 App cache 0 0 DNS lookup 0 0 TCP connection 0 0 TCP request 14 2225 TCP response 2239 286 Processing 2241 9261 onload event 11502 0   No contact from HughesNet since I talked to them last on 11-11-19.  Issue with very high latency spikes continues. ... View more

11-11-19 Ann Smith Ram tests, followed script to the letter. Representative had some trouble understanding speed variance during upload test. (Reported speed was average, and that upload speed varied between 4.48 and 0.29) Sent to Advanced Technical Support immediately. Ely Lopez. Denied responsibility. Said could not move to different gateway but might be able to move me to a different beam. Said moving to different beam would not change gateways. Making report to engineering. Case #125090946 Said to call Tier 1 support with this case number and report when latency issue happens again. Agent was told that this issue happens all the time and is variable, happening every several seconds. Asked how would I know if someone is actually working on this. Agent could not give specific information. Asked what was the point of calling this issue into Tier 1 again when I had made so many different reports. Agent was unable to give specific information. I will continue to log and report how HughesNet deals with this issue...or doesn't. ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @lighthope1    It's possible he was referring to switching to an alternate beam that overlaps your location.  A different beam would be assigned to a different gateway, but this is rarely done, and only when the signal from the alternate is adequate, which normally isn't the case.   That could be what he meant.  That was how I interpreted it.   I do have to get something done about this latency.  It interferes with my online education.  Live videos will skip with this kind of hangup.  And YouTube keeps buffering despite really good speeds.  So speed is great...when the speed isn't zero due to the latency spikes. ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @lighthope1 wrote: The next step in addressing this problem would be to move to a different gateway. This will tell us if the problem is with dish alignment (highly unlikely), a problem with the Seattle gateway (most likely given posts by others here), or a more widespread, system-wide problem (doubtful, but possible).   You can't be moved to a different gateway, as each beam is assigned to a single, specific gateway.  The only possible way to move to a different gateway is to be re-pointed to the alternate satellite, and then your gateway would be whichever one your beam on the alternate satellite is assigned to. (Okay, it was my browser that was messing up the message. Let's try it with a different browser)   The Tier 1 rep who I talked to last said engineering had to do it. So it's possible or he was mistaken. idk ... View more

@GabeU > You can't be moved to a different gateway, as each beam is assigned to a single, specific gateway. > The only possible way to move to a different gateway is to be re-pointed to the alternate satellite, > and then your gateway would be whichever one your beam on the alternate satellite is assigned to. (The message quote thing isn't working for me.) The Tier 1 rep who I talked to last said engineering had to do it. So it's possible or he was mistaken. idk ... View more

(Strange. I have no idea why it smashed all my paragraphs into one bunch. But they were spaced out!) ... View more

After a weekend of testing, I have the following observations: Web pages are loading slightly faster. This is in line with what the Tier 1 representative did in regards to adjusting some configurations. (I don't recall the exact words he used, so don't marry me to that phrasing.) The high latency problem, however, remains, with the largest spike being around 30 seconds. Sunday was a particularly bad day with latency generally between 2000ms and 4000ms with even higher spikes (plus some 700ms thrown in there). The next step in addressing this problem would be to move to a different gateway. This will tell us if the problem is with dish alignment (highly unlikely), a problem with the Seattle gateway (most likely given posts by others here), or a more widespread, system-wide problem (doubtful, but possible). The challenge is to get HughesNet to move me to a different gateway since, based on the response by @Damian, HughesNet still isn't even acknowledging their responsibility for the problem, instead opting to blame some untouchable "boogeyman" which apparently must be swinging the satellite from its orbit to somewhere around the moon based on these huge latency spikes. We'll see. I will continue to update this thread to record what becomes of this. ... View more

After one night of testing, I am still getting some higher than normal latency, but it has smoothed out somewhat, and I have not gotten any of that 6K+ latency. I will keep testing and report in this thread what is happening so everyone can see. @Damian wrote: @lighthope1,   Thank you for contacting us. I have been following this thread for the past few days and watching our representatives troubleshoot during your calls.   You have?  Then I am somewhat disappointed that you never jumped in to say anything.  It was I who had to make yet another call, otherwise this problem would have continued unaddressed.   I have also been running diagnostics of my own. The issue we are running into here is that the problems being experienced are being caused by something we cannot resolve remotely or on-site. Your equipment is fully operational. What you are experiencing are typical side effects due to the current state of satellite internet technology, just a bit more severe.   If that is true, then why did I not experience this when I was on the other satellite?  If this is, as you say, "are typical side effects," then this problem should be universal and not have appearly only after I was moved to a different satellite.   Ultimately, we hope that all of our users experience much less of this, but in some cases, this can vary from customer to customer, in terms of severity. I confirmed this information based on the fact that you have an optimal dish signal, with a recently clean diagnostics history. Also, your speeds are well-above average for your plan.   My speeds are very nice.  Much apprecaited.   I understand this is not an ideal situation, but neither I nor our engineers can alter the latency at this point.   That is an odd thing to say, since the most recent adjustments made by your Tier 1 representative did indeed seem to have some effect.  We'll continue to monitor and see if this is just a temporary thing or more permanent.   This is something we are working hard to improve and have made strides with previously.    I see that our representatives have already applied a monthly discount to your account, as a form of compensation.   If you examined the case as you say you have, then you know the compensation was for the months of detrmental speeds (400K mbps was the lowest recorded speed), and had nothing to do with the high latency that is being experienced now   Currently, this is the extent of what can be done.   Latency for a satellite is about 600ms.  Anything above that has to do with congestion, data clogs, bad traffic management, or hardware failure/misconfiguation.  All these are well within your ability to correct.  (Unless the issue is with the satellite itself, which would clearly be beyond your reach but not beyond your responsibility.)   A theory discussed with the latest representative was moving to a different gateway and see if that solves the problem. (Indicative of a gateway problem or data clog in the area.)   If our service is no longer able to meet your needs, we understand if you decide to move on to another ISP. I do apologize for the inconvenience.   That statement is extremely disingenuous. You know very well that no one uses satellite unless no other option is available.  So you know I have nowhere else to go.   Your statement to "move on to another ISP" simply appears to be an attempt to get rid of the complainer rather than fix the problem.   I will continue to update this thread so others can see how HughesNet addresses or doesn't address this problem.   Special kudos to the Tier 1 representative for case #124881865.  He was very helpful, saw the problem, and worked on fixing it.  A direct opposite to this message I am replying to.  Very, very disappointed in Damian's response.  I will log it for the record.   ... View more

Still no contact from HughesNet on this issue. Called Tier 1 support today. Tech made some adjustments. Technician said he is seeing high latency spikes. After several adjustments, latency spikes seems to have smoothed out a bit. Will continue to check over the next few days. I will continue to update this so people can see how HughesNet is handling it. ... View more

So I installed the page-lookup addon.  Here are some page times.   Hughesnet Community - https://community.hughesnet.com/ Redirect 0 0 App cache 0 0 DNS lookup 0 0 TCP connection 0 0 TCP request 20 13634 TCP response 13654 10 Processing 13658 3082 onload event 16740 1   Gallifrey Base - https://gallifreybase.com/gb/ Redirect 0 0 App cache 1 4 DNS lookup 5 1 TCP connection 6 988 TCP request 994 1746 TCP response 2740 397 Processing 2744 1658 onload event 4402 6   My HughesNet Redirect 0 0 App cache 1705 0 DNS lookup 1705 0 TCP connection 1705 0 TCP request 1712 748 TCP response 2460 1 Processing 2462 4982 onload event 7444 1   World of Warcraft forums - https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/ Redirect 0 0 App cache 1 0 DNS lookup 1 0 TCP connection 1 0 TCP request 15 6321 TCP response 6336 1 Processing 6340 8743 onload event 15083 1   During these tests, testmy.net was giving the following latency pattern: https://testmy.net/latency?tID=wrawnynbgt which varied between 887ms and 2608ms   To date, I have not heard back from HughesNet on this issue.  ... View more

When I was on a different satellite, I am not sure I had this problem. The other satellite was where I was getting 400K download speeds.  That came with some pretty high latency as welll, but it is impossible to tell if one problem was affecting the other.   My speeds are good now, but the latency is problematic.   I think we're all on board that there is a data clog.  But since HughesNet has not acknowledged the problem, we can not say for sure that it is the problem or if they are even working on it.   As long as the problem is not acknowledged, it will be classifed as a Problem Ignored. ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: @lighthope1 wrote: Finding where the problem is is far beyond my ability. But using a sample path to only one place and calling it a problem everywhere without proof isn't going to be taken seriously. I provided several examples of prolems.  If HughesNet ignores that, that is a them problem, not a me problem. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: Gallifrey is so far away, this may be the reason it takes so long for the signal to reach it -- except for Time Lords, of course.  Ah, but they have time machines, so they can go back in time and send the message so it gets here the next instant.  :) ... View more