About lighthope1

@maratsade wrote: It's not just latency; it's more complex than that and it involves issues with the backbone,  network load, task prioritisation, congestion, and probably other variables. All those together may be interpreted by users as latency issues or speed issues, but it's more than that.  It's also very noticeable if you're on satellite, but it's affecting everyone.  WHY is it more noticable on satellite?   Consider this:  There are five hops from me to the destination.   1  2  3  4  5   Now, at hop 2 is CenturyLink.  There is a 70ms delay due to traffic shaping.  So that adds 70ms to the delay.   Hop 3 is another CenturyLink.  There is a 100ms delay due to a problem with their server.  Now we're up to an additional 170ms delay.   Why is a satellite user seeing a 5000ms delay when a terrestrial user is only seeing a 200ms delay?   Unless for some reason hop 2 and 4 is communicating back to the user.  Thus you're having to resend the data two, three, four times.  That would certainly account for it.   That's not a delay, that is a packet loss.  (I may be using the wrong term here.)   If CL is losing data and requiring us to resend it, that is a major issue.  Nothing to do with latency. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: Everyone is seeing this. The difference is, if you have cable, you have  higher speeds, so you notice it less.  It's not a speed problem.  It's a latency problem.   My speeds are 43mbs.  And I am still getting multi-second latency.   Are you saying that CenturyLink customers are getting multi-second latency spikes all the time?  (I haven't heard any of those complains, but I could be looking in the wrong place.)   ... View more

If CenturyLink is having slowdowns, how does that explain the multi-second delays we are seeing?  At most, we should get a bump in latency, but not 3 seconds, 6 seconds, 10 seconds!   No one who has terrestrial internet is complaining of these kinds of delays.   Why is it only satellite is seeing this? ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: Qwest IS CenturyLink now CL bought them, Level3, and one other. That does indeed make it a problem.   We could be slowed down in several spots rather than a single one.   That would explain the wild swings in latency.  If it was just one hop or even two, the latency swings would not be so massive.  But if five or seven hops all slowed us down at once, that would be massive!   So...CenturyLink is looking to be bribed by HughesNet to let traffic pass through unhidered? ... View more

@C0RR0SIVE wrote: Sadly, with how things are, Hughesnet will never have the option to route around anyone. Oh absolutely they can.  I had a chat with a very high up a few months ago.  He said it was possible, but a massive undertaking.  I kind of don't understand why, as the internet is designed to auto-route around dead servers.  But that is all above my pay grade.   Even if they did, there may not be any routes available that would avoid a poor performing network. That could be an issue. The fact that we can get good connections to Cloudflare and Amazon is proof that good routes are out there.  I think anyone, even companies should be allowed to do what they wish with their property, however, there should be limitations to that when it comes to communications systems. Dr. Phil said that anything you say before the word "but" doesn't count.  🙂 🙂 🙂   But yeah, I understand the quandary.  Either private property is private property or it isn't.   Is CenturyLink the first hop after it leaves HughesNet?  Or is it after Qwest, which is what all my traceroutes seem to show? ... View more

@GabeU wrote: CenturyLink is progressively becoming and even bigger pile of you know what.  Sometimes I wonder if they even know what they're doing.   I am not in favour of net neutrality as I believe people should be able to do with their private property what they will.   But I am also not in favour of one company holding others hostage.   HughesNet should be able to route around CL's servers.  The internet was designed to do that.   CL should be blacklisted by other companies.  Just refuse to accept connections from CL and see how long it takes CenturyLink to start playing ball.  lol   ... View more

@maratsade wrote: OneDrive? I haven't checked to see if it's working, though.  Nope. Just get a blank screen with OneDrive. ... View more

@Liz wrote: Hi lighthope1, Thank you for your feedback on this, I'll send this over to engineering. Curious, did you get that suggestion from here? http://www.hninfo.us/worktips   -Liz   I don't recall where I saw it, but I think I saw someone mention that it didn't always work.  So it must have been in a conversation thread. ... View more

Is routing arount CL feesable?  I don't recall where they are on the path.   They just seem to be an unrepentant problem child. ... View more

Dropbox is a blank screen for me, and I have business files I need to get off there.   Did I hear someone say it may be a CL problem? ... View more

@Dphillips9130 wrote: I work virtually and I cannot upload any documents over 20MB. Between 15-20MB it takes 10 minutes plus to email a doc this size.   Yeah, it's really strange.  testmy.net is showing a whopping 47.9 Mbps download, though the latency test is still garbage all over the place, ranging from 913 to 2808 just on this last test.   E-mail is achingly slow, Dropbox is unusable, and Facebook is near unusable. ... View more

What is your signal strength?   http://192.168.0.1 - > System Status Satellite Receive Signal Strength is under WAN Info   What satellite are you on?   http://192.168.0.1 -> System Information Satellite info is under Satellite Name and Beam   Try also running testmy.net Latency test.  A lot of people will tell you that isn't a good test, but it is.  It's far more accurate than traceroute or ping.  Test won't be good if you have a bad signal, though. ... View more

@MarkJFine wrote: Because you're still potentially doubling people's allowance when the bandwidth isn't even there to support the current situation. You'd just be making it a lot worse and making people even more angry.   @lighthope1 wrote: Since streaming services eat up so much internet traffic, why not a plan that ups the amount of data we have so we can download updates and other apps that are usually one-time downloads, but limit the amount of data from streaming sites?   So you get 100 gigs.  But if you download more than..say...30 gigs from Netflix, any more data from Netflix gets throttled.   More data available, but stops that bandwidth hogs.  It's the streaming that is killing the internet right now.  And before.  One of the problems customers have is that updates eat a lot of data.  But they are infrequent.   Really, just tossing ideas out there to drag HughesNet kicking and screaming into the 21 century.  Their data plans don't match what users need these days.  Especially since I think the Leos are going to eat them up.   Yes, equipment limits them.  That is a "them" problem. ... View more

@GabeU wrote: I'm waiting to see what the LEO services have to offer.  Plus, HughesNet is sending a new sat up next year and they may have much better plans than they do now.  We'll see.     My understanding is that they are going to start in the Southern States.  Which is odd as most of the dead areas are in the North as far as I understood.   So I have to wait a bit after the rollout before I can get it.   Wish they'd hurry up.   ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @lighthope1 wrote:  I didn't know they had unlimited plans.  I knew they had 150gig plans, but they nixed those pretty fast.  Yep.  They still have "prioritization" levels, where a subscriber "may" be prioritized behind others during periods of congestion once they reach the level for their particular plan.  For some, it's not that bad when they reach that level, but others have their speeds plummet to nearly unusable levels (0.2Mbps, for example).   By that definition, HughesNet also has "unlimited" data with "prioritization levels".  I was speaking about "at speed" data.   ... View more

@GabeU wrote: @maratsade wrote: Price gougy is what Verizon Wireless charges for tokens: $15 a GB, vs. HN's $3.  ViaSat's price for extra data is outrageous, as well.  I saw someone mention the price one day on their community and I was shocked.  Something like $10 per GB.       Edit:  For their applicable plans, that is.  You can't buy extra for their "unlimited" plans. I didn't know they had unlimited plans.  I knew they had 150gig plans, but they nixed those pretty fast.   As far as the two satellite providers go, HughesNet wins when it comes to price and data.  But don't let's forget that is all a matter of perspective.  HughesNet is still really stingy with their data allowance.  It's just ViaSat is even worse.   HughesNet should be offering 100gig plans these days, considering how much everything has moved online.  (And that is even before the Chinese Coronavirus.) ... View more

@GabeU wrote: For reference, 10GB of token data is $30.  Granted, that would create a theoretical 40GB plan at $130 per month rather than $126 (it would likely be $125 by their pricing).  Perhaps the advantage of unused token rollover would somewhat make up for the $5 extra cost.  It's just a thought.  I never thought of that.  Though it doesn't work out as well if you're willing to take the two-year sell-your-soul-to-HughesNet offer.  lol   There's just something about paying $30 for a data token that feels price-gougy, even though as you pointed out it works out virtually the same if you aren't on contract.  Psycology, huh?   tbh, it would be a better money maker for HughesNet.  Guarenteed monthly extra cash when the data might not even be used. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: I've often wondered why there is no 40GB plan.  I sat down and figured out the per gig prices they charge.   10 gig plan: 6.00/gig 20 gig plan: 3.50/gig 30 gig plan: 3.33/gig 50 gig plan: 3.00/gig   A 40 gig plan should slot right in there at 3.15/gig or $126/month.  ($106/month if you sign up for a two year contract.)   I wonder what Starlink is going to charge per gig.   At the moment, anything is better than ViaSat. In my area, they are charging a laughable $200 for 65 gigs.  No bonus period!  (I didn't count the bonus period HughesNet has since most people aren't up during that time and so it generally goes unused.) ... View more

@Chelliance wrote: No, I shouldn't  have to keep buying tokens.  Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, max speed on Hughesnet was 25 mbps.  If data allowance was reached, that dropped severely- I was seeing between .5 and 2.5 mbps.   However, bonus speeds would remain around 25 until I reached 50gb, then it didn't matter what time I used the system, it severely throttled.   I've had Hughesnet for a couple of years, I know the speed patterns for my area. I'm not asking for blazing 100+ mbps like I'm connected to broadband, I am asking why their posted COVID19 policy doesn't appear to be in effect once data limit is reached.   If you have bonus data available, you should still be getting normal speeds during the bonus period, even if you're throttled during the day.  If you're not, you should talk to technical support.   Even with the internet being overburdened, you shouldn't be getting such slow speeds if you are not throttled.     ... View more

@C0RR0SIVE wrote: I wouldn't suggest doing that... Borderline fraud, and can result in someone being locked into a higher service plan for a good while. There's nothing fraudulant about it.  Changing plans.  Each plan starts anew.  If that is the way HughesNet designed it, that's on them.   You even get a new data bucket when you change satellites, though that requires a tech visit and a dish reposition.   I don't know about being locked into a higher plan.  The system will not let you change plans online more than a couple times.  After that, you have to talk to someone.  They can change it.   There is absolutely nothing in the plans that says you have to remain in a plan a certain amout of time.   But yeah, you are kind of gaming the system if you try to do this repeatedly.   But if you're desperate for data, as the OP seems to be, HughesNet seems to be okay with a one off every once in a while. ... View more

You can also change your data plan. That refills your bucket, even if you downgrade.   Don't think this is a clever way to get free data, though. The system will only let you do this once or twice every few months before it figures out you're trying to "game the system".   But it does work. ... View more

@maratsade wrote: " The LEOs will kill HughesNet (and Viasat)."   I believe HN is involved in the whole LEO thing, so no. I haven't seen HughesNet's name involved in any of the LEO articles I've read.  I could have missed something, though.  But as far as I know, HN is not part of it...unless they are leasing capacity. ... View more