About MrBuster

MrBuster · ‎10-17-2020

Yeah, these are all J2 / Echostar 19 gateways -- I could get the list readily enough from that CCF file along with the beams they cover, but the listed Echostar 17 names are more cryptic. GWalk had an image he made years ago that shows J1 / Echostar 17 gateways along with beams. I am not sure how he knew. That satbeams site you showed is very handy for locating these by the way -- I would go to the gateway beams, find the center, then search that location on Google maps near the middle. In most cases I could find something in a few minutes. The ones shown here had obvious names on the map related to Hughes/Echostar and all had 13.2m dishes as can be seen by the distance measure. The other sites I found had fewer and smaller dishes. For example, this may be ALB. Notice the big dish is only 8.2m (or 8.1m?) and there are fewer here. Not sure why some gateways are so beefy -- BIL and MIS where shown on Google maps with construction by them, so maybe they are bigger now....

MrBuster · ‎10-17-2020

@bronccat wrote: On thehome page following that link I see only diagnostic code? 0s then 0005 The diagnostic code gives an abbreviated way of showing status for the last 3 hours -- it can be seen decoded visually on the following screen: http://192.168.0.1/limited.html#!/diagnostics/hourly-history It works like this: The first 5 digits are a numeric code representing the most recent past hour. The next 5 digits are for one hour back, and the next 5 digits after that are for two hours back. The final digit is some kind of a checksum. To decode these, reposition the dashes in the code like this: 0000-0000-0000-0005 -> 00000-00000-00000-5 Each group of five digits is the status for 1 hour with the following number values matching up with the display in the above screen: 2 Downlink 4 Uplink 16 Association 32 TCP Acceleration 128 RTT 512 FAP 1024 Web Acceleration [N] 2048 DNS Acceleration [N] 4096 DNS Acceleration [I] I don't know what the values for LAN and Inroute Protection are -- I don't remember seeing them, but maybe 8192, and 16384. There may be more code values not shown in the display as 1, 8, 64, and 256 are obviously missing and may represent something. If anyone knows, please let me know! For example 3 hours of FAP without anything else would have a code like this: 00512-00512-00512 (shown as 0051-2005-1200-512x, where x is some digit for the checksum) A value of 00000-00000-00020 (shown as 0000-0000-0000-020x) means that Uplink+Association in the last hour with the two hours before being good as 4=Uplink + 16=Association gives 20 for both Uplink and Association. If you see the diagnostic code was 0000-0000-0000-0005 then your last 3 hours would show in the display like mine above. Unfortunately, WiFi can give really bad performance if another WiFi hotspot is in range using an over-lapping channel. I experimented setting up two WiFi in range of each other purposely setting over lapping channels and the result is sub 800 Kbps at best! Also certain devices don't seem to play by the WiFi rules nicely - my niece had a certain older phone that would cause all other devices to drop off/rejoin anytime it joined the WiFi. If she then let it sit for a while, all devices would again drop off and rejoin after so many minutes and the process would repeat the moment she touched it making it squak something over the WiFi. When the devices dropped/rejoined, some would have trouble getting back on making a huge pain. I have only seen two devices like this, but I think both may have been made in 2008 or 2009 and they made using WiFi a nightmare when they were turned on. Your mentioning of the low speed reminded me of that over lapping channel thing or interference, but don't discount there being a rogue device -- the only way I could find them was to be sure that all devices were powered off -- not just screen dark but actually powered off, and testing each device with one other device on to find the trouble maker. This is a huge pain since there were a ton of devices here using WiFi. Many of the folks here requests tests using wired connection to side step the complex trouble shooting of WiFi problems.

MrBuster · ‎10-17-2020

The ranges on your IPGW seem the same as mine then 1201-1204, 1305-1308, 1409-1412 I was hoping to hear from someone that sees different ranges -- I thought maybe they stuck in several banks of 12 IPGW, but gave each customer access to only 12, but so far nobody has said they have seen any number other than the above. I saw a picture online in a HughesNet brochure of some sort that showed rack servers with a pair of network cards(?) apiece as hardware that might represent what is behind an IPGW number. I have been looking for the J2 gateways to get images of what they look like. Some are obvious and have a huge number of dishes, others might just be a single big dish sitting in some parking lot. The ones with a single smaller dish are the hardest to find -- and I am not sure they are actually a gateway. I think I was mistaken about size -- the gateway above (CHY) seems to have as 13.2m(?) dish plus that big weird thing north of the the dishes whatever that is. Whatever that is, GIL has two of them plus a bunch of the 13.1 or 13.2m dishes. The NLV gateway also has a huge number of dish antenna all over and it is handily labeled by Google as "Hughes Network Systems" so I think it is safe to say that gateway is found. Anybody find other sites? I am tired out searching for OMA -- I could not find a dish bigger than 4m, and it was a single dish that I suspect belongs to somebody else. Here are the ones I saw with BIG dishes: CHY -- sorry, in this pic I cut off the big weird thing at the top: GIL -- scads of dish antenna willy nilly with two of those weird things -- anybody know what they are? NLV is identified on Google maps -- that makes it easy! Let me know if you want to see some of the pics that show only a single lonely/small dish -- not sure they are really gateways.

MrBuster · ‎10-17-2020

I see in that old gov application for licenses that there are several frequency bands for both upload and download -- perhaps they have so many dishes not just for redundancy, but to split based on frequency band as well as upload/download? I suspect this gateway shown here is serving not just J2, but also some older satellites -- anyway, I can see the aim is different on the dishes, but many dishes of different sizes appear to be aimed at the same thing. I found some other gateways that had fewer dishes. Having redundancy is good -- getting a little water in a cable without redundancy would cause havoc for a lot of folks on several beams if everything went through a single dish, although I think I saw something about there being a backup gateway setup for each beam should a disaster take out a gateway. Do you remember when the last time you saw three hops? Maybe it is connected with a gateway upgrade they did at some point? The gateway upgrades earlier this year were fairly noticeable, so I was wondering if maybe what you saw was related to that? I had not thought of logging a traceroute result every week or so to watch for things changing like that. By the way, what number for your IPGW do you see? I was wondering if other customers see numbers outside of the ranges that I have been seeing since earlier this year -- of course you are a different beam and gateway, but I was curious if the number ranges differ by customer/plan etc.

MrBuster · ‎10-17-2020

I was thinking about the gateways and wondering what they look like. Would it be one small dish nobody notices? A really big dish like a radio telescope? A row of dishes all aimed the same way? Or would it be a dish antenna version of a late 19th century French battleship with guns of all sizes aimed in every imaginable direction? Do the gateways have to be a minimum distance from airports? Do they have to be in walking distance of a Taco Bell? Why multiple dish antenna? Multiple antenna might give the ability to send/receive signals in different frequency bands. Why a big dish antennae? A big dish should give better reception. I have noticed that bad weather over the gateway has to be worse than the weather I have to block the signal just by using WunderMap. Anyway, in the universal language of science and mathematics a big dish means one thing: "Your flying saucer must be at least this big to attack the earth gateway station!" So rather than playing 'Where's Waldo?' looking for surface to air missile sites and submarines in North Korea, I figured I would look around to see what I could spot that might be a HughesNet Earth Gateway. Wow! Yes, the Jeune École fad is over! Looks like those dishes are aimed toward at least 3 satellites, just guessing by the shadows and angles on the dish antennae! From some very old government "red tape" docs, it appears that not all gateways have the same size dishes as one has or had a really big dish. Might be neat to look at that one. I guess the sizes are determined by the frequency and weather conditions/humidity typical of the location. I think higher frequencies require a bigger dish with bad weather--so if the site can only get high frequencies to use, then they may need a bigger dish if the location is more humid. Perhaps somebody familiar with all this can chime in and answer the age old question "Do really big dish antenna attract big flying saucers?"

MrBuster · ‎10-09-2020

For the 12XX range, I only get 1201 throught 1204 -- do you ever see 1205 or higher? Specifically I was wondering if they essentially tripled the IPGW at each gateway, but only let each user access to 1/3 of the range.

MrBuster · ‎10-09-2020

I don't think they intend to imply that only the testmy.net results are valid, just that the method the Hughesnet corporate engineering group are using to diagnose problems has been calibrated to the testmy.net test with a very specific test setup. This is just an attempt to eliminate as many variables as possible. As I understand it, the phone/chat folks are really just following a script and such tightly controlled tests would not be needed as they do not have access to the detailed performance data regarding the entire system that the corporate engineering group has.

MrBuster · ‎10-09-2020

This is a while ago, but I have had the following show up: 1201,1202,1203,1204 1305,1306,1307,1308 1409,1410,1411,1412 I had the hunch that maybe other users had other ranges, like 1205-1208, etc The idea is that the IPGW count may have been greatly increased with each user only getting a subset. Anybody out there seeing an IPGW with labels outside the group I listed above?

MrBuster · ‎10-09-2020

Good points all. I was just looking for the case where all descent tests by all users associated with a city scored well, as that implies no problem within some recent time period. Considering two threads (titles in bold below are the threads): Slow speed In looking at a city for the user, I could see that all test results were bad. Of course a huge number of the tests used a test size that was far too small, and thus would give a bad score because the latency "put a thumb" on the scale so to speak. Nothing here to say what the problem is, or if there really is a problem -- but it does not say it is good either. The engineers did something and performance improved for multiple customers. Slow internet speed In looking at a city for this user, I saw other users with good scores at the same time this user had low scores. Of course it could be a J1 beam vs J2 beam thing, but the results hinted that this is not an issue everyone is facing. In the end, it appears that the issue was that "multithreading" was turned on. In looking in the history, the users tests were good before this feature was turned on, so the multithreading test may have been the issue. Perhaps a Big Chungus was lodged in the Level 3 pipes between one of the servers used for the multithread test and the gateway causing the whole test score to look bad. 🙂

MrBuster · ‎10-07-2020

@maratsade wrote: This task has been assigned to you, Agent B. How are you doing with this? 😉 Not good -- I am paid chicken feed, and I slept in. I am night blind anyway....but if I get some good results I will be sure to crow about it!

MrBuster · ‎10-07-2020

The comment about suspicious results was related to the laugh we had about the idea of running a bunch of tests at 4am to "salt the beam" to make it look good, but the point of faulty test runs is a fair point. In looking at results, it seems that wrong test size is far more likely to be something to filter out. Anyway, the idea is that it is possible to compare your test results with others in your area with the caveat that some users may be on J1, and so a different beam. In looking at the cities associated with my results, the majority are relatively close to the beam center, and so it promised little overlap with a J1 beam, but with the numbers that maratsade gave, it is obvious there is a high probability that users from J1 and J2 will be listed in the data of a single city. On the good side, glancing around numerous cities along the east coast gives a demonstration that the majority of customers have good performance since the average score is often 25Mbps to 35Mbps even with the test result records with incorrect small test sizes included. This means the good test results I am seeing are not unusual. Having a way to show objective evidence that other users in an area are having decent performance can help to rule out that the problem is at the gateway or with the beam. Poor scores in an area do not prove anything, but do not exclude anything either. How often have you seen somebody proclaim that the problem is with beam or the gateway? As users without any inside information regarding the system there is no way to say. With the TestMy.net database, when a user has an issue and presents a TestMy.net record, it is possible to compare the results with other user's test results in the area potentially providing some demonstration of what the problem is NOT, and helping with the process of troubleshooting. Do you not see any value in that?

MrBuster · ‎10-06-2020

As anyone that has followed the thread above may have noticed, there is a button to display the data behind the median and average shown. So you can review the individual test results and copy them to exclude the suspicious results created by miscreants, nefarious individuals, dirty birds, or friendly flounder that may have been engaged in salting the beam with wild scores for fun or profit. Ah! Netflix time! Personally, I like buffering because birds are incontinent by nature and I can use the breaks, so prime time here I come! HD

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@MarkJFine wrote: Incidentally, latency is usually the real tell that congestion exists because it will show delayed packets in the buffer. A beam could becoming congested and you'd not know it from looking at speed until the congestion becomes extreme. Then it's not just speed, but dropped packets as well, just because the system can't keep up with the buffered requests/responses. I agree -- if I download the log and graph the column of numbers behind the RTT flag, during normal week days for my beam it rises briefly at 2am, 3am, then rises 6:30am-7:30am, and does the big rise from 6:30pm to 11pm. The highest numbers usually are around 8:30pm. Other times it is at the minimum. This number appears to only include the time for the queueing up and ride over the satellite, as they have some other columns that look at the time past that. There is also a column for lost packets and %. If this number goes above 2000ms average for a 5 minute period, you get a red X on the 5 minute chart. If the 5 minute chart records 2 Xs (or maybe 3?) it gives a red X on the hourly chart -- simple and useful, I thought. But while this seems to give some insight about my own beam and how busy it is at different times a day, it does not tell me anything about your beam. If I was moving or considering Hughesnet, I think this gives me some idea what it is like around beam 68 recently. If this is way off from your expectation and experience, please do let me know. This score is not too shabby! This score looks decent since a bunch of these tests would have been run from phones over 2.4Ghz WiFi with small test blocks that lower the average! Now on the other hand, if we find that 40 of these 109 tests were run from a beam in Idaho, and that the people shown here are not in beam 68, then this tells us very little. I am running some more tests on my beam to see how much "salting" of the beam I can do since I am pulling around 50Mbps at the moment....

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@maratsade wrote: Is there evidence that an oversold beam always functions poorly? Of course not. But it is unlikely that an oversold beam will have an *average of many* recent tests above 25Mbps and therefore probable that the beam is not oversold, and so it looks to me to be evidence the beam is not oversold. Of course, I laugh pretty hard at the idea of trying to figure out when I can run 50 tests when everyone else is asleep so as to make an oversold beam look good 🙂 Maybe we can coin a term for it -- "salting a beam" haha

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@maratsade wrote: "if the average is good, then the beam can not possibly be over sold" But there may be other reasons for speed issues -- in 2017 there were problems with Bean 68 and the speed was pretty bad for a while and didn't get better until the engineers fixed whatever the issue was. Yes, absolutely. When there was that problem, presumably all recent tests run when the problem existed would have been bad and the recent average would be low. Just because the recent average is bad does not imply the beam is oversold. But if the average of recent tests is good, then how can anyone say the beam is experiencing poor performance because it is oversold? If I have repeated bad test results recently, but the average of recent tests is good as shown in the DB, then I think the following are implied: The entire beam is not having problems The beam is not over sold I think this can be a useful way to say beam X is *not* oversold, and appears to be running good recently. It is not a demonstration that beam X is oversold. It also lets us know approximately how we are doing compared to others in our area. This kind of test does not offer proof the beam is oversold -- it simply provides evidence it is not.

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@maratsade wrote: "2. This leads to this display -- is there not a city shown?" Yes, different cities with different tests. I thought you wanted to know how far they were from the center of beam 68. The distances to what I think is the center vary, as do the distances from each of these cities and my location. Yes, that was what I wanted -- it appears the city can be anywhere in the beam. I posted the above before I saw your reply with the distances. If the cities are always within your beam, then it seems likely that the test results for HughesNet for the city are for users sharing the beam with you -- if the average is good, then the beam can not possibly be over sold, as obviously other users recently had scores high enough to raise the average given that many users are posting tests that artificially lower the average by using too small a test size, or by using Wi-Fi for the test. What we can not see is the overall average for the entire beam, since the numbers are divided up to the cities in the beam. Also, if the city can be anywhere in the beam, then some locations may be showing test results from J1/gen4 mixed in the results, depending on where you are. Now, if we find a city showing in the above way that is nowhere in the beam foot print, then we can no longer think scores attributed to that city for HughesNet share your beam. My thinking is, if someone says they have an over sold crowded beam, then given the beam number, it is possible to find cities in that beam and review an average of other users that are likely in the same beam. If the average of recent tests good, it seems likely the issue is not that the beam is crowded since there has to be somebody with scores good enough to bring the average up.

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@maratsade wrote: OK, these are the approximate distances (in miles) from what looks like the town closest to the center of beam 68 (I'm guessing here, using SatBeams) and some of the towns/cities listed by TMN: 81, 75, 68, 55, 127, 35 Ok, I see -- I think you are showing the distance for different cities identified as your location to the approximate center of your beam, so with 127 miles it must be that any city in the beam can be shown and not just a city near (within 60 miles or so) of the center. 127 miles might almost be to the edge of the beam, so maybe the city I saw with the super fast Hughes net Mbps average could have been from someone in Maryland in (or there about) in either beam 68 or beam 69 since it was right at the edge. Maybe somebody with really good test scores decided to do a few hundred tests in the last week to get that high average for the city!

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

@maratsade wrote: "Maratsade, would you mind sharing the cities you saw along with your beam? Or at least give a rough impression of how far the cities were from the center of your beam?" I'm on beam 68. Where's the center of this beam? EDIT: Sometimes the "city" you get is "US." Do you not get a city doing this? From TestMy.net, select from the DB menu 'TestMy.net Database' 2. This leads to this display -- is there not a city shown? 3. Clicking the City leads to a display like this (the graph below would include all ISPs): 4. Clicking on the ISPs tab shows this: This city is pretty far from me, but it does apear to be roughly in the middle of beam 82. I see in the past I had a different city showing, but it was in the same rough location. The averages shown here are lowered by tests with the wrong test size, but it does appear to include my tests, since when I run a test, the count here increases. I do not know what they mean by '64 tests recently' perhaps 64 tests in the last week? The average looks good -- about what I get a lot, and the impression is that others in this beam that happen to get this city are getting similar performance and therefore beam 82 is *not* over sold 🙂 Beam 68 appears to be centered over northern VA, right near the border of WV -- I am just going by that picture someone posted a while back. I saw a link to some satellite page that shows spot beam positions more accurately, but I don't know much about it other than looking at it once or twice noticing the handful of spot beams J2 has down around Ecuador and in Mexico.

MrBuster · ‎10-04-2020

Yes, they do not have a correct location -- the city they determined for me was also in the wrong state. I am on the edge of the beam, and the city they selected as my location seemed to be toward the center of my beam. I came in with a different connection and got the same city an so I wondered how consistently they were choosing that city and more generally if others on the beam would get that same city. After digging through some tests I ran over a year ago, I see they had a different city chosen for my location -- also in a state different from me, but also toward the middle of the my beam, so it is not consistent. So obviously since it does not consistently choose a city based upon the beam, it is impossible to compare a score against the average and know how your bandwidth compares to the beam in general -- as maratsade demonstrates by getting two different cities with different accounts. The gateways handle multiple beams in different time zones, but I did not see a city chosen based upon the location for one of those other beams, so it seems like they can narrow it down to a general geographic location based upon the beam, but can still be 100 miles off from the true location. I was doing the bandwidth test -- I agree the TestMy.net latency test is fairly pointless especially as the HT2000W records average latency for every 5 minute and 1 hour period anyway. The average score even for the bandwidth test would also not be an accurate measure not only for the reason you mention, but also because there are a lot of tests done on small test sizes which will not be accurate with satellite. If you don't mind, what city did you get? Mark, I think you were beam 68 -- so did your city land toward to middle of beam 68 in northern VA? Maratsade, would you mind sharing the cities you saw along with your beam? Or at least give a rough impression of how far the cities were from the center of your beam? I dug through a bunch of cities this way, and the average seems to be around 35Mbps for what I thought were selected from J2 beams, and 25Mbps for J1 beams (which might be a combination of gen 4 and gen 5 services if I understand correctly), which is considerably better than what I imagined based upon reading posts on this site! It seems the great performance I get is not out of line with the areas I combed through. I did see a city on the edge between beam 68 and 69--far from the center of a J2 beam--that had an average of around 50Mbps, and they had run a lot of tests. Thanks!

MrBuster · ‎10-03-2020

I was poking around the 'TestMy.net Database' option under 'DB' on the TestMy.net page, and I noticed something that might be useful for knowing how your tests compare with other users of HughesNet that share your beam -- and thus experience the same "congestion" circumstances that you do. After you select 'TestMy.net Database', there is a list of details that they use to ID you -- this includes a city. As a satellite beam covers a wide area, the city I saw was some distance from me, but it appeared to be close to the center of my beam! Click the City, then click the ISPs tab, and check to if you see a speed average for HughesNet for this city which may represent the average speed for your beam. Would someone else try this and report what city you are seeing associated with your location along with your satellite beam number? This will let me know if this idea actually holds water so to speak. I have searched for others cities that I thought might be near a beam center and found some that I thought would be for Jupiter 1, VS1, and VS2 that appear to give speeds that are in the general range of what I guessed for each. Does anyone familiar with TestMy.net know how to search a provider for cities that they have records for? That would make it a lot easier to check if this is an idea with potential or just nonsense as the cities I found with records have been found with just wild guessing based on looking at a map. Now, of course, many folks that run the test use the wrong test size (too small test size and the test result is dominated by the start up time due to latency), or they are using Wi-Fi, so the average result numbers are likely to be on the low side, but if this works, then this would give a way to know if you are experiencing performance on-par with others that share your beam.

MrBuster · ‎10-02-2020

@Edbeardmore @Edbeardmore wrote: I agree with you and know many who do as well. These idiots saying that its not are fools and probably bots they put here to shame people who don't like their service. I was a fool for believing their BS claims from the start. Fool me once shame on you, but you won't fool me twice. At the end of this foolish contract and all the wasted money I am out of here and have sent a claim to the Better Business as well. Good riddance HughesNet liars. I know exactly what you mean, these new models that go on about their "tensor units" and their "teraflops" are making a fool of me all the time. Just the other day, one of these slick talking bots dropped the comment "you know what they say about vacuum tubes...." -- sure, in my day we didn't have FPUs, but we were able to make do with integers. Since the remains of a hurricane blew through two weeks ago, I have been getting signal drop out at times, and so I made a post describing the issue a few days ago in the "Tech Support" section and they sent a technician out yesterday. I had a loose wire on the dish where the screw part had come partly undone and the seal ring was dropped down hanging on the wire which let water in. The tech saw it right away and changed out the wire and tightened things up. So far it seems the signal dropout has stopped because it has not happened since so I am hoping for the best. So if you are experiencing a problem or malfunction, even if it is something minor like a loose screw, I would recommend trying for some assistance like I did.

MrBuster · ‎10-01-2020

I think this is fixed now -- the cable came loose up next to the thingy on the dish and the seal ring was broken. It seems the remains of the hurricane on the night of 9/16 to 9/17 that blew through must have broke it and caused some water intrusion in the upper part of the line. The tech replaced the modem too. Seems to be running normally now -- it seems the drop outs from temperature change symptom was a familiar result of that upper part of the cable coming loose and moister intruding into the line. Thank you for getting this going!

MrBuster · ‎09-30-2020

That time slot is good with me, of course. I think the drop outs might be happening when the temperature is changing outside. When the packets are dropped, the SQF drops to 0 for a short period of time (the log which is based on 5 minute intervals might miss very short period SQF drop outs, other than showing the dropped packets). During these times the System/Receive/Transmit lights on the HW2000W go dark for the duration. During the day when things are warming up it runs good once it passes 8:15am or so as you can see here -- this graph shows a storm yesterday morning, and you can see the SQF goes lower and comes up over time, and everything went fine with that. Does this just look like a loose connection in the wire up by the dish? It seems like in the early morning hours when it is getting cool and at 8:15am when the sun starts to warm the wires around the dish the drop outs happen. At other times it seems solid. I am guessing if the thingy on the dish was going bad the symptoms would be different. What do the old timers think? Thanks

MrBuster · ‎09-28-2020

Thank you I forgot to mention, when I was getting the 2.1.1 error, the Built-in Self Test showed passed for all except 'Cable Connectivity' which failed. Since it started up after a reboot correctly without the 2.1.1 error, the test is showing passed for everything and other than that group of errors in the hour after starting, it has been working this morning. The cable looks good, as far as I can see -- could a loose connection up on the dish cause this? The messages from the modem made me think it was a cable problem or an issue with the thing on the dish.

MrBuster · ‎09-28-2020

I was seeing dropped packets / dropouts recently, and after rebooting the HW2000W this morning it would not connect to the outdoor unit with the above message. I rebooted many times, and eventually it connected, but it is still giving dropped packets and dropping out, so I figured I should send this message off while I could. I have been getting a lot of 11.2.5, 11.3.1, 12.1.9 11.2.5 Outroute has lost lock 11.3.1 FLL is not locked 12.1.9 Transmission error rate is high Here is an image after I reconnected: Here is a graph I made based on some columns in the log file for the last 24 hours: The purple line dropping below 0 represent % of packets dropped, and the blue line is the SQF -- it took about a hour to get the a reboot that would connect this morning. Is the thing on the dish going bad, or a problem with the cable causing the problem? The weather over Gateway 6 CHY looks clear, but there was rain there yesterday. Anyone with a dying outdoor unit in the past know if this is what it looks like? It appears to have remained up for the last 30 minutes while typing this.

MrBuster · ‎03-30-2020

@GabeU wrote: @maratsade wrote: I just checked and mine says "up to date." Interesting. What do you see for your three software versions here? I'm showing... I have an upgrade a while back that changed it to this: This changed the numbers for the IPGW so I have seen 1201-1204,1406-1308,1409-1412 so far. This is probably rolling out based on beam/gateway since I have seen another post with IPGW that look like this. This change seemed to improve performance a little bit from a subjective point of view. There seemed to an accidental(?) update on 3/16 that was reverted, but it seemed to work for the short time after that upgrade before it was reverted. I only grab logs once a day to track usage by device since I am too cheap to buy a fancy WIFI router so I do not have any information other than two software upgrades with no change like the second was a revert.

MrBuster · ‎03-13-2020

You well know exactly what happens as you know a competing satellite service tried this with very painful results that were predictable, and predicted. Without data caps to keep people conserving the limited resources, the service becomes unusable. It is interesting how even charging only $3 per token GB is enough to keep people mindful of their consumption of a limited resource. Having seen this happen before, I hope it will not be tried again here. Thank you for bringing this important point forward.

MrBuster · ‎01-30-2020

I see there was a brief outage for me on the CHY gateway this morning of the type that I suspect are related to upgrades/maintenance at the gateway, and the IPGW ID number range has changed! When Gen5 was new, I saw only 0101 - 0103, which later expanded to 0101 - 0107, with further expansion to 0101 - 0111 some months later. Each of these changes brought a noticeable increase in performance / reduction in congestion. There have been other times when it seemed that some kind of upgrade may have happened, but nothing solid that I could point to, but this morning my IPGW switched to end with the number 1204. I don't remember seeing anyone post an IPGW number like this -- all being numbered 01XX or so. Has anyone else seen new numbers like this for them? Also, do the business users use the same IPGW ID number ranges as regular users? Since these sort of things always seem to happen around 1 AM for me, I suspect the upgrades may be specific to each beam on each gateway, since other beams out west on my gateway would find upgrades in prime time annoying probably.... Any thoughts?

MrBuster · ‎01-30-2020

@GabeU wrote: @MrBuster When you buy tokens now they're automatically banked. Other than that goofy purchase confirmation before even buying anything, which I've brought to the reps' attention before and which is fairly recent, the token popup has been like it currently is for at least a couple of years now. Though I can't say for sure, I think it changed from needing to manually bank them back in either 2016 or early 2017. I see this still shows the message asking to confirm the purchase before showing the screen. If I click 'Yes' will it show the screen showing the tokens available for use that have not been "banked" to show on the HT2000W System Control Center? (Personally having them in the "bank" would to my way of thinking with this analogy imply you have not yet selected to use/activate them, much as cash in the bank implies you have not yet withdrawn the cash from the ATM) I had 6 500MByte tokens from a while back, and I last used a token "banking it" out from this screen to make it active 7/31/2019, but with the unusual confirmation page I am hesitant to continue by clicking 'yes' to view these tokens since I do not intend to purchase more tokens, just view the status of the 6 tokens that have been sitting there for a while. When you asked about this confirmation page, what did they say? Although you mention this changing in 2016/2017, I was not with HughesNet then, and did not have any tokens until 2018. To use a token, as I last did at the end of July, I had to go to this screen to activate one of the tokens.

MrBuster · ‎01-24-2020

@RJMFHWA wrote: Thanks - I only wish the install technician had placed the modem in my bedroo. where I originally wanted it, instead he placed in the living room which makes it difficult to run a landline into my bedroom. If your neighbors are running multiple WiFi routers, then it can be tricky or impossible to configure the WiFi around them. I found that even one other WiFi on 2.4Ghz with a strength above -65dB and your 2.4Ghz WiFi will back down to 1 channel even if configured to use 2 channels, and if they are on an overlapping channel things get very bad. I use a Netgear Powerline to allow connecting the computers using the network connection using the electric plugs as it is easy to setup.

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	‎07-17-2023 02:46 PM

About MrBuster

Re: Earth Gateway Station 6

Re: Speed issues, can't stay on chat for Help

Re: Earth Gateway Station 6

Re: Earth Gateway Station 6

Earth Gateway Station 6

Re: Gateway Upgrades Happening?

Re: "Tech advice" speed tests

Re: Gateway Upgrades Happening?

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Re: Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to othe...

Using TestMy.net to compare your speed to others o...

Re: Worst service ever!!!

Re: 2.1.1 Unable to communicate with Outdoor Unit

Re: 2.1.1 Unable to communicate with Outdoor Unit

Re: 2.1.1 Unable to communicate with Outdoor Unit

2.1.1 Unable to communicate with Outdoor Unit

Re: Software update?

Re: COVID-19 and HughesNet...

Gateway Upgrades Happening?

Re: Do my tokens look fatter?

Re: 25mps speed but Safari and Firefox load very s...