Thanks for your replies, all. Of course I understand that HughesNet's backbone providers are ultimately responsible for transit performance. But those entities (Cogent, here) are vendors of HughesNet, and HughesNet has many options to address congestion by these operators. It fundamentally is an ISPs responsibility to provide good service. To mitigate issues HughesNet may monitor congestion and raise trouble tickets with their provider, Cogent; they may choose to purchase additional backbone connections through secondary vendors; they may choose to colocate with major content delivery companies such as Amazon (Netflix) or Google. In my day job, I oversee a municipal fiber optic network. That network renews its ISP contract on a regular basis. The choice of ISP is chosen in part based on that ISP's internet connectivity that includes the availability of redundant paths for fault tolerance and congestion, colocation with major content providers, and their ability to respond to congestion with routing changes. Unless there is something unique about HughesNet, they have the same professional responsibilities to ensure reliable transport. And to that end, they are failing us badly. I'm mystified why folks want to give HN a pass. @GabeU wrote: @dk3 wrote: I stand by my argument that the ISP is responsible to its customers for the backbone performance. No passing the buck. HughesNet can't control, nor are they responsible for, things that happen down the line. It's very possible, and even likely, that the problem is the result of CenturyLink's progressively worse service.
... View more