Hi,

I'm too far out for DSL and Charted cable doesn't offer internet
access here. What's the HN service like. I haven't seen it run since
the old 1 way systems in the 90's.

Is the upload speed decent? What kind of up/down speeds are you seeing
in real life when uploading/downloading zip/tar.gz files of about 25
MBytes?

How's the reliability?

Should I get the larger antenna?

My normal uses are:

Web Surfing.
Reading a bunch of computer related text newsgroups.
Downloading patches and freebies from Microsoft.
Uploading zip/gzip files of 16 - 25 MB about 5 times a week.
SSH into a server to unzip/untar the file I uploaded.
xfer work units for Docking@Home, Rosetta@Home, Seti@Home.

A typical day would see 25MB to 75 MB total of download+upload.

Occasionally I would like to be able to download something like the
165MB platform sdk from Microsoft or a 220MB VMware image, but that's
too much for dial-up.

My main problem is the upload speed. A 22MB upload takes 3 to 5 hours
on Dialup if nothing else is going on, and I do mean NOTHING else. The
big single file downloads like the 165MB platform SDK are hopeless on
Dial-up.

Thanks,

-- David

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:02:49 -0600, David Ball
<davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Is the upload speed decent? What kind of up/down speeds are you seeing
>in real life when uploading/downloading zip/tar.gz files of about 25
>MBytes?

I don't have a lot of contact with folks on the $59 home plan, but for
the $69 pro or $79 pro-plus plans (listed as 200/1000 and 200/1500)
most get 100/700 or higher. Note that there are very few getting
better speeds on pro-plus vs pro.

>How's the reliability?

I would rate it fair-to-good. Uptime in the 99% range, with a couple
of slow hours most days during peak periods.

>Should I get the larger antenna?

Very little advantage unless you are planning to get a business
account that needs a 2-watt transmitter (I'm on a 500/2000 plan that
runs about 300/2000 typical). They have 10 birds up there now with a
lot of footprints, so it is unlikely that you will be put on one
marginal for your area.

The FAP for a Pro account is 350MB, so that should cover most
scenarios you have talked about.

Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
Posting today by Satellite from
Quartzsite, AZ

Don Bradner wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:02:49 -0600, David Ball
> <davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Is the upload speed decent? What kind of up/down speeds are you seeing
>> in real life when uploading/downloading zip/tar.gz files of about 25
>> MBytes?
>
> I don't have a lot of contact with folks on the $59 home plan, but for
> the $69 pro or $79 pro-plus plans (listed as 200/1000 and 200/1500)
> most get 100/700 or higher. Note that there are very few getting
> better speeds on pro-plus vs pro.
>
>> How's the reliability?
>
> I would rate it fair-to-good. Uptime in the 99% range, with a couple
> of slow hours most days during peak periods.
>
>> Should I get the larger antenna?
>
> Very little advantage unless you are planning to get a business
> account that needs a 2-watt transmitter (I'm on a 500/2000 plan that
> runs about 300/2000 typical). They have 10 birds up there now with a
> lot of footprints, so it is unlikely that you will be put on one
> marginal for your area.
>
> The FAP for a Pro account is 350MB, so that should cover most
> scenarios you have talked about.
>
> Don Bradner
> donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
> Posting today by Satellite from
> Quartzsite, AZ

Would it be possible for You to check what kind of ping times You get?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:28:35 -0700, Don Bradner <don@arcatapet.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:02:49 -0600, David Ball
><davidbemail-1q04@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is the upload speed decent? What kind of up/down speeds are you seeing
>>in real life when uploading/downloading zip/tar.gz files of about 25
>>MBytes?
>
>I don't have a lot of contact with folks on the $59 home plan, but for
>the $69 pro or $79 pro-plus plans (listed as 200/1000 and 200/1500)
>most get 100/700 or higher. Note that there are very few getting
>better speeds on pro-plus vs pro.

The pro plan sounds right for me. On dial-up, downloads are about 4500
bytes per second (40Kb to 44Kb) and uploads or even DNS lookups are
usually hopeless while downloading. It acts like it's half-duplex.
Uploads on dial-up top out at about 2400 bytes per second (20Kb to
24Kb). It seems like software assumes you have broadband these days
and times out on dial-up. I get a lot of timeouts on DNS lookups if
anything else is going on.

>
>>How's the reliability?
>
>I would rate it fair-to-good. Uptime in the 99% range, with a couple
>of slow hours most days during peak periods.

That's better uptime than I expected. It might even average out better
than the uptime on dial-up here. I don't know for sure but I suspect
that the local dial-up provider reboots their DNS servers, and
possibly some routers, a couple of times a day during non-peak hours.
I'm in a very small town so the peak times can be a problem here, even
on dial-up. That's probably caused by the lucky people closer to town
that have DSL.

>
>>Should I get the larger antenna?
>
>Very little advantage unless you are planning to get a business
>account that needs a 2-watt transmitter (I'm on a 500/2000 plan that
>runs about 300/2000 typical). They have 10 birds up there now with a
>lot of footprints, so it is unlikely that you will be put on one
>marginal for your area.

I didn't realize they had that many birds. I'm in northern Alabama, so
I would expect them to have a bird with a decent footprint here.

>
>The FAP for a Pro account is 350MB, so that should cover most
>scenarios you have talked about.

I agree. It should be very rare that I get close to that in a day.
Even if I did get FAPed, I'd probably be better off than I am now on
dial-up.

Unless someone posts a very different experience, it sounds like I
should give the phone company one last try for getting DSL and if they
say real-soon-now again, I think I'll go for it.

>
>Don Bradner
>donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
>Posting today by Satellite from
>Quartzsite, AZ

Thanks for the great info,

-- David

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:09:44 -0500, Dino <nospam@nospam.kr> wrote:

>
>Would it be possible for You to check what kind of ping times You get?


C:\>ping -t yahoo.com

Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1699ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=908ms TTL=52
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=746ms TTL=52
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=705ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=714ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=762ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=722ms TTL=51
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=732ms TTL=52
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=761ms TTL=52
Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1091ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:
Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 705ms, Maximum = 1699ms, Average = 857ms
Control-C
^C

("Small Office" account - .98 meter dish, 2 watt radio)

--
-fb-

funkbastler wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:09:44 -0500, Dino <nospam@nospam.kr> wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible for You to check what kind of ping times You get?
>
>
> C:\>ping -t yahoo.com
>
> Pinging yahoo.com [216.109.112.135] with 32 bytes of data:
>
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1699ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=908ms TTL=52
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=746ms TTL=52
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=705ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=714ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=762ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=722ms TTL=51
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=732ms TTL=52
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=761ms TTL=52
> Reply from 216.109.112.135: bytes=32 time=1091ms TTL=51
>
> Ping statistics for 216.109.112.135:
> Packets: Sent = 12, Received = 12, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
> Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
> Minimum = 705ms, Maximum = 1699ms, Average = 857ms
> Control-C
> ^C
>
> ("Small Office" account - .98 meter dish, 2 watt radio)
>

Thanks that is not super fast but blows the doors off of Wildblue which
I cancelled last month.I was getting ping times of 2800ms at peak with
Wildblue.I had to go to dialup to load web pages.
I have one way satellite now which gives me ping times of 500-700ms most
of the time.It is faster than any 2 way satellite will ever be,but You
have to use the phone to make it work.

Dino wrote:
> Thanks that is not super fast but blows the doors off of Wildblue which
> I cancelled last month.I was getting ping times of 2800ms at peak with
> Wildblue.

Sounds like Wildblue is a victim of its own success. As was predicted
here many, many moons ago, by Don, myself and others....

Satellite offers wonder promise, at the beginning, then slowly bogs down
as subscribers get added fast in order to make the service profitable.

Eventually the lack of space-based infrastructure catches up and the service
bogs down. This becomes a *real* impediment for Ka-band based services
such as Wildblue. There just aren't enough Ka-band transponders up there
to lease from, unlike Ku or even C band.

And with the recent SeaLaunch explosion, things are only going to get worse
before they get better.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
> Dino wrote:
>> Thanks that is not super fast but blows the doors off of Wildblue
>> which I cancelled last month.I was getting ping times of 2800ms at
>> peak with Wildblue.
>
> Sounds like Wildblue is a victim of its own success. As was predicted
> here many, many moons ago, by Don, myself and others....
>
> Satellite offers wonder promise, at the beginning, then slowly bogs down
> as subscribers get added fast in order to make the service profitable.
>
> Eventually the lack of space-based infrastructure catches up and the
> service
> bogs down. This becomes a *real* impediment for Ka-band based services
> such as Wildblue. There just aren't enough Ka-band transponders up there
> to lease from, unlike Ku or even C band.
>
> And with the recent SeaLaunch explosion, things are only going to get worse
> before they get better.
>
> Dave
Yes Wildblue rocked the first 2 months I had it,but I to thought that KA
Band would bite them.You can spit on the dish and loose modem lock.
But I think when they made people agree to a contract the writing was on
the wall,money was more important than customer service.I would say that
the contracts are why they are still alive.

On Jan 31, 1:02 am, David Ball <davidbemail-1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm too far out for DSL and Charted cable doesn't offer internet
> access here. What's the HN service like. I haven't seen it run since
> the old 1 way systems in the 90's.
>
> Is the upload speed decent? What kind of up/down speeds are you seeing
> in real life when uploading/downloading zip/tar.gz files of about 25
> MBytes?
>
> How's the reliability?
>
> Should I get the larger antenna?
>
> My normal uses are:
>
> Web Surfing.
> Reading a bunch of computer related text newsgroups.
> Downloading patches and freebies from Microsoft.
> Uploading zip/gzip files of 16 - 25 MB about 5 times a week.
> SSH into a server to unzip/untar the file I uploaded.
> xfer work units for Docking@Home, Rosetta@Home, Seti@Home.
>
> A typical day would see 25MB to 75 MB total of download+upload.
>
> Occasionally I would like to be able to download something like the
> 165MB platform sdk from Microsoft or a 220MB VMware image, but that's
> too much for dial-up.
>
> My main problem is the upload speed. A 22MB upload takes 3 to 5 hours
> on Dialup if nothing else is going on, and I do mean NOTHING else. The
> big single file downloads like the 165MB platform SDK are hopeless on
> Dial-up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- David

David,
Here is a copy of my e-mail to HughesNet today:

I have run out of patience trying to resolve the unacceptable service
(throughput speeds) with your company and tech support. They did in
fact resolve my problem about 3 weeks ago but whatever change you made
to the network (on your end) lasted only about a week or 2. I am back
to the same issues that I have documented with your company over the
last 3-4 months (since I upgraded to the HN7000S). I spoke with your
advanced tech support people yesterday (2/9/07) and they deny that
they did anything a couple of weeks ago when my service suddenly (the
day after I called and strongly complained) began giving me speed
tests that actually met (for the first time) your advertised speed
levels. It was strange that on the day my service began to run as
advertised I received a call from your tech support asking me how the
service was running.
I want to make it clear that I do not want to be charged for your
service until you correct the problem permanently. I am completely
dissatisfied with the service and your support.
I do not want to be disconnected from your service as Internet service
is critical to my day to day functions. As bad as your service is, I
still need it because there are no other options available in my area
at this time (not to mention the money I invested in hardware and
installation for your service).
I have filed complaints with Maine's State Attorney Generals office,
the FCC, FTC and BBB. I'm sorry it has come down to this but your
company is in a state of denial and you give me no choice.

On Feb 11, 8:12 am, funkbastler <nob...@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2007 07:41:20 -0800, beantown...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >David,
> >Here is a copy of my e-mail to HughesNet today:
>
> >I have run out of patience trying to resolve the unacceptable service
> >(throughput speeds) with your company and tech support. They did in
> >fact resolve my problem about 3 weeks ago but whatever change you made
> >to the network (on your end) lasted only about a week or 2. I am back
> >to the same issues that I have documented with your company over the
> >last 3-4 months (since I upgraded to the HN7000S). I spoke with your
> >advanced tech support people yesterday (2/9/07) and they deny that
> >they did anything a couple of weeks ago when my service suddenly (the
> >day after I called and strongly complained) began giving me speed
> >tests that actually met (for the first time) your advertised speed
> >levels. It was strange that on the day my service began to run as
> >advertised I received a call from your tech support asking me how the
> >service was running.
> >I want to make it clear that I do not want to be charged for your
> >service until you correct the problem permanently. I am completely
> >dissatisfied with the service and your support.
> >I do not want to be disconnected from your service as Internet service
> >is critical to my day to day functions. As bad as your service is, I
> >still need it because there are no other options available in my area
> >at this time (not to mention the money I invested in hardware and
> >installation for your service).
> >I have filed complaints with Maine's State Attorney Generals office,
> >the FCC, FTC and BBB. I'm sorry it has come down to this but your
> >company is in a state of denial and you give me no choice.
>
> Soooo..... what kind of lousy throughput are you getting?
>
> At this moment, I'm getting 900 to 1200 kbits/sec on an NNTP download.
> Not as fast as their advertised "up to" figure, but quite acceptable.
>
> --
> -fb-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Here's my download/upload speeds





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10th, 11:37AM - 332/8 kbps
February 7th, 07:16PM - 119/15 kbps
February 7th, 09:01AM - 704/9 kbps
February 6th, 06:32PM - 92/15 kbps
February 3rd, 01:06PM - 262/12 kbps
February 2nd, 08:20AM - 743/10 kbps
February 1st, 08:14PM - 109/16 kbps
February 1st, 07:48PM - 119/16 kbps
January 27th, 10:38PM - 284/58 kbps
January 26th, 08:28PM - 222/62 kbps
January 17th, 06:30AM - 743/12 kbps
January 16th, 09:23PM - 90/42 kbps
January 16th, 09:12AM - 729/31 kbps
January 15th, 07:24PM - 108/21 kbps
January 15th, 07:22PM - 93/24 kbps
January 14th, 06:30PM - 235/12 kbps
January 14th, 06:21PM - 95/18 kbps
January 14th, 06:00PM - 116/18 kbps
January 14th, 01:18PM - 372/16 kbps
January 14th, 09:06AM - 692/8 kbps
January 13th, 07:53PM - 294/30 kbps
January 13th, 07:50PM - 283/14 kbps
January 13th, 07:45PM - 227/24 kbps
January 10th, 11:04AM - 512/11 kbps
January 4th, 11:22AM - 444/9 kbps
December 15th, 03:48PM - 257/7 kbps
December 14th, 06:03AM - 659/6 kbps
December 13th, 12:52PM - 203/7 kbps
December 13th, 12:42PM - 86/7 kbps
December 12th, 09:53AM - 658/16 kbps
December 12th, 08:55AM - 663/14 kbps
December 12th, 08:51AM - 642/15 kbps
December 11th, 05:40PM - 622/21 kbps
December 11th, 05:39PM - 251/16 kbps
December 9th, 04:33PM - 575/23 kbps
December 7th, 03:13PM - 654/18 kbps
December 6th, 12:17PM - 560/33 kbps
December 5th, 06:12PM - 209/18 kbps
December 5th, 11:56AM - 232/17 kbps
December 5th, 11:24AM - 419/11 kbps
December 5th, 11:16AM - 442/22 kbps
December 5th, 11:14AM - 8/10 kbps
December 5th, 07:50AM - 800/7 kbps
December 4th, 03:22PM - 292/20 kbps
December 4th, 03:19PM - 336/35 kbps
December 4th, 03:17PM - 578/26 kbps
December 4th, 03:15PM - 292/31 kbps
December 3rd, 03:21PM - 238/21 kbps
December 3rd, 01:57PM - 293/7 kbps
December 3rd, 12:20PM - 377/28 kbps
December 3rd, 07:58AM - 798/24 kbps
December 3rd, 07:15AM - 794/12 kbps
December 2nd, 09:38PM - 316/28 kbps
December 2nd, 09:35PM - 496/13 kbps
December 2nd, 03:35PM - 351/25 kbps
December 2nd, 03:33PM - 278/28 kbps
December 2nd, 01:35PM - 258/30 kbps
December 2nd, 12:59PM - 224/17 kbps
November 30th, 04:36PM - 216/14 kbps
November 30th, 04:32PM - 159/19 kbps
November 30th, 02:16PM - 788/34 kbps
November 30th, 02:00PM - 779/30 kbps
November 30th, 01:48PM - 716/21 kbps
November 30th, 01:23PM - 674/7 kbps
November 30th, 01:21PM - 801/13 kbps
November 28th, 04:39PM - 671/35 kbps
November 28th, 02:51PM - 792/32 kbps
November 28th, 02:49PM - 776/39 kbps
November 28th, 02:46PM - 792/28 kbps
November 28th, 02:45PM - 777/23 kbps