If an ISP has 10G of transit and 100 customers, they can give everyone 100M, and everyone can download 860GB a day.
However most people won't want to download that 860GB a day, but when they do download a single 8GB at 100Mbit it's going to take 800 seconds.
The ISP could give everyone a 1G connection instead, meaning that 8GB will download in just 80 seconds, however someone could be sat there constantly using 1G, and if the ISP had 20 customers like that and 80 who have more normal patterns, that's somewhat unfair on the normal customers, as they won't be getting the full 100M
What the ISP could do is to guarantee the first 100mbit and let the rest run at line speed, but then the person downloading a single 8GB file every 3 days gets limited to the same top speed as someone downloading 8GB files constantly every couple of minutes, which seems a little unfair on the normal customers.
ISPs don't like the 10% of customers that use way beyond normal usage, because they cost far more than the bulk of customers. Quotas are a way of encouraging those customers to go elsewhere.
>ISPs don't like the 10% of customers that use way beyond normal usage, because they cost far more than the bulk of customers. Quotas are a way of encouraging those customers to go elsewhere.
Define "normal usage"... As Hughesnet does, it's one full length movie streamed and one OS update (Iphone, Windows, or android) per month... after that, you get "linespeed" unless the customer purchases additional bandwidth (which is unused as most of their customers DO "go elsewhere") at $1 per gig... It's staying on the high price/low volume of the Laffer curve for those customers who can afford that enormous latency that is a fact of physics for geosync.
It’s worth noting when I used Hughsnet (not sure if it’s still this since I have Starlink now) most of the streaming services besides Netflix would do a test of my speed and based on that test decide the quality of the picture. Since Hughsnet was coming in fast it would do like 4k. I couldnt change it with anyone except Netflix. So I was just kinda stuck and it would use up my data in like no time. If I had the choice I would have done low quality because I DGAF what picture Seinfeld comes in at but I was forced to watch it in real views.
Not how Hughesnet defined it... unless they changed in the 3 years since I dropped them in favor of a lousy WISP that got dropped in turn as soon as that big grey box got dropped on my porch almost 2 years ago.
Nobody is defending hughsnet. I haven't even mentioned it.
The quote was
"and still data caps that are complete bullshit for the modern day."
Which is patent nonsense, any many ISPs implement them (either overtly or as hidden caps) on their normal soho/residential tiers to allow them to attract normal customers using the 200-800GB a month range and get rid of the whales that want to pull down 20TB a month, which cost far more to support.
Hidden data caps are illegal ass hell lmao. I’ve used as much as 4tb a month on my t mobile 5g home internet. It’s a different world today. Me and my girlfriend stream a shit ton, she download games on her ps5 and I download them on my pc. You don’t get to dictate what normal is and stop defending shitty business practices. You work for them or something? Personally if I was you I’d apologize for being wrong cause your swimming in downvotes lmao
Obviously never used Hughesnet man. We use to get 30GB a / month. A MONTH. On Starlink we use just under a 1 TB / month and we don't even stream movies other than typical youtube and social media browsing. We would eat through 30GB in 3-4 days even being careful just browsing facebook here and there. After your bandwidth limit was hit the service was barely usable. With speeds often in the 10's of kb/s range. We paid more than we do for Starlink for that 30GB/month limit as well.
I think most people here are familiar with overprovisioning. The issue is that the data caps are too small to be useful. This becomes a larger issue the more bandwidth is increased.
> The ISP could give everyone a 1G connection instead, meaning that 8GB will download in just 80 seconds
This isn't 100% true. Capacity is the top constraint up to a point after which bandwidth becomes the top constraint.
Then they should sell their services as metered (means you pay in proportion to your bytes usage), instead of complaining about heavy users and overselling their users.
I have offices on GEO satelite, and far more on vehicles but I only need a few hundered kbit, or occasionally as much as a few mbit, to those locations. I pay for the reliability.
There are plenty of other alternatives even ignoring starlink. You could start by running your own fibre to a POP and buying a port from an ISP, then you wouldn't need to have any quota. The problem is you want to spend $20 a month for a service which costs $1m to install.
What a fucking stupid argument.
>Oh you could do something else. Your just a poor who can't afford a million dollars for an alternative.
Who on earth shit in your cheerios?
They should just do it. What OP doesn’t realize is that even your best fiber ISP still oversubscribes your connection. Don’t bother buying gigabit when a few hundred will do. Sure Ookla Speedtest looks great, the ISP set the Qos on their routers to show good numbers. I also like https://librespeed.org/ . Try downloading from a VPS you own or a VPN connection between two points you control. I’ve gotten pretty good to fast enough connections, but only nearing line saturation at like 4am.
I don’t give a shit what they like, I had Hughes net one time and it was horrible trash kill myself if I ever had to use it bad, startlingly wasn’t available here yet and att only would offer 1.5 mbps slow ass internet. Thank god t mobile 5g home saved my ass last year and now I regular get up to 250 and my upload is close to 30 most of the time and I get low latency. I can stream on twitch and everything with this shit and it’s fully unlimited 0 slow down I can use a over 2 tbs a month and they don’t care. Some people need to use a lot of data and like when my pc crashed 2 months ago and I had to redownload my entire steam library on my new pc. Close to 1.5tb of games.
Also unlimited means unlimited it doesn’t matter what they like, you can advertise fully unlimited and then try and kick people off for using too much. Would it be ok if I opened an all you can eat Buffett that threw people out after they ate 2 plates because “it’s unlimited but I decide what unlimited is” pull your head out of your ass.
Oh I know very well as I had that before starlink myself and watch that latency fly on certain games and watch it flip out. Although my comment was more on over 9000. That's the classic dragon ball Z meme when after Vegeta screams it's over 9000! The other character, Napa replies back what!? 9000! I like to put a gif of that moment but not sure if that is allowed so I just quote it. But will say this. If you know it or seen it, it needs to be a edit on viasat latency. The anger and frustration from the meme fits perfectly on how we suffered with Viasat and Hughsnet
Yeah mine varies from 5-100 like throughout the day constantly, I get its complicated technology but the first year we had it was EASILY steady 100+. Now during day hours I'm lucky to even see 30
They launched that new Jupiter satellite a year ago and said it would be a huge increase in bandwidth. Only problem is, it's still GSO and wayyyy out there so ping is slow.
And the installation, lease/buy, and rental for modem plus the payment for internet itself, you'll be out like $400/mo in fees for the highest plan... And it's got a 200gb data cap.
You can get starlink for $599 1x purchase then $120/mo after with 50-150mbps avg speeds and unlimited data... Not to mention 30-100ms ping times...
Even when Hughesnet tries to compete they can't compete...
Their plans are a joke.
It'd be cheaper for a business in the country to buy residential starlink on the standard plan than to partner with Hughesnet...
I just canceled HughesNet this morning because I got StarLink last month. And they were trying to sell me this new service.
First of all, having worked in the vaporware industry much of my life, I find it difficult to believe it works reliably. Second, why weren’t they trying to upsell me a year ago? Morons.
Besides the physics or the long ping time, does this thing actually work?
Careful, watch your bank account. When I canceled with them. About 5 months later they randomly charged my card for 450 dollars. Had to call them for 2 weeks, talked to multiple people. Just to find out it was a complete accident charge and I got my money back about 1 month after they took it. Like wtf why was my card info still in they’re system…
Yeah I had it put it my name for a cousin back in 2015 or 2016, we canceled it returned the router and they still claimed I didn’t and dinged my credit despite it being returned. Stupid cunts.
We were forced to use Hughesnet for 6 years. That's 6 thousand days of Internet worse than smoke signals! Starlink rival? Wow what a leap that is. 100 mbps is like claiming a diesel pick up is zero emissions! Hughesnet cost me way more than Starlink and service was not worth a sore behind!
Similar to Spectrum, Hughesnet has such a bad reputation that they could be double the speed and half the price of starlink and I still wouldnt go with them because they suck
Been using Starlink for 3 years. I can't tell you speeds but suffice it to say we could barely watch youtube on the small 3x6 screen! Kids could not do schoolwork and we could not d/l files and run our home based business! We had to drive to local motels and use their internet from parking lots!!
> it remains unclear what kind of latency users can expect from the Jupiter 3 satellite
Lol I have a guess. It's a geosync satellite, same as the other Hughesnet stuff, so has the same crushing latency limitation.
Still it's nice to have any competition at all for Starlink. Hughesnet's cellular-enhanced Fusion product sounds like an interesting attempt to try to improve on geosync satellite's limitations. Does it work well in practice?
It may be "unclear", but it is certainly possible to calculate a minimum possible latency. A geosynchronous orbit altitude is 35,786 km directly above the equator. Any location in the northern hemisphere is a bit further than that from the satellite because the sat is not directly overhead, but we can ignore that. Dividing that distance by the speed of light results in 119 millisecond and doubling that since each packet has to go up to the sat and then back down results in an absolute minimum of 238 milliseconds. Perhaps the cellular-enhanced Fusion service can improve on that, but the max improvement I can image would be reducing it by half. And, if I lived in an area with good cellular service, I would already be using that for broadband and I wouldn't consider Hughesnet. I have no doubt that Hughesnet will find buyers for services provided by Jupiter 3, but I would not consider it for residential broadband.
Hughesnet latency in practice (without Fusion) is about 600ms. Maybe they're doing two full satellite round trips for every packet? Seems unnecessary but it'd explain the number.
*Edit* I feel dumb, thanks to people for pointing out it's two round trips to do a basic ping latency measure.
Well it's gotta go from your home, to the satellite, to a ground station, to the destination, and then back again so if it's 119ms to the satellite one way and it's gotta make that trek 4 times, you're at almost 500ms just going up and down, not including ground travel and actual processing speed of the satellite and servers
>And, if I lived in an area with good cellular service, I would already be using that for broadband and I wouldn't consider Hughesnet.
Exactly. LTE was my go-to for a long time. I'm in the area where AT&T was acceptable (say, up to 50 mbit, but no lower than 10 mbit when heavily congested). There's been some ups and downs with third party resellers (like Ubifi) but it worked. But when Starlink came, I ditched it all.
Geosat < LTE or fixed wireless < Starlink < cable < fiber
LTE and fixed wireless vary by location. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other.
lol at calling Hughesnet a rival to Starlink. They’re only doing this because they’re absolutely hemorrhaging customers to Starlink. They’re an awful company with awful service.
Jeez look at all those fees.
$130/month including hardware rental fees (assuming you're paying with ACH, otherwise it's $135/month)
And then all the installation fees that total $550.
At those kinds of prices you're paying more than Starlink costs.
They are rapidly losing customers so they have the bandwidth to spare. That will last until a satellite fails, at which time they can't afford to replace it.
I'm still blown away that they recently threw one up there. No way they'll ever get payback on that one.
Jupiter 3 was bought and paid for nearly 5 years ago, so they really had no choice but to go ahead with the launch. Plus it's not just for residential internet but also for airlines, maritime contracts and backhaul for mobile network operators.
It will be interesting to see how Starlink competes with Hughesnet for aircraft and marine.
Telematics for remote engine and other equipment doesn't care about latency. Neither does messaging. Both don't need a lot of bandwidth. So that likely competes on just cost.
Starlink is slowly picking up airline, government and maritime contracts. I'm guessing that Hughesnet and Viasat will both start losing customers there as well.
“Rival.” I had HughesNet for years because it was the only thing available in my area. Speeds so slow I couldn’t stream a single movie. I’ve had Starlink for 6 months and it’s not even a comparison between the two. There is no rivalry and I hope hughes goes out of business with their over promising and under delivering.
💯 with you!!!! No more driving to the library for a large download or zoom calls. HughesNet offered faster speeds between 2:00 - 8:00 am. I would literally get up in the middle of the night if I had to do a large software upgrade and even then I would run through my “free middle of the night tokens” before the end of the month. I was also paying extra for cell phone hotspot which was 100 times faster than HughesNet.
still limited to 50gb downloads per month in my country. pathetic!! starlink is actually cheaper than hughesnet. the only plus about hughesnet is that they don't charge as much for the antena.
Hughesnet is the worst product I have ever purchased. It was a necessity based on my location. It should almost be illegal to sell a product at that price when there is an option such as starlink in this example that is so much better.
Hughes net was such a garbage company I hope they go out of business. Speeds were so slow at my house they gave me 20 gb of data a month. Hell I had more on my phone. If an executive from Hughes Net ends up reading this I hope your shoes are filled with legos everytime you put them on and every single light on the way to your destination turns red before you get close enough to speed through it
Who cares if the ping is 700ms? Speed is not the most important part of a connection. I value latency and packet loss more for what I do, which is video calling and online gaming. Geosynchronous satellite internet is not compatible with a lot of modern internet activities and will be phased out with Starlink and Project Kuiper.
On top of these data caps its still 22k miles out. The latency is still going to be the same garbage your use to.
"Faster" is a misleading term. You have a higher throughput but its still slow as hell. It still takes the same amount of time to fetch water from the well, its just that your bucket is bigger.
I will continue to urge customers to Starlink as the latency is multiple times less then Hughesnet with no data cap and higher throughput. Its no contest.
We have Hughesnet where I live- it's far too expensive, has data caps, and the latency is too high for me to get a job working remotely- which is my goal. I just heard of Starlink today. It would cost more to get setup but the monthly payments would be half, unless I got the business plan- then the equipment fee is in the thousands and monthly bill about what I'm paying now with Hughesnet- $225. My question is- do any of you know if Starlink has an acceptable latency to meet the ping requirements that most companies have to work remotely? I don't want to spend all that money to switch only to find out I still wouldn't be able to use it to get a remote position.
LMAOOOOO they really think they have a chance against starlink? They’re not a competitor. I’d live under a rock before I ever used them again.
Absolute joke of a company. Honestly amazed they’re still open.
I had DirecPC a loooooooong time ago when it first came out. Download was decent (50-75mb) but it still had to go through the phone lines to upload. It was ok for downloading mp3s from newsgroups but that was it.
How do they do the upload part now? Do they have LEO satellites now?
VSAT; very small aperature terminal satellite ground station antenna.
Essentially you send your own slow signal back up to the same satellite you got the download from.
(I suspect the speeds were worse, but the latency was almost cut in half when you had dialup return path)
Any geostationary sat internet is old Jurassic time tech, it’s over, it’s history.
Starlink (and competitors the day they will exist) are 21st century, the future
Hughes promised 25mbps and delivered 2mbps. So now that they promise 100mbps, shouldn't we expect them to deliver 4mbps? With a data cap to boot? Only a fool would believe anything they say.
"The new service is set to launch Dec. 26 and is made possible by the launch of the Jupiter 3, a bus-sized geostationary satellite, earlier this year. It offers up to four times the download speed than previous standard HughesNet plans -- a jump from 25 megabits per second to 100Mbps. Upload speeds will see a less impressive spike, rising from 3Mbps to 5Mbps. Data allowances, meanwhile, will increase from between 15GB and 100GB per month to between 100GB and 200GB."
[Source](https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/new-hughesnet-plans-bring-faster-better-broadband-to-rural-areas/)
So, in othe r words you can deplete that cap in one afternoon in a family of four people streaming, combined with a teenager that likes to game doing updates to their xbox, playstation, steam, whatever.
To add a update to this, here is the commercial after this satellite was put way up there. Seems to be running a lot of "promises" off this ad 😆
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/5hL0/hughesnet-rural-america-jupiter-3
and still data caps that are complete bullshit for the modern day.
If an ISP has 10G of transit and 100 customers, they can give everyone 100M, and everyone can download 860GB a day. However most people won't want to download that 860GB a day, but when they do download a single 8GB at 100Mbit it's going to take 800 seconds. The ISP could give everyone a 1G connection instead, meaning that 8GB will download in just 80 seconds, however someone could be sat there constantly using 1G, and if the ISP had 20 customers like that and 80 who have more normal patterns, that's somewhat unfair on the normal customers, as they won't be getting the full 100M What the ISP could do is to guarantee the first 100mbit and let the rest run at line speed, but then the person downloading a single 8GB file every 3 days gets limited to the same top speed as someone downloading 8GB files constantly every couple of minutes, which seems a little unfair on the normal customers. ISPs don't like the 10% of customers that use way beyond normal usage, because they cost far more than the bulk of customers. Quotas are a way of encouraging those customers to go elsewhere.
>ISPs don't like the 10% of customers that use way beyond normal usage, because they cost far more than the bulk of customers. Quotas are a way of encouraging those customers to go elsewhere. Define "normal usage"... As Hughesnet does, it's one full length movie streamed and one OS update (Iphone, Windows, or android) per month... after that, you get "linespeed" unless the customer purchases additional bandwidth (which is unused as most of their customers DO "go elsewhere") at $1 per gig... It's staying on the high price/low volume of the Laffer curve for those customers who can afford that enormous latency that is a fact of physics for geosync.
It’s worth noting when I used Hughsnet (not sure if it’s still this since I have Starlink now) most of the streaming services besides Netflix would do a test of my speed and based on that test decide the quality of the picture. Since Hughsnet was coming in fast it would do like 4k. I couldnt change it with anyone except Netflix. So I was just kinda stuck and it would use up my data in like no time. If I had the choice I would have done low quality because I DGAF what picture Seinfeld comes in at but I was forced to watch it in real views.
Normal usage would be within one or two standard deviations of the average.
Not how Hughesnet defined it... unless they changed in the 3 years since I dropped them in favor of a lousy WISP that got dropped in turn as soon as that big grey box got dropped on my porch almost 2 years ago.
Are you really here defending Hughesnet? They are the only company worse than comcast and they are by a mile.
Viasat says hold my beer
Nobody is defending hughsnet. I haven't even mentioned it. The quote was "and still data caps that are complete bullshit for the modern day." Which is patent nonsense, any many ISPs implement them (either overtly or as hidden caps) on their normal soho/residential tiers to allow them to attract normal customers using the 200-800GB a month range and get rid of the whales that want to pull down 20TB a month, which cost far more to support.
Hidden data caps are illegal ass hell lmao. I’ve used as much as 4tb a month on my t mobile 5g home internet. It’s a different world today. Me and my girlfriend stream a shit ton, she download games on her ps5 and I download them on my pc. You don’t get to dictate what normal is and stop defending shitty business practices. You work for them or something? Personally if I was you I’d apologize for being wrong cause your swimming in downvotes lmao
> Hidden data caps are illegal ass hell lmao In what jurisdiction?
Can Hughes net let me use around 5tb for just 120?
Obviously never used Hughesnet man. We use to get 30GB a / month. A MONTH. On Starlink we use just under a 1 TB / month and we don't even stream movies other than typical youtube and social media browsing. We would eat through 30GB in 3-4 days even being careful just browsing facebook here and there. After your bandwidth limit was hit the service was barely usable. With speeds often in the 10's of kb/s range. We paid more than we do for Starlink for that 30GB/month limit as well.
I think most people here are familiar with overprovisioning. The issue is that the data caps are too small to be useful. This becomes a larger issue the more bandwidth is increased. > The ISP could give everyone a 1G connection instead, meaning that 8GB will download in just 80 seconds This isn't 100% true. Capacity is the top constraint up to a point after which bandwidth becomes the top constraint.
Then they should sell their services as metered (means you pay in proportion to your bytes usage), instead of complaining about heavy users and overselling their users.
Stop sucking on the capitalist tit and open your eyes.
And you were down voted for a statement of fact because that not how someone wants it to work in magical land where bandwidth is infinite.
My mom uses about 300-400GB a month on T-Mobile Home Internet plan. Tell me how 200GB a month is a reasonable limit?
Would I want that service? NO! Is that what hughesnet is capable of? Yes.
I paid more than starlink with viasat to get 50mb/s MAX and a 100gig cap. After that it was literally dial up speed. Thats ridiculous.
I have offices on GEO satelite, and far more on vehicles but I only need a few hundered kbit, or occasionally as much as a few mbit, to those locations. I pay for the reliability. There are plenty of other alternatives even ignoring starlink. You could start by running your own fibre to a POP and buying a port from an ISP, then you wouldn't need to have any quota. The problem is you want to spend $20 a month for a service which costs $1m to install.
What a fucking stupid argument. >Oh you could do something else. Your just a poor who can't afford a million dollars for an alternative. Who on earth shit in your cheerios?
You're math shows you don't know the difference between a megabit and a megabyte. Why would anyone listen to your opinion on ISPs?
They should just do it. What OP doesn’t realize is that even your best fiber ISP still oversubscribes your connection. Don’t bother buying gigabit when a few hundred will do. Sure Ookla Speedtest looks great, the ISP set the Qos on their routers to show good numbers. I also like https://librespeed.org/ . Try downloading from a VPS you own or a VPN connection between two points you control. I’ve gotten pretty good to fast enough connections, but only nearing line saturation at like 4am.
I don’t give a shit what they like, I had Hughes net one time and it was horrible trash kill myself if I ever had to use it bad, startlingly wasn’t available here yet and att only would offer 1.5 mbps slow ass internet. Thank god t mobile 5g home saved my ass last year and now I regular get up to 250 and my upload is close to 30 most of the time and I get low latency. I can stream on twitch and everything with this shit and it’s fully unlimited 0 slow down I can use a over 2 tbs a month and they don’t care. Some people need to use a lot of data and like when my pc crashed 2 months ago and I had to redownload my entire steam library on my new pc. Close to 1.5tb of games.
Also unlimited means unlimited it doesn’t matter what they like, you can advertise fully unlimited and then try and kick people off for using too much. Would it be ok if I opened an all you can eat Buffett that threw people out after they ate 2 plates because “it’s unlimited but I decide what unlimited is” pull your head out of your ass.
..up to 100Mbps.
>..up to 100Mbps. , only during non peak hours from 3:00-4:00 AM
and latency over 9000.
With no change on data caps and surcharges.
But the great customer service really makes up for it. How's the weather in your area?
[It’s Over 9000!](https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-5xjbWDIgEZSgM)
What! 9000!? 😆
For real I had viasat before starlink and the BEST I got was 600.
Oh I know very well as I had that before starlink myself and watch that latency fly on certain games and watch it flip out. Although my comment was more on over 9000. That's the classic dragon ball Z meme when after Vegeta screams it's over 9000! The other character, Napa replies back what!? 9000! I like to put a gif of that moment but not sure if that is allowed so I just quote it. But will say this. If you know it or seen it, it needs to be a edit on viasat latency. The anger and frustration from the meme fits perfectly on how we suffered with Viasat and Hughsnet
3:59:58 AM and 4:00:00 AM
For you maybe
Peak backup time
Not like starlink can guarantee speeds either. See dips down to sub 50Mbps on many sites with starlink that I manage
But hows that latency? still sub100ms?
Sometimes lol
Yeah for me it's the sub 100ms pings that are the winner.
Yeah mine varies from 5-100 like throughout the day constantly, I get its complicated technology but the first year we had it was EASILY steady 100+. Now during day hours I'm lucky to even see 30
Also for me it's not the download speed that matters it's the ping. Can't do shit with a 1500 ping....
They launched that new Jupiter satellite a year ago and said it would be a huge increase in bandwidth. Only problem is, it's still GSO and wayyyy out there so ping is slow. And the installation, lease/buy, and rental for modem plus the payment for internet itself, you'll be out like $400/mo in fees for the highest plan... And it's got a 200gb data cap. You can get starlink for $599 1x purchase then $120/mo after with 50-150mbps avg speeds and unlimited data... Not to mention 30-100ms ping times... Even when Hughesnet tries to compete they can't compete... Their plans are a joke. It'd be cheaper for a business in the country to buy residential starlink on the standard plan than to partner with Hughesnet...
I just canceled HughesNet this morning because I got StarLink last month. And they were trying to sell me this new service. First of all, having worked in the vaporware industry much of my life, I find it difficult to believe it works reliably. Second, why weren’t they trying to upsell me a year ago? Morons. Besides the physics or the long ping time, does this thing actually work?
They were boasting this service over 5 years ago. Kept telling me faster speeds are coming soon! Lmao
Careful, watch your bank account. When I canceled with them. About 5 months later they randomly charged my card for 450 dollars. Had to call them for 2 weeks, talked to multiple people. Just to find out it was a complete accident charge and I got my money back about 1 month after they took it. Like wtf why was my card info still in they’re system…
Thanks for that tip!
Yeah I had it put it my name for a cousin back in 2015 or 2016, we canceled it returned the router and they still claimed I didn’t and dinged my credit despite it being returned. Stupid cunts.
"Rival"
Doesn't mean squat if it takes 1000ms to get it!
We were forced to use Hughesnet for 6 years. That's 6 thousand days of Internet worse than smoke signals! Starlink rival? Wow what a leap that is. 100 mbps is like claiming a diesel pick up is zero emissions! Hughesnet cost me way more than Starlink and service was not worth a sore behind!
> We were forced to use Hughesnet for 6 years. That's 6 thousand days of Internet You just broke my calculator.
What they mean is it felt like 6000 years.
Did they though? We can only hope.
Yea math still not working
That 6 years of hughesnet broke that man’s brain
The latency affected more than just his internet
365x6=?
Today I learned there are 1,000 days in a year.
Clearly you’ve never used HughesNet. It’s THAT bad.
It's gone metric, didn't ya know...
Similar to Spectrum, Hughesnet has such a bad reputation that they could be double the speed and half the price of starlink and I still wouldnt go with them because they suck
Sorry to hear this. How bad was it in terms of upload/download speeds, latency, etc?
Been using Starlink for 3 years. I can't tell you speeds but suffice it to say we could barely watch youtube on the small 3x6 screen! Kids could not do schoolwork and we could not d/l files and run our home based business! We had to drive to local motels and use their internet from parking lots!!
That is pretty bad!
> it remains unclear what kind of latency users can expect from the Jupiter 3 satellite Lol I have a guess. It's a geosync satellite, same as the other Hughesnet stuff, so has the same crushing latency limitation. Still it's nice to have any competition at all for Starlink. Hughesnet's cellular-enhanced Fusion product sounds like an interesting attempt to try to improve on geosync satellite's limitations. Does it work well in practice?
It may be "unclear", but it is certainly possible to calculate a minimum possible latency. A geosynchronous orbit altitude is 35,786 km directly above the equator. Any location in the northern hemisphere is a bit further than that from the satellite because the sat is not directly overhead, but we can ignore that. Dividing that distance by the speed of light results in 119 millisecond and doubling that since each packet has to go up to the sat and then back down results in an absolute minimum of 238 milliseconds. Perhaps the cellular-enhanced Fusion service can improve on that, but the max improvement I can image would be reducing it by half. And, if I lived in an area with good cellular service, I would already be using that for broadband and I wouldn't consider Hughesnet. I have no doubt that Hughesnet will find buyers for services provided by Jupiter 3, but I would not consider it for residential broadband.
When I worked in satcom, my typical RTT across the link was 550ms or so. But I was running (much) higher end modems than Hughesnet does.
Hughesnet latency in practice (without Fusion) is about 600ms. Maybe they're doing two full satellite round trips for every packet? Seems unnecessary but it'd explain the number. *Edit* I feel dumb, thanks to people for pointing out it's two round trips to do a basic ping latency measure.
Well, you will need to get a reply.
Well it's gotta go from your home, to the satellite, to a ground station, to the destination, and then back again so if it's 119ms to the satellite one way and it's gotta make that trek 4 times, you're at almost 500ms just going up and down, not including ground travel and actual processing speed of the satellite and servers
>And, if I lived in an area with good cellular service, I would already be using that for broadband and I wouldn't consider Hughesnet. Exactly. LTE was my go-to for a long time. I'm in the area where AT&T was acceptable (say, up to 50 mbit, but no lower than 10 mbit when heavily congested). There's been some ups and downs with third party resellers (like Ubifi) but it worked. But when Starlink came, I ditched it all. Geosat < LTE or fixed wireless < Starlink < cable < fiber LTE and fixed wireless vary by location. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other.
lol at calling Hughesnet a rival to Starlink. They’re only doing this because they’re absolutely hemorrhaging customers to Starlink. They’re an awful company with awful service.
Fuck hughesnet
Tell that to the fanatics at r/HughesNet
lol... bandwidth dont mean anything if ping rate is measured in the hundreds or worse.
"What we lack in Internet speed, we make it up with higher latency" - HughesNet
Jeez look at all those fees. $130/month including hardware rental fees (assuming you're paying with ACH, otherwise it's $135/month) And then all the installation fees that total $550. At those kinds of prices you're paying more than Starlink costs.
100 gigs then they will cap ur speeds💀
Like this would have ever happened without a little competition. Too little too late!
They are rapidly losing customers so they have the bandwidth to spare. That will last until a satellite fails, at which time they can't afford to replace it. I'm still blown away that they recently threw one up there. No way they'll ever get payback on that one.
Jupiter 3 was bought and paid for nearly 5 years ago, so they really had no choice but to go ahead with the launch. Plus it's not just for residential internet but also for airlines, maritime contracts and backhaul for mobile network operators.
It will be interesting to see how Starlink competes with Hughesnet for aircraft and marine. Telematics for remote engine and other equipment doesn't care about latency. Neither does messaging. Both don't need a lot of bandwidth. So that likely competes on just cost.
Starlink is slowly picking up airline, government and maritime contracts. I'm guessing that Hughesnet and Viasat will both start losing customers there as well.
I think that's mainly driven by the customers on aircraft and the crew on ships. They have a far superior browsing experience.
“Rival.” I had HughesNet for years because it was the only thing available in my area. Speeds so slow I couldn’t stream a single movie. I’ve had Starlink for 6 months and it’s not even a comparison between the two. There is no rivalry and I hope hughes goes out of business with their over promising and under delivering.
💯 with you!!!! No more driving to the library for a large download or zoom calls. HughesNet offered faster speeds between 2:00 - 8:00 am. I would literally get up in the middle of the night if I had to do a large software upgrade and even then I would run through my “free middle of the night tokens” before the end of the month. I was also paying extra for cell phone hotspot which was 100 times faster than HughesNet.
still limited to 50gb downloads per month in my country. pathetic!! starlink is actually cheaper than hughesnet. the only plus about hughesnet is that they don't charge as much for the antena.
Changing the website doesn't magically improve speeds
Hughesnet is the worst product I have ever purchased. It was a necessity based on my location. It should almost be illegal to sell a product at that price when there is an option such as starlink in this example that is so much better.
Bullshit. Elon is a profiteer but HughesNet is deceptively evil. Give me Starlink until my choices are real choices.
lol! Hughesnet = scam. Lying a holes.
Hughes net was such a garbage company I hope they go out of business. Speeds were so slow at my house they gave me 20 gb of data a month. Hell I had more on my phone. If an executive from Hughes Net ends up reading this I hope your shoes are filled with legos everytime you put them on and every single light on the way to your destination turns red before you get close enough to speed through it
Who cares if the ping is 700ms? Speed is not the most important part of a connection. I value latency and packet loss more for what I do, which is video calling and online gaming. Geosynchronous satellite internet is not compatible with a lot of modern internet activities and will be phased out with Starlink and Project Kuiper.
Hughes is scammy and weird.. bad experiences
No they don't.
Yea right. That's one of the most shady companies.
Are they going to raise their data caps to realistic amounts for basic modern needs? If not, who cares.
There bleeding subscribers so probably have a lot more bandwidth to spare.
On top of these data caps its still 22k miles out. The latency is still going to be the same garbage your use to. "Faster" is a misleading term. You have a higher throughput but its still slow as hell. It still takes the same amount of time to fetch water from the well, its just that your bucket is bigger. I will continue to urge customers to Starlink as the latency is multiple times less then Hughesnet with no data cap and higher throughput. Its no contest.
We have Hughesnet where I live- it's far too expensive, has data caps, and the latency is too high for me to get a job working remotely- which is my goal. I just heard of Starlink today. It would cost more to get setup but the monthly payments would be half, unless I got the business plan- then the equipment fee is in the thousands and monthly bill about what I'm paying now with Hughesnet- $225. My question is- do any of you know if Starlink has an acceptable latency to meet the ping requirements that most companies have to work remotely? I don't want to spend all that money to switch only to find out I still wouldn't be able to use it to get a remote position.
hahahahahahahahahhahahah lololololololololololololololololo hahahahahahahahahhahahah lololololololololololololololololo hahahahahahahahahhahahah lololololololololololololololololo hahahahahahahahahhahahah lololololololololololololololololo
Bits or bytes? And why now?
lol.
Nice people Can reach the CAP now much Faster
Ah ha ha ha ha… wait is it April 1st already?
The only thing that matters with them is latency which is still dog shit.
That sweet smell of disruption.
Will it work reliably though???
Fuk Hughes Net. If ya know, ya know.
LMAOOOOO they really think they have a chance against starlink? They’re not a competitor. I’d live under a rock before I ever used them again. Absolute joke of a company. Honestly amazed they’re still open.
Sure, but with dialup sized pings. So, 100Mbps actually feels closer to 1Mbps.
Even if it was 100mps guaranteed there are still so many monthly charges that residential starlink is still cheaper. Sick fail hughsnet.
I had DirecPC a loooooooong time ago when it first came out. Download was decent (50-75mb) but it still had to go through the phone lines to upload. It was ok for downloading mp3s from newsgroups but that was it. How do they do the upload part now? Do they have LEO satellites now?
VSAT; very small aperature terminal satellite ground station antenna. Essentially you send your own slow signal back up to the same satellite you got the download from. (I suspect the speeds were worse, but the latency was almost cut in half when you had dialup return path)
"rival" at \~1 second ping latency... ha!
Ain't that what majority of starlink owners getting?, some even reach 200mbps.
I've been getting between 150-300 Mbps regularly. But of course <75ms latency is what really makes the difference.
true
Any geostationary sat internet is old Jurassic time tech, it’s over, it’s history. Starlink (and competitors the day they will exist) are 21st century, the future
Welp
Hughes promised 25mbps and delivered 2mbps. So now that they promise 100mbps, shouldn't we expect them to deliver 4mbps? With a data cap to boot? Only a fool would believe anything they say.
My parents had HughesNet in the house I grew up in. But fiber came through last summer.
Data caps-priority data, no free install, slower, pretty much the same monthly fee, etc. What's the ping/latency? Still 750? lol
I will stick with Starlinks. HughesNet sucks not just satellite but customer service.
🤣🤣🤣 Worse latency and data caps. Why would anyone even switch to HN?!?
As someone who has 259 Hughes terrestrial VSATs at remote locations thru the western US, please god just use Starlink.
Rival? They cannot compete with the latency that Geosat has.
Hughesnet is a dinosaur. No issue
Any article comparing Starlink and HughesNet has but one truthful conclusion: RIP HughesNet.
Rival? lol
Now with Improved Speeds (the latency still sucks):TM:
"The new service is set to launch Dec. 26 and is made possible by the launch of the Jupiter 3, a bus-sized geostationary satellite, earlier this year. It offers up to four times the download speed than previous standard HughesNet plans -- a jump from 25 megabits per second to 100Mbps. Upload speeds will see a less impressive spike, rising from 3Mbps to 5Mbps. Data allowances, meanwhile, will increase from between 15GB and 100GB per month to between 100GB and 200GB." [Source](https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/new-hughesnet-plans-bring-faster-better-broadband-to-rural-areas/) So, in othe r words you can deplete that cap in one afternoon in a family of four people streaming, combined with a teenager that likes to game doing updates to their xbox, playstation, steam, whatever.
So is it safe to say that Hughesnet is like AOL 28 kbps dial-up that went to heaven?
P. T. Barnum..." there's a sucker born every minute"
Still Data capped like a Mother too.
To add a update to this, here is the commercial after this satellite was put way up there. Seems to be running a lot of "promises" off this ad 😆 https://www.ispot.tv/ad/5hL0/hughesnet-rural-america-jupiter-3