Last week, I finally told HughesNet that I didn't need them anymore.
NO. MORE. SATELLITE. INTERNET.
I was only a month behind my goal of getting rid of HughesNet, but it came along with a move to a new city and state. And the most pleasant surprise is a really high speed internet connection for $36, along with a package of cable tv (I may go with DirecTV later since their programming is better and they have some channels I really like). I told the person when I signed up for high speed internet that I liked the internet music stations like SomaFm and Radio Paradise, and she said there was no problem. We'll see.
NO MORE $60/MTH FOR DIALUP OVER THE SATELLITE.
Beyond this, I really don't have anything to add to the blog. The links on the right side provide great places to get news on the (poor) state of the US internet. I'll leave it here (with sporadic updates) for people wondering about HughesNet and other satellite internet providers.
To those people, I would recommend, DON'T DO IT.
HughesNet, it's been a long and difficult relationship over the last year since you implemented FAP caps last year and started started penalizing people for using what they paid for. I won't miss the pain-in-the-ass headaches you caused me. In fact, I'll be glad to read in the future when you fail for the reasons mentioned in this blog and then file for bankruptcy. You won't be missed. Just another example of corporate greed killing another business.
Showing posts with label HughesNet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HughesNet. Show all posts
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Monday, December 3, 2007
They did it again
A couple of weeks ago, HughesNet degraded their service yet again. Um, their already dialup-over-the-satellite slow connection has gotten even s-l-o-w-e-r.
How do I know this? Gmail used to take me straight into my inbox. Now, it tells me my internet connection is slow and tells me to use the basic HTML version.
HughesNet continues to make their bad business model worse.
Soon it won't be my concern.
Coming soon ----> The Top 10 Reasons to avoid Satellite Internet Snakeoil.
How do I know this? Gmail used to take me straight into my inbox. Now, it tells me my internet connection is slow and tells me to use the basic HTML version.
HughesNet continues to make their bad business model worse.
Soon it won't be my concern.
Coming soon ----> The Top 10 Reasons to avoid Satellite Internet Snakeoil.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
This week in fuckwit history . . . .
HughesNet degraded their service yet again. Now your internets are even s-l-o-w-e-r. Now the average is about 1-1/2 minutes to load a page when you click your mouse.
Fuckwit Nation marches on.
I wonder about HughesNet CEO. Is "clueless" a job prerequisite.
Fuckwit Nation marches on.
I wonder about HughesNet CEO. Is "clueless" a job prerequisite.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
HughesNet & Sandvine (traffic shaping)
Sandvine lists DirecTV as a customer on the website. One can reasonably conclude that HughesNet also uses Sandvine to enforce its FAP ("Fair Access Policy" aka imposing traffic caps on the user).
Wiki has a writeup on Sandvine.
"....Controversy
Sandvine is reportedly used by Comcast to reduce the impact of BitTorrent and other P2P traffic, but does so by sending forged RST packets rather than traffic shaping. This interferes with other network protocols, and potentially violates network neutrality as well as fraud laws on the part of the ISP. Recently, Comcast customers have also reported an inability to use Google because forged RST packets are also interfering with HTTP access to google.com [2], which has further angered users.[3]..."
Wiki has a writeup on Sandvine.
"....Controversy
Sandvine is reportedly used by Comcast to reduce the impact of BitTorrent and other P2P traffic, but does so by sending forged RST packets rather than traffic shaping. This interferes with other network protocols, and potentially violates network neutrality as well as fraud laws on the part of the ISP. Recently, Comcast customers have also reported an inability to use Google because forged RST packets are also interfering with HTTP access to google.com [2], which has further angered users.[3]..."
HughesNet & Deceptive Marketing
There oughta be a law. Oh wait, there is. It's called Truth-In-Advertising.
From the Wiki (links on the website) . . . .
....
Commercials
Throughout its history, HughesNet has run a series of television commercials featuring actress Margaret Easley. Each time the name of the service has changed, a new commercial has been filmed. The central message of each commercial is fairly consistent, stating to viewers that anyone in the continental United States can have Internet access and "all you need is a clear view of the southern sky." Most of the commercials are 60 seconds in length, but there have also been 30-second variants as well as 30-minute infomercial-length variants which are broadcast both on normal DirecTV channels as well as on DirecTV channel 227, a channel that DirecTV uses solely for its own infomercials.
One of the commercials had a demonstration of the service with web pages moving very fast, but if one looked at the program bar of IE, it says it is working offline. This means that they weren't connecting to the Internet when loading the pages, but browsing from their cache. As of May 2006, an older DirecWay commercial is hosted and viewable on Margaret Easley's website.
From the Wiki (links on the website) . . . .
....
Commercials
Throughout its history, HughesNet has run a series of television commercials featuring actress Margaret Easley. Each time the name of the service has changed, a new commercial has been filmed. The central message of each commercial is fairly consistent, stating to viewers that anyone in the continental United States can have Internet access and "all you need is a clear view of the southern sky." Most of the commercials are 60 seconds in length, but there have also been 30-second variants as well as 30-minute infomercial-length variants which are broadcast both on normal DirecTV channels as well as on DirecTV channel 227, a channel that DirecTV uses solely for its own infomercials.
One of the commercials had a demonstration of the service with web pages moving very fast, but if one looked at the program bar of IE, it says it is working offline. This means that they weren't connecting to the Internet when loading the pages, but browsing from their cache. As of May 2006, an older DirecWay commercial is hosted and viewable on Margaret Easley's website.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Traffic Shaping and HughesNet
Last week, if you have HughesNet as your dialup-over-the-satellite ISP, you noticed your speeds took a hit. This week, you'll notice if you have any pages with multiple picture files (ie. jpg, png), your page load times will literally take minutes (PLURAL and MORE than a few minutes).
All part of HughesNet "traffic shaping" strategy to try to get you to upgrade from the overpriced $60/mth service to something more expensive.
Where Japan and other countries are providing more bandwidth for less cost, the US has allowed corporations to do the exact opposite.
This is why the US competive edge was lost. This is why investors are looking at other places to do business instead of the US.
Something tells me all the MBAs running companies these days think it's a license to run the business in the ground and run their customers off.
Something tells me that strategy is working.
All part of HughesNet "traffic shaping" strategy to try to get you to upgrade from the overpriced $60/mth service to something more expensive.
Where Japan and other countries are providing more bandwidth for less cost, the US has allowed corporations to do the exact opposite.
This is why the US competive edge was lost. This is why investors are looking at other places to do business instead of the US.
Something tells me all the MBAs running companies these days think it's a license to run the business in the ground and run their customers off.
Something tells me that strategy is working.
Friday, October 26, 2007
In case you missed it.....
On Monday, October 22nd, your HughesNet speed was reduced (again). You are now seeing traffic shaping in action.
Now it takes anywhere from 30 seconds to 1-1/2 minutes from the time you click "Enter" until your page is fully loaded for you to see (um, latency has nothing to do with it folks, never did).
Yep. Dialup-over-the-satellite internet speeds. Slower by the day.
But your monthly price stayed the same.
The ass-backwards mentality of the HughesNet business model continues.
Now it takes anywhere from 30 seconds to 1-1/2 minutes from the time you click "Enter" until your page is fully loaded for you to see (um, latency has nothing to do with it folks, never did).
Yep. Dialup-over-the-satellite internet speeds. Slower by the day.
But your monthly price stayed the same.
The ass-backwards mentality of the HughesNet business model continues.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
The State of Satellite Internet Today
So what to do?
At this point, the only justification for satellite internet is if you're a Bedouin in the middle of the desert and you live with camels, or if you live in the middle of nowhere without any phone lines. It's a third-rate option at best.
HughesNet sucks. It was an average-performer and over-priced before they implemented the FAP / traffic limits this past Spring. After that, they're worthless. Exceed their limits, you're without internet for a full day. Seriously, can you live with that?
Is WildBlue any better? I don't know. If these opinions are to be believed, then it's not; only a different FAP / traffic-limit scheme. To me, it's not worth a few Franklins to find out either, especially when it comes with a 12-month contract. If they, like HughesNet, can change the contract terms afterwards without consulting you, then it's a consumer trap.
THE PROBLEM:
I've added some other articles to show the whole problem is infrastructure-related AND regulatory-related because there is NO COMPETITION. The US has allowed monopolistic telco companies to dictate the terms, and they've effectively locked it down and made the US uncompetitive against the rest of the world in places like Japan; Japan is now the model to aspire to today.
THE US IS NOW OFFICIALLY TECHNO-CONSERVATIVE.
While the rest of the world is progressively moving forward, the US has done a u-turn and has been going backwards for awhile now. As with all things, ideology has ruined reality, which is why the US public now has some of the worst internet options at the highest prices, in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world.
It's a shitty way to do business, even if you think you have a captive audience.
As Mark Cuban said here . . . .
". . . . The internet is "dead and boring," . . . . "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet. The speed of broadband to your home won't increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth."
Broadband to the home isn’t fast enough for downloads of movies at DVD quality to be ubiquitous. That means it’s no longer a platform for technological innovation.
Think of it this way. Way back when, electricity changed the world. It was the platform for everything electronic that we do today. Do you get excited about electricity or is it just a utility? Maybe old people who remember the advent of electricity still get excited about it. No one else does.
The internet is in the same position today. It’s no longer an exciting platform for societal and business change. It’s a utility. . . . "
The US invented the internet, and this is what they've done with it. People won't buy yesterday's news. And that's the US today. The last great myth that communications companies don't seem to realize is that people will opt for real life over virtual life. Of course, if you're livelihood depends on a myth, then you want to perpetuate it as long as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
If broadband is not available in your area and dialup is available, go with dialup, avoid satellite, and save yourself some money and some headaches.
In my opinion, the recently imposed FAP / traffic limits make satellite internet relatively worthless. As I said before, it's overpriced and doesn't perform, no matter what the sales pitch is. Period! It's dialup-over-the-satellite. At 3x to 4x the price of dialup, and and it won't get better in yours or my lifetime.
As I've said, my goal is to be off HughesNet by the year-end. I will continue to look for alternatives to HughesNet, WildBlue, and satellite internet, but I'm not expecting to find them. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
More to come later!
At this point, the only justification for satellite internet is if you're a Bedouin in the middle of the desert and you live with camels, or if you live in the middle of nowhere without any phone lines. It's a third-rate option at best.
HughesNet sucks. It was an average-performer and over-priced before they implemented the FAP / traffic limits this past Spring. After that, they're worthless. Exceed their limits, you're without internet for a full day. Seriously, can you live with that?
Is WildBlue any better? I don't know. If these opinions are to be believed, then it's not; only a different FAP / traffic-limit scheme. To me, it's not worth a few Franklins to find out either, especially when it comes with a 12-month contract. If they, like HughesNet, can change the contract terms afterwards without consulting you, then it's a consumer trap.
THE PROBLEM:
I've added some other articles to show the whole problem is infrastructure-related AND regulatory-related because there is NO COMPETITION. The US has allowed monopolistic telco companies to dictate the terms, and they've effectively locked it down and made the US uncompetitive against the rest of the world in places like Japan; Japan is now the model to aspire to today.
THE US IS NOW OFFICIALLY TECHNO-CONSERVATIVE.
While the rest of the world is progressively moving forward, the US has done a u-turn and has been going backwards for awhile now. As with all things, ideology has ruined reality, which is why the US public now has some of the worst internet options at the highest prices, in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world.
It's a shitty way to do business, even if you think you have a captive audience.
As Mark Cuban said here . . . .
". . . . The internet is "dead and boring," . . . . "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet. The speed of broadband to your home won't increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth."
Broadband to the home isn’t fast enough for downloads of movies at DVD quality to be ubiquitous. That means it’s no longer a platform for technological innovation.
Think of it this way. Way back when, electricity changed the world. It was the platform for everything electronic that we do today. Do you get excited about electricity or is it just a utility? Maybe old people who remember the advent of electricity still get excited about it. No one else does.
The internet is in the same position today. It’s no longer an exciting platform for societal and business change. It’s a utility. . . . "
The US invented the internet, and this is what they've done with it. People won't buy yesterday's news. And that's the US today. The last great myth that communications companies don't seem to realize is that people will opt for real life over virtual life. Of course, if you're livelihood depends on a myth, then you want to perpetuate it as long as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
If broadband is not available in your area and dialup is available, go with dialup, avoid satellite, and save yourself some money and some headaches.
In my opinion, the recently imposed FAP / traffic limits make satellite internet relatively worthless. As I said before, it's overpriced and doesn't perform, no matter what the sales pitch is. Period! It's dialup-over-the-satellite. At 3x to 4x the price of dialup, and and it won't get better in yours or my lifetime.
As I've said, my goal is to be off HughesNet by the year-end. I will continue to look for alternatives to HughesNet, WildBlue, and satellite internet, but I'm not expecting to find them. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
More to come later!
Monday, August 27, 2007
The World According to ...
MARK CUBAN.
Much like Friedrich Nietzsche, who scandalized 19th-century Europe by declaring that "God is dead," Mark Cuban has some bad news for all the true believers who are investing billions in the Web.
The internet is "dead and boring," Cuban says in an interview with Portfolio.com. "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet. The speed of broadband to your home won't increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth."
Of course, the 49-year-old Cuban made his $2.3 billion fortune as an internet entrepreneur. In 1999, he and business partner Todd Wagner sold their Web TV company, Broadcast.com, to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in Yahoo stock, then cashed out before the tech market imploded -- leaving Cuban with plenty of money to buy a basketball team, the Dallas Mavericks; launch a high-definition television network, HDNet; hire Dan Rather; and start a vertically integrated entertainment company, 2929 Entertainment, that makes and distributes movies and owns a chain of theaters.
. . . .
Answering questions by email from the Cayman Islands, where he was vacationing with his family and recovering from hip-replacement surgery, Cuban also shared his views on Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo versus Google, day-trading, his personal investment strategy, and why he won't pull the plug on his much-criticized business journalism operation, Sharesleuth.com, in which he shorts companies that the site plans to trash-hoping to turn a tidy profit on his pre-publication insider knowledge.
Lloyd Grove: As recently as May 2007, you told the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet that government policy could encourage internet providers to make the necessary investment in fiber optics to significantly increase bandwidth to home users, in line with industrialized nations such as Japan, Germany, and South Korea, and that the economic benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. But last month, you declared: “The internet is dead. It’s over.” You said it’s “for old people” and it’s a “stagnant consumer platform.” Did you change your mind between May and July? Who or what killed the internet? And aren’t you biting the hand that fed you?
Mark Cuban: The internet of today versus what I suggested to the committee would happen if internet speeds to the home increased to 1 gigabyte per second, is like comparing the plane Orville and Wilbur Wright built in 1903 to a brand-new Boeing.
We have reached a point of diminishing returns with today’s internet. The speed of broadband to your home won’t increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth.
Broadband to the home isn’t fast enough for downloads of movies at DVD quality to be ubiquitous. That means it’s no longer a platform for technological innovation.
Think of it this way. Way back when, electricity changed the world. It was the platform for everything electronic that we do today. Do you get excited about electricity or is it just a utility? Maybe old people who remember the advent of electricity still get excited about it. No one else does.
The internet is in the same position today. It’s no longer an exciting platform for societal and business change. It’s a utility. It’s something that is exciting to people who remember the old days of the internet.
The only way to change that is to upgrade the platform for bandwidth transport across the country to a minimum of 1 gigabyte per second throughout to every home. At that point kids will come up with new and unique applications that we can’t imagine today. That’s when it becomes exciting. Until then, it’s dead and boring.
Read the complete interview here.
* * * * * * * * * *
See, there are some forward-thinking people who have a pretty good idea about where the internet is today and where it's going (unlike some satellite installers, ummm sorry, Satellite Internet News Analysts, who get their monthly newsletters from the mothership).
And he's talking about broadband internet cabled into the home, not the dialup-over-the-satellite kind of internet.
Houston, HughesNet may have a problem.
Much like Friedrich Nietzsche, who scandalized 19th-century Europe by declaring that "God is dead," Mark Cuban has some bad news for all the true believers who are investing billions in the Web.
The internet is "dead and boring," Cuban says in an interview with Portfolio.com. "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet. The speed of broadband to your home won't increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth."
Of course, the 49-year-old Cuban made his $2.3 billion fortune as an internet entrepreneur. In 1999, he and business partner Todd Wagner sold their Web TV company, Broadcast.com, to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in Yahoo stock, then cashed out before the tech market imploded -- leaving Cuban with plenty of money to buy a basketball team, the Dallas Mavericks; launch a high-definition television network, HDNet; hire Dan Rather; and start a vertically integrated entertainment company, 2929 Entertainment, that makes and distributes movies and owns a chain of theaters.
. . . .
Answering questions by email from the Cayman Islands, where he was vacationing with his family and recovering from hip-replacement surgery, Cuban also shared his views on Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo versus Google, day-trading, his personal investment strategy, and why he won't pull the plug on his much-criticized business journalism operation, Sharesleuth.com, in which he shorts companies that the site plans to trash-hoping to turn a tidy profit on his pre-publication insider knowledge.
Lloyd Grove: As recently as May 2007, you told the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet that government policy could encourage internet providers to make the necessary investment in fiber optics to significantly increase bandwidth to home users, in line with industrialized nations such as Japan, Germany, and South Korea, and that the economic benefits would eventually outweigh the costs. But last month, you declared: “The internet is dead. It’s over.” You said it’s “for old people” and it’s a “stagnant consumer platform.” Did you change your mind between May and July? Who or what killed the internet? And aren’t you biting the hand that fed you?
Mark Cuban: The internet of today versus what I suggested to the committee would happen if internet speeds to the home increased to 1 gigabyte per second, is like comparing the plane Orville and Wilbur Wright built in 1903 to a brand-new Boeing.
We have reached a point of diminishing returns with today’s internet. The speed of broadband to your home won’t increase much more in the next five years than it has in the last five years. That is not enough to work as a platform for new levels of applications that will require much, much higher levels of bandwidth.
Broadband to the home isn’t fast enough for downloads of movies at DVD quality to be ubiquitous. That means it’s no longer a platform for technological innovation.
Think of it this way. Way back when, electricity changed the world. It was the platform for everything electronic that we do today. Do you get excited about electricity or is it just a utility? Maybe old people who remember the advent of electricity still get excited about it. No one else does.
The internet is in the same position today. It’s no longer an exciting platform for societal and business change. It’s a utility. It’s something that is exciting to people who remember the old days of the internet.
The only way to change that is to upgrade the platform for bandwidth transport across the country to a minimum of 1 gigabyte per second throughout to every home. At that point kids will come up with new and unique applications that we can’t imagine today. That’s when it becomes exciting. Until then, it’s dead and boring.
Read the complete interview here.
* * * * * * * * * *
See, there are some forward-thinking people who have a pretty good idea about where the internet is today and where it's going (unlike some satellite installers, ummm sorry, Satellite Internet News Analysts, who get their monthly newsletters from the mothership).
And he's talking about broadband internet cabled into the home, not the dialup-over-the-satellite kind of internet.
Houston, HughesNet may have a problem.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
So I was crawling around cyberia...
And I came upon some guy's blog (I may include the link later).
He claims to be a "Satellite Internet Service Provider & Satellite Internet News Analyst". In other words, he's an installer. After he gets the call from HughesNet, he drives his truck to the customer's residence, climbs the ladder, and sets up the dish, and gets the modem ready to go.
He has three blogs linked to his profile; two about satellite internet and another about his life in general since he moved to Colorado, politics, and whatever strikes his fancy at the moment (it seems he doesn't like free speech either). Oh, and he updates his blogs only once in awhile too.
So anyway, on one of his blogs back in 2005, he's kind of pointing out that WildBlue was having problems and pooh poohing them wondering how they were going to make it without an huge influx of cash (maybe valid, maybe not, but it's well into 2007 and they're still operating).
So, here's what he says about the HughesNet FAP when it was enacted this year:
* * * * * *
2007 - The Year of the FAP Flap!
I wondered when Satellite Internet Service Providers would finally pull off the rose colored glasses and get a grip on the realities of bandwidth cost.......Have they finally learned that you have to earn a profit if you want to stay in business? Most VSAT Service Providers have found out that allowing all of your customers to download or upload whatever, whenever and however they want on a "Shared Network," is a recipe for massive network slowdowns, customer complaints and ultimately, loss of revenue.
Until late 2005, the only major satellite internet provider with any type of bandwidth limitation for users was HughesNet (formerly DirecWay). They prevented bandwidth "gluttons" from bringing an already overbooked network to a screeching halt by implementing a Fair Access Policy (FAP). This policy slows down aggressive users for several hours to permit others on the network a fair "shot" at the available bandwidth. On a typical HughesNet transponder there are about 7-8,000 customers. If everyone assigned to that transponder were active at the same time they theoretically would be surfing at about 2-5 kbps, or around 1/10th of dial-up speed! Fortunately not everyone is competing simultaneously.
HughesNet did a pretty good job in the past of "balancing the load" - spacing out the time zones of users, moving users from one transponder to another, etc. But things have changed a great deal in the surfing world over the last 2-3 years. Content that people want to download has more graphics in it......so the formulas for network loading used successfully in the past by HNS and copied by others are not working as well today and a lot of customers are unhappy with the speeds they get, especially during the "prime time" hours of 5 PM to 11 PM. Since 2005 almost every satellite internet provider has implemented some type of FAP or traffic management scheme for all shared bandwidth (which is what nearly all users are on).
Update: April 29th, 2007: HughesNet has announced a new Fair Access Policy! The new policy is still actually being "implemented" and is subject to some continued modification, but essentially works the same way as the previous policy allowing you to refill an imaginary bucket as you use the service; however, the new "rules", if you will, put you in a near zero upload/download penalty mode if you actually hit FAP levels. Sound confusing?....it's supposed to!
Update: June 1, 2007: As a possible response to the criticism from many long time HughesNet customers, HughesNet "opened up" a period of FAP Free usage each day in the middle of the night. Basically from 3-6 AM Eastern Time Zone, you can download as much as you are able.
In 2006 the buzzword in the satellite internet world was "traffic shaping"....a fancy term for blocking undesired activity or managing the data packet delivery by a internet provider. An internet provider can prevent certain high volume activity like streaming video, gaming, voip phone calls and point to point downloading by blocking the typical ports used by those activities at the gateway or Network Operations Center, where the network is managed. Alternatively, they can prioritize the handling of data packets so that your latency skyrockets, but the overall speed (once you are "slotted") remains good. All of this is a form of curtailing usage outside of the FAP policies and is considered a "black hat" policy by many critics.
Many users have raised a good deal of fuss........saying basically, "I paid for X amount of bandwidth and expect to be able to use it any way I want to." Internet providers have either refused to admit they were actually traffic shaping, or told customers to re-read their Terms Of Service agreements, which are very one-sided in favor of the provider, stating that almost anything could be considered undesirable download activity and could be restricted if the network operator wished! These tactics have just galvanized the distrust many satellite internet users already have for Internet providers. The outcry from users hit with this so called traffic shaping, has been so overwhelming that many providers (especially iDirect uplink carriers) have been scrambling to put together a stated FAP policy in lieu of the perceived back-door tactics used in most traffic shaping schemes.
We are entering a era in which the desires and needs of internet users are on a collision course with satellite owners and resellers of satellite bandwidth (terrestrial bandwidth as well). People are using the internet more and the available content is more graphical, meaning big increases in demand ....unfortunately the cost of satellites, the cost of launch and the ongoing costs to deliver it to customers has stayed the same or increased.
I predict that by the end of 2007 the most ethical satellite internet providers will have a simple to understand Fair Access Policy and virtually all of this behind the curtain traffic shaping activity will fall by the wayside. Providers who aren't making very good returns on investments won't continue to do business the way they have in the past.......investors won't stand for it any more. It all adds up to increased costs for those wanting to do all the "cool stuff" that is coming our way like IPTV, more video streaming, games, movies and so forth.
* * * * * *
So, here's my take on it:
He's saying that HughesNet enacted their FAP / traffic limits after there was a massive signup and that was causing them some problems. And then he adds that investors were looking for a better return. But, the strange part of this sudden FAP implementation is this: things were ok up until this year.
But, he completely ignores a few really important points.
First, he completely ignores the FUTURE. As I mentioned previously, the trend (one that won't be turned around) is that people will be using MORE bandwidth because of applications like streaming music, YouTube, videos, VOIP, and the like. You know, 21st century stuff; NOT LESS bandwidth. Here, he says HughesNet is charging more and providing less via their FAP policy...good enough for viewing STATIC WEB PAGES (sooo 20th century).
Second, a company that promises the moon & the stars, and then delivers something signifcantly less is in for a rude wakeup call. That's not how it works in the marketplace. People won't pay for a service that promises but doesn't deliver results. In the end, it will lose them existing customers, new customers, and potential customers (via word-of-mouth over the internet). People will view these shenanigans as deceptive and misleading tactics. And this opens them up to a potential lawsuit. OUCH!!!
Third, Hughes / HughesNet owns their own satellites; they don't rent them. Yes, they're THAT Hughes Corp. And once you get past all the nonsense of "cost centers" of same-company and wholly-owned subsidiary fog, it's just internal transfers on the books. Yes, I'm quite aware of all this from my corporate days.
Fourth, ONLY in the US is this a problem. It's strange that other countries, notably the fourteen industrialized countries ahead of the US in the broadband rankings, seem to have better infrastructure for delivery and lower prices. In other words, kickass internet. Except the US, where the norm is high prices, disappointment, and headaches. A case of squeezing the last dollar out of the customer for something that is a COMMODITY.
Last, if HughesNet does as poorly planning for increased business and excels at being customer-antagonistic, then they deserve to go out of business. I've run companies better than this.
FYI - In case you missed it, he mentions the 3-hour window for FAP-free downloading (3am - 6am Eastern time). Yeah, I know I'm always working in the middle of the night. Very conducive.
More to come later!
He claims to be a "Satellite Internet Service Provider & Satellite Internet News Analyst". In other words, he's an installer. After he gets the call from HughesNet, he drives his truck to the customer's residence, climbs the ladder, and sets up the dish, and gets the modem ready to go.
He has three blogs linked to his profile; two about satellite internet and another about his life in general since he moved to Colorado, politics, and whatever strikes his fancy at the moment (it seems he doesn't like free speech either). Oh, and he updates his blogs only once in awhile too.
So anyway, on one of his blogs back in 2005, he's kind of pointing out that WildBlue was having problems and pooh poohing them wondering how they were going to make it without an huge influx of cash (maybe valid, maybe not, but it's well into 2007 and they're still operating).
So, here's what he says about the HughesNet FAP when it was enacted this year:
* * * * * *
2007 - The Year of the FAP Flap!
I wondered when Satellite Internet Service Providers would finally pull off the rose colored glasses and get a grip on the realities of bandwidth cost.......Have they finally learned that you have to earn a profit if you want to stay in business? Most VSAT Service Providers have found out that allowing all of your customers to download or upload whatever, whenever and however they want on a "Shared Network," is a recipe for massive network slowdowns, customer complaints and ultimately, loss of revenue.
Until late 2005, the only major satellite internet provider with any type of bandwidth limitation for users was HughesNet (formerly DirecWay). They prevented bandwidth "gluttons" from bringing an already overbooked network to a screeching halt by implementing a Fair Access Policy (FAP). This policy slows down aggressive users for several hours to permit others on the network a fair "shot" at the available bandwidth. On a typical HughesNet transponder there are about 7-8,000 customers. If everyone assigned to that transponder were active at the same time they theoretically would be surfing at about 2-5 kbps, or around 1/10th of dial-up speed! Fortunately not everyone is competing simultaneously.
HughesNet did a pretty good job in the past of "balancing the load" - spacing out the time zones of users, moving users from one transponder to another, etc. But things have changed a great deal in the surfing world over the last 2-3 years. Content that people want to download has more graphics in it......so the formulas for network loading used successfully in the past by HNS and copied by others are not working as well today and a lot of customers are unhappy with the speeds they get, especially during the "prime time" hours of 5 PM to 11 PM. Since 2005 almost every satellite internet provider has implemented some type of FAP or traffic management scheme for all shared bandwidth (which is what nearly all users are on).
Update: April 29th, 2007: HughesNet has announced a new Fair Access Policy! The new policy is still actually being "implemented" and is subject to some continued modification, but essentially works the same way as the previous policy allowing you to refill an imaginary bucket as you use the service; however, the new "rules", if you will, put you in a near zero upload/download penalty mode if you actually hit FAP levels. Sound confusing?....it's supposed to!
Update: June 1, 2007: As a possible response to the criticism from many long time HughesNet customers, HughesNet "opened up" a period of FAP Free usage each day in the middle of the night. Basically from 3-6 AM Eastern Time Zone, you can download as much as you are able.
In 2006 the buzzword in the satellite internet world was "traffic shaping"....a fancy term for blocking undesired activity or managing the data packet delivery by a internet provider. An internet provider can prevent certain high volume activity like streaming video, gaming, voip phone calls and point to point downloading by blocking the typical ports used by those activities at the gateway or Network Operations Center, where the network is managed. Alternatively, they can prioritize the handling of data packets so that your latency skyrockets, but the overall speed (once you are "slotted") remains good. All of this is a form of curtailing usage outside of the FAP policies and is considered a "black hat" policy by many critics.
Many users have raised a good deal of fuss........saying basically, "I paid for X amount of bandwidth and expect to be able to use it any way I want to." Internet providers have either refused to admit they were actually traffic shaping, or told customers to re-read their Terms Of Service agreements, which are very one-sided in favor of the provider, stating that almost anything could be considered undesirable download activity and could be restricted if the network operator wished! These tactics have just galvanized the distrust many satellite internet users already have for Internet providers. The outcry from users hit with this so called traffic shaping, has been so overwhelming that many providers (especially iDirect uplink carriers) have been scrambling to put together a stated FAP policy in lieu of the perceived back-door tactics used in most traffic shaping schemes.
We are entering a era in which the desires and needs of internet users are on a collision course with satellite owners and resellers of satellite bandwidth (terrestrial bandwidth as well). People are using the internet more and the available content is more graphical, meaning big increases in demand ....unfortunately the cost of satellites, the cost of launch and the ongoing costs to deliver it to customers has stayed the same or increased.
I predict that by the end of 2007 the most ethical satellite internet providers will have a simple to understand Fair Access Policy and virtually all of this behind the curtain traffic shaping activity will fall by the wayside. Providers who aren't making very good returns on investments won't continue to do business the way they have in the past.......investors won't stand for it any more. It all adds up to increased costs for those wanting to do all the "cool stuff" that is coming our way like IPTV, more video streaming, games, movies and so forth.
* * * * * *
So, here's my take on it:
He's saying that HughesNet enacted their FAP / traffic limits after there was a massive signup and that was causing them some problems. And then he adds that investors were looking for a better return. But, the strange part of this sudden FAP implementation is this: things were ok up until this year.
But, he completely ignores a few really important points.
First, he completely ignores the FUTURE. As I mentioned previously, the trend (one that won't be turned around) is that people will be using MORE bandwidth because of applications like streaming music, YouTube, videos, VOIP, and the like. You know, 21st century stuff; NOT LESS bandwidth. Here, he says HughesNet is charging more and providing less via their FAP policy...good enough for viewing STATIC WEB PAGES (sooo 20th century).
Second, a company that promises the moon & the stars, and then delivers something signifcantly less is in for a rude wakeup call. That's not how it works in the marketplace. People won't pay for a service that promises but doesn't deliver results. In the end, it will lose them existing customers, new customers, and potential customers (via word-of-mouth over the internet). People will view these shenanigans as deceptive and misleading tactics. And this opens them up to a potential lawsuit. OUCH!!!
Third, Hughes / HughesNet owns their own satellites; they don't rent them. Yes, they're THAT Hughes Corp. And once you get past all the nonsense of "cost centers" of same-company and wholly-owned subsidiary fog, it's just internal transfers on the books. Yes, I'm quite aware of all this from my corporate days.
Fourth, ONLY in the US is this a problem. It's strange that other countries, notably the fourteen industrialized countries ahead of the US in the broadband rankings, seem to have better infrastructure for delivery and lower prices. In other words, kickass internet. Except the US, where the norm is high prices, disappointment, and headaches. A case of squeezing the last dollar out of the customer for something that is a COMMODITY.
Last, if HughesNet does as poorly planning for increased business and excels at being customer-antagonistic, then they deserve to go out of business. I've run companies better than this.
FYI - In case you missed it, he mentions the 3-hour window for FAP-free downloading (3am - 6am Eastern time). Yeah, I know I'm always working in the middle of the night. Very conducive.
More to come later!
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Myth of Capitalism
Think you know what "capitalism" is about? Psssst. It's not about "competition". It's about "crushing the competition".
So why am I bringing this up? Well, it occurs to me that as you look around trying to find an ISP or a phone these days, you'll find that they're mostly the same price (or within a few dollars of each other). That's not really competition is it? What about "market price"? Maybe, but they're still all about the same price. With phone companies, they're granted "monopoly" status so they have limited competition in the marketplace (all big names of course, when's the last time you remember seeing a smaller local / regional business competing with them). When you start to see that they're all about the same price, then you have a right to question if the big names are practising "collusion" (aka known as "price fixing").
Another reason I bring this up, is take a look at a comapny like Apple. They focus on designing new products, and then they can charge top-drawer prices in the marketplace to an audience that actually wants to buy their stuff (ummm, like the iPhone for instance). But, they spend a lot of time and money on Research & Development (R&D) to design, build, and bring those products to market.
But when you look at ISPs these days (either telco or satellite), these services have been around a fairly long time and are now fairly mature products / services. Which is why in Asia, it's fairly easy to find a reasonably priced all-you-eat high-speed internet service. Yet, in the US, it's basically the same product / service they were offering ten years ago and they're still charging premium prices (compared to the rest of the world) for an internet service. And these ISPs in the US aren't spending any money on R&D to build something better and faster and more desirable.
Think of it, they have a "commodity" where they're still trying to squeeze out the last dollar without anything new on the horizon. In other words, "same old wine, new bottle" for the customer, and which is why they keep adding all kind of headaches like FAP / traffic limits and degrading their basic service so they can try to keep driving people to their higher-priced packages.
Yeah, that's a grand idea. And they wonder why people don't like them or their service.
It's called being "lazy".
So why am I bringing this up? Well, it occurs to me that as you look around trying to find an ISP or a phone these days, you'll find that they're mostly the same price (or within a few dollars of each other). That's not really competition is it? What about "market price"? Maybe, but they're still all about the same price. With phone companies, they're granted "monopoly" status so they have limited competition in the marketplace (all big names of course, when's the last time you remember seeing a smaller local / regional business competing with them). When you start to see that they're all about the same price, then you have a right to question if the big names are practising "collusion" (aka known as "price fixing").
Another reason I bring this up, is take a look at a comapny like Apple. They focus on designing new products, and then they can charge top-drawer prices in the marketplace to an audience that actually wants to buy their stuff (ummm, like the iPhone for instance). But, they spend a lot of time and money on Research & Development (R&D) to design, build, and bring those products to market.
But when you look at ISPs these days (either telco or satellite), these services have been around a fairly long time and are now fairly mature products / services. Which is why in Asia, it's fairly easy to find a reasonably priced all-you-eat high-speed internet service. Yet, in the US, it's basically the same product / service they were offering ten years ago and they're still charging premium prices (compared to the rest of the world) for an internet service. And these ISPs in the US aren't spending any money on R&D to build something better and faster and more desirable.
Think of it, they have a "commodity" where they're still trying to squeeze out the last dollar without anything new on the horizon. In other words, "same old wine, new bottle" for the customer, and which is why they keep adding all kind of headaches like FAP / traffic limits and degrading their basic service so they can try to keep driving people to their higher-priced packages.
Yeah, that's a grand idea. And they wonder why people don't like them or their service.
It's called being "lazy".
Availability & Page Load Times
Availability.
Clear, blue skies, calm weather. And HughesNet will still go out. It is intermittent, but it's hard to understand why there'll be an interruption in service on clear days with no bad weather. And it is irritating, especially if you're in the middle of something. Maybe a leaf blew by the dish, or the wind kicked up a bit, or who knows maybe the dog down the street barked (yes, I'm being facetious), and the service goes out and who knows why.
Never mind that it's a given that it WILL go out when there is bad weather (ie: thunder, lightning, storms, rain, heavy winds). And it will stay out until the weather clears up.
But then again, that's HughesNet for you. And to be fair, probably satellite internet in general.
Page loading times.
As I said before, since the name changed to Hughesnet, overall the daily service for $60/mth has gotten slower, around the time traffic limits / FAP were put into effect. The time required to load a simple, plain web page is taking longer than it used to; on par with dialup times (same dish & same modem).
This is HughesNet-specific since they have actively taken to "choking" the basic service in an effort to drive people to upgrade to a more expensive package.
Clear, blue skies, calm weather. And HughesNet will still go out. It is intermittent, but it's hard to understand why there'll be an interruption in service on clear days with no bad weather. And it is irritating, especially if you're in the middle of something. Maybe a leaf blew by the dish, or the wind kicked up a bit, or who knows maybe the dog down the street barked (yes, I'm being facetious), and the service goes out and who knows why.
Never mind that it's a given that it WILL go out when there is bad weather (ie: thunder, lightning, storms, rain, heavy winds). And it will stay out until the weather clears up.
But then again, that's HughesNet for you. And to be fair, probably satellite internet in general.
Page loading times.
As I said before, since the name changed to Hughesnet, overall the daily service for $60/mth has gotten slower, around the time traffic limits / FAP were put into effect. The time required to load a simple, plain web page is taking longer than it used to; on par with dialup times (same dish & same modem).
This is HughesNet-specific since they have actively taken to "choking" the basic service in an effort to drive people to upgrade to a more expensive package.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Where to begin...where to begin.
Where to begin? Well, here, today, now.
I want to share my experiences with the HughesNet (supposed) "high-speed" internet service with readers. At best, the service can described as an overpriced and average performing ISP. Sometimes, while I'm waiting for the page to load, it can be best described as dialup-over-the-satellite (yes, it's that s-l-o-w).
And they won't do a thing about it.
I've had it for over 3-1/2 years. It was originally named DirecWay (I don't know if that makes a difference) and last year they switched the name to HughesNet. I live in an area where the only alternative is dialup (all you can eat for $20/month). HughesNet costs $60/mth.
Originally, it came with a fifteen-month contract, which included the price of the satellite dish and the modem you had to buy along with the service. That totaled about $160/mth. After the contract expired, it's been a month-to-month service for $60/mth.
And they have traffic limits too. Today, they're more restrictive than ever; about 190MB/day and continuing to vary, usually downwards. Originally, it was limited to 475MB over a 4-hour period. But sometime this year, that changed without any warning. And if you exceed that limit, they'll shut your service down for 24-hours. Want to hear something laughable? Call HughesNet Customer Service (it's routed to India), and try to get them to tell you what the limits are and what your traffic is. It's a secret. They can't / they won't tell you. Only a "finger-wagging" accusation that you've exceeded their traffic limits. Shame on you!!!
Pretty damned expensive service for what you get.
I'll have other thoughts about my experiences which I'll add soon. But my recommendation based on my experiences, is that if you can avoid HughesNet, do it at all costs. Otherwise, you'll find the same frustration that I and plenty of other users have found it to be.
I want to share my experiences with the HughesNet (supposed) "high-speed" internet service with readers. At best, the service can described as an overpriced and average performing ISP. Sometimes, while I'm waiting for the page to load, it can be best described as dialup-over-the-satellite (yes, it's that s-l-o-w).
And they won't do a thing about it.
I've had it for over 3-1/2 years. It was originally named DirecWay (I don't know if that makes a difference) and last year they switched the name to HughesNet. I live in an area where the only alternative is dialup (all you can eat for $20/month). HughesNet costs $60/mth.
Originally, it came with a fifteen-month contract, which included the price of the satellite dish and the modem you had to buy along with the service. That totaled about $160/mth. After the contract expired, it's been a month-to-month service for $60/mth.
And they have traffic limits too. Today, they're more restrictive than ever; about 190MB/day and continuing to vary, usually downwards. Originally, it was limited to 475MB over a 4-hour period. But sometime this year, that changed without any warning. And if you exceed that limit, they'll shut your service down for 24-hours. Want to hear something laughable? Call HughesNet Customer Service (it's routed to India), and try to get them to tell you what the limits are and what your traffic is. It's a secret. They can't / they won't tell you. Only a "finger-wagging" accusation that you've exceeded their traffic limits. Shame on you!!!
Pretty damned expensive service for what you get.
I'll have other thoughts about my experiences which I'll add soon. But my recommendation based on my experiences, is that if you can avoid HughesNet, do it at all costs. Otherwise, you'll find the same frustration that I and plenty of other users have found it to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)