Hughesnet FAP has been changed!

[tonyp56]

Haven't seen this here anywhere else, therefore I am posting. It has been changed for a while now (about a month) some may still be on old FAP though.

Just for everyones information: http://customercare.myhughesnet.com/fap_announce.htm

Notice where it says "Download threshold is the amount of data that may be downloaded during a typical day before the Fair Access Policy may restrict the download speed."

More or less, they went from 175 MB (for Home) in a four or so hour period to 200MB for 24 hours. Also, you recovered before, but now, you'll remain FAP'd for approx. 24 hours (if you use connection, it can extend time period). If you get FAP'd, it is worse than dial-up, I got FAP'd a couple of days ago, and it took about 5 minutes for satelliteguys to even load the front page. On dial-up, about a minute and I've got the page fully loaded--thats connecting at 46.6Kbps.

 

[HCI]

I am pretty sure it is miss worded. Take a look at my usage for the past couple of days.

Date Time MB down FAP MB up
04/22/2007 0:00 01:00 29 13.42 No 0.12
04/22/2007 10:00 11:00 44 51.03 No 0.24
04/22/2007 11:00 12:00 43 13.77 No 0.10
04/22/2007 12:00 13:00 46 30.37 No 1.67
04/22/2007 13:00 14:00 48 17.49 No 1.52
04/22/2007 14:00 15:00 46 24.24 No 0.82
04/22/2007 15:00 16:00 35 3.82 No 0.31
04/22/2007 16:00 17:00 42 23.33 No 0.69
04/22/2007 17:00 18:00 36 2.83 No 0.08
04/22/2007 18:00 19:00 38 3.28 No 1.27
04/22/2007 19:00 20:00 41 14.33 No 0.51
04/22/2007 20:00 21:00 44 45.11 No 0.87
04/22/2007 21:00 22:00 35 12.41 No 0.37
04/22/2007 22:00 23:00 50 37.30 No 0.68
04/22/2007 23:00 00:00 53 47.57 No 1.88
04/23/2007 0:00 01:00 37 8.00 No 0.24
04/23/2007 8:00 09:00 32 16.87 No 0.08
04/23/2007 17:00 18:00 29 17.34 No 0.15
04/23/2007 18:00 19:00 56 48.16 No 1.22
04/23/2007 19:00 20:00 27 2.91 No 0.09
04/23/2007 20:00 21:00 47 27.89 No 0.20
04/23/2007 21:00 22:00 46 19.43 No 0.49
04/23/2007 22:00 23:00 55 41.16 No 0.82
04/23/2007 23:00 00:00 54 53.72 No 0.86
04/24/2007 0:00 01:00 38 3.17 No 0.10
04/24/2007 8:00 09:00 43 2.23 No 0.08
04/24/2007 18:00 19:00 37 4.51 No 0.18
04/24/2007 19:00 20:00 29 1.62 No 0.24
04/24/2007 20:00 21:00 43 28.95 No 2.31
04/24/2007 21:00 22:00 54 13.90 No 0.74
04/24/2007 22:00 23:00 54 12.07 No 0.89
04/24/2007 23:00 00:00 47 13.31 No 1.01
04/25/2007 5:00 06:00 35 7.12 No 0.19
04/25/2007 6:00 07:00 39 20.19 No 0.03

As of right now NOBODY knows what hughes is stating when they stated the new policy. It states it is an increase of a FAP threashold, but that one sentence they threw in has everyone confused. And of course getting a clear answer from Hughes well.....

I am betting it is just an increase to the old policy and the time period did not change.

 

[HCI]

Just talked to a TAG tech. He stated that it was however an increase of the old plan but the difference as with all give alittle they are going to take alittle.

They are giving you MORE of a threshold, but it is going to take longer for that threshold to build back up after you hit it.

This is why many people may complain. With the old plan some people were getting FAPed and not knowing it so did not really complain. They thought it was just a peak time of the day and after about 4 hours speed would come back. Now when you get FAPed it takes 24 hours come back to speed.

Best thing to do is keep up with your usage. A normal browser will not even come close to the FAP.

 

[tonyp56]

The Tate,

I am sorry, but my experience has been different. I can prove it, let me post 12 hours of my usage for when I got FAP'd (4-22 thru 4-23). I tested rather or not it was a short time period or 24 hours, so I spread out some downloads and well, got FAP'd--total download from approx 1 AM on 22nd until about 1 AM on 23rd was about 248MB, so I did go over 200MB during that 24 hour period.

I've been FAP'd again, trying to download updates for my sisters computer--didn't do it on purpose this time. Files were large, so I tried to do a little at a time, and I guess I went too far too quick. LOL

I wish this wasn't the case, and I really wish Hughesnet would reconsider, but I know that they don't have too. I mean, if it was 200MB in a short time period (4 or 5 hours, heck 6 hours) and if I went over I would get FAP'd and stay that way for 24 hours, I'd love it. But right now, my experience has been 200MB for a full 24 hour period, not a short time period.


04/22/2007 3:00 04:00 59 69.32 No 0.34
04/22/2007 10:00 11:00 60 2.90 No 0.09
04/22/2007 23:00 00:00 60 26.47 No 0.43
04/23/2007 0:00 01:00 60 15.86 No 0.62
04/23/2007 1:000 2:00 60 66.54 No 0.32
04/23/2007 2:00 03:00 60 7.83 Yes 0.27

Notice the two bold times, I did that to point out when I started adding up how much usage I had. Even during this time period, I only used 188.92MBs, even though this range is 12 hours long (From 3 PM until 3 AM). If new threshold is 200MB, and it is still within a short time period, then why did I get FAP'd for less than 200MB in a 12 hour period? And before you ask, the reason why there are gaps is because my system didn't get any use during those times--I have nothing to gain to lie, everyone has the right to believe me or not too, but this is what I've seen.

Perhaps, you're right, and for some reason most of the Hughesnet people haven't gotten the word, and things got programmed to count usage for 24 hours and after someone goes over 200MB (higher for higher packages) they get FAP'd, and things will work themselves out in a week or two. But so far, my experience has been new FAP is on a rolling 24 hour count. Additionally, Hughesnet has had this out for a while, why haven't they changed their typo yet? I mean, if the typo was service cost $0.59 a month on their website, you think they'd leave that up for a month or more?

 

[HCI]

The Tate,

I am sorry, but my experience has been different. I can prove it, let me post 12 hours of my usage for when I got FAP'd (4-22 thru 4-23). I tested rather or not it was a short time period or 24 hours, so I spread out some downloads and well, got FAP'd--total download from approx 1 AM on 22nd until about 1 AM on 23rd was about 248MB, so I did go over 200MB during that 24 hour period.

I've been FAP'd again, trying to download updates for my sisters computer--didn't do it on purpose this time. Files were large, so I tried to do a little at a time, and I guess I went too far too quick. LOL

I wish this wasn't the case, and I really wish Hughesnet would reconsider, but I know that they don't have too. I mean, if it was 200MB in a short time period (4 or 5 hours, heck 6 hours) and if I went over I would get FAP'd and stay that way for 24 hours, I'd love it. But right now, my experience has been 200MB for a full 24 hour period, not a short time period.


04/22/2007 3:00 04:00 59 69.32 No 0.34
04/22/2007 10:00 11:00 60 2.90 No 0.09
04/22/2007 23:00 00:00 60 26.47 No 0.43
04/23/2007 0:00 01:00 60 15.86 No 0.62
04/23/2007 1:000 2:00 60 66.54 No 0.32
04/23/2007 2:00 03:00 60 7.83 Yes 0.27

Notice the two bold times, I did that to point out when I started adding up how much usage I had. Even during this time period, I only used 188.92MBs, even though this range is 12 hours long (From 3 PM until 3 AM). If new threshold is 200MB, and it is still within a short time period, then why did I get FAP'd for less than 200MB in a 12 hour period? And before you ask, the reason why there are gaps is because my system didn't get any use during those times--I have nothing to gain to lie, everyone has the right to believe me or not too, but this is what I've seen.

Perhaps, you're right, and for some reason most of the Hughesnet people haven't gotten the word, and things got programmed to count usage for 24 hours and after someone goes over 200MB (higher for higher packages) they get FAP'd, and things will work themselves out in a week or two. But so far, my experience has been new FAP is on a rolling 24 hour count. Additionally, Hughesnet has had this out for a while, why haven't they changed their typo yet? I mean, if the typo was service cost $0.59 a month on their website, you think they'd leave that up for a month or more?

Show me 3 or 4 days of that activity when you got faped and I will see if I can break the code.

 

[tonyp56]

04/17/2007 23:00 00:00 60 1.24 No 0.15
04/18/2007 0:00 01:00 60 6.11 No 0.22
04/18/2007 2:00 03:00 60 13.20 No 1.16
04/18/2007 8:00 09:00 59 0.50 No 0.05
04/18/2007 10:00 11:00 60 1.11 No 0.19
04/18/2007 11:00 12:00 60 26.58 No 1.19
04/18/2007 12:00 13:00 60 29.51 No 1.13
04/18/2007 13:00 14:00 60 36.19 No 0.99
04/18/2007 14:00 15:00 60 22.30 No 0.76
04/18/2007 15:00 16:00 60 6.99 No 0.20
04/18/2007 16:00 17:00 60 12.35 No 0.41
04/18/2007 17:00 18:00 60 0.53 No 0.06
04/18/2007 18:00 19:00 60 2.65 No 0.16
04/18/2007 20:00 21:00 59 1.84 No 0.22
04/18/2007 23:00 00:00 60 1.36 No 0.12
04/19/2007 0:000 1:00 60 24.17 No 0.47
04/19/2007 3:00 04:00 60 0.38 No 0.95
04/19/2007 8:00 09:00 60 0.89 No 0.08
04/19/2007 10:00 11:00 60 2.57 No 0.13
04/19/2007 11:00 12:00 60 9.08 No 0.33
04/19/2007 12:00 13:00 60 17.67 No 0.50
04/19/2007 13:00 14:00 60 5.29 No 1.37
04/19/2007 14:00 15:00 60 2.24 No 1.84
04/19/2007 15:00 16:00 60 20.53 No 1.15
04/19/2007 23:00 00:00 60 54.05 No 1.97
04/20/2007 0:00 01:00 60 55.09 No 0.86
04/20/2007 1:00 02:00 60 46.45 No 0.37
04/20/2007 2:00 03:00 60 1.33 No 0.16
04/20/2007 8:00 09:00 60 1.45 No 0.09
04/20/2007 12:00 13:00 60 11.14 No 0.37
04/20/2007 13:00 14:00 60 11.16 No 0.27
04/20/2007 14:00 15:00 60 5.99 No 0.24
04/20/2007 15:00 16:00 60 11.93 No 0.62
04/20/2007 16:00 17:00 60 17.17 No 0.76
04/20/2007 17:00 18:00 59 0.85 No 0.17
04/20/2007 18:00 19:00 60 0.75 No 0.10
04/20/2007 19:00 20:00 60 2.97 No 0.11
04/20/2007 20:00 21:00 60 1.14 No 0.15
04/21/2007 0:00 01:00 60 14.44 No 0.27
04/21/2007 1:00 02:00 60 3.70 No 0.08
04/21/2007 2:00 03:00 60 0.47 No 0.06
04/21/2007 3:00 04:00 60 0.57 No 0.06
04/21/2007 5:00 06:00 60 2.19 No 0.94
04/21/2007 10:00 11:00 60 1.06 No 0.11
04/21/2007 11:00 12:00 60 5.22 No 4.30
04/21/2007 12:00 13:00 59 22.63 No 1.48
04/21/2007 23:00 00:00 60 6.64 No 0.15
04/22/2007 0:00 01:00 60 9.44 No 0.17
04/22/2007 1:00 02:00 60 26.71 No 0.26
04/22/2007 2:00 03:00 60 30.72 No 0.32
04/22/2007 3:00 04:00 59 69.32 No 0.34
04/22/2007 10:00 11:00 60 2.90 No 0.09
04/22/2007 23:00 00:00 60 26.47 No 0.43
04/23/2007 0:00 01:00 60 15.86 No 0.62
04/23/2007 1:000 2:00 60 66.54 No 0.32
04/23/2007 2:00 03:00 60 7.83 Yes 0.27
04/23/2007 3:00 04:00 59 0.09 Yes 0.12
04/23/2007 23:00 00:00 60 0.52 Yes 0.09
04/24/2007 0:00 01:00 60 1.02 Yes 0.12
04/24/2007 2:00 03:00 60 0.20 Yes 0.04
04/24/2007 6:00 07:00 60 1.11 No 0.95
04/24/2007 10:00 11:00 60 9.34 No 0.12
04/24/2007 11:00 12:00 60 1.33 No 0.19
04/24/2007 12:00 13:00 59 25.79 No 0.33
04/24/2007 13:00 14:00 60 9.64 No 0.31
04/24/2007 14:00 15:00 60 1.46 No 0.15
04/24/2007 16:00 17:00 42 3.71 No 0.34
04/24/2007 17:00 18:00 60 8.34 No 4.36
04/24/2007 18:00 19:00 60 6.20 No 1.35
04/24/2007 19:00 20:00 60 0.78 No 1.33
04/24/2007 20:00 21:00 60 1.52 No 0.06
04/24/2007 23:00 00:00 59 5.57 No 0.24
04/25/2007 0:00 01:00 60 34.58 No 0.27
04/25/2007 1:00 02:00 60 18.92 No 0.07
04/25/2007 13:00 14:00 60 10.96 No 0.37
04/25/2007 14:00 15:00 58 1.03 No 0.11
04/25/2007 15:00 16:00 60 1.17 No 0.29
04/25/2007 16:00 17:00 60 5.45 No 0.18
04/25/2007 17:00 18:00 60 3.11 No 0.56
04/25/2007 18:00 19:00 60 4.00 No 0.85
04/25/2007 19:00 20:00 60 2.01 No 0.12
04/25/2007 20:00 21:00 60 70.73 No 0.77
04/25/2007 21:00 22:00 59 92.10 No 1.90
04/25/2007 22:00 23:00 60 67.03 Yes 0.48
04/25/2007 23:00 00:00 60 6.21 Yes 4.42
04/26/2007 0:00 01:00 60 3.80 Yes 0.26
04/26/2007 1:00 02:00 42 1.94 Yes 0.15
04/26/2007 2:00 03:00 49 0.93 Yes 0.10
04/26/2007 3:00 04:00 31 0.27 Yes 0.03
04/26/2007 4:00 05:00 52 0.07 Yes 0.03
04/26/2007 5:00 06:00 60 0.01 Yes 0.01
04/26/2007 6:00 07:00 60 0.04 Yes 0.01
04/26/2007 7:00 08:00 60 0.13 Yes 0.12
04/26/2007 8:00 09:00 59 1.11 Yes 0.11
04/26/2007 9:00 10:00 60 0.20 Yes 0.10
04/26/2007 10:00 11:00 60 0.13 Yes 0.06
04/26/2007 11:00 12:00 60 0.41 Yes 0.10
04/26/2007 12:00 13:00 60 0.51 Yes 0.19
04/26/2007 14:00 15:00 60 0.85 Yes 0.20
04/26/2007 15:00 16:00 60 1.10 Yes 0.15
04/26/2007 16:00 17:00 60 0.54 Yes 0.09
04/26/2007 17:00 18:00 60 1.31 Yes 0.13
04/26/2007 18:00 19:00 60 0.35 Yes 0.08
04/26/2007 19:00 20:00 60 0.30 Yes 0.08
04/26/2007 20:00 21:00 59 0.22 Yes 0.08
04/26/2007 22:00 23:00 59 2.96 Yes 1.07

Two FAP times are in bold.

Here is from last of 17th until an hour or so ago. One note here, it says I'm still under FAP, but I am browsing just fine now. Also notice last night when I got FAP'd again, I hit just over 200 MB in short time period--I guess that Windows update that was over 100MB downloaded more than I thought before turning off automatic updates, computer was at XP SP1, and it was downloading all of the new updates just so I could download SP2--along with Antivirus updates, etc., which was when internet went south! (had over 300MB for that 24 hour period ??? I'm confused now. ) I don't know.

Also, from one day to the next, it shows different data for same time and date. What I mean is say it shows 30 MB today, but tomorrow it might only show 3.2MB. Also, notice that where it says if I am under FAP or not. It only says yes for five hours (4-22 and 4-23 data, not last FAP), the rest says no. When I got out of that FAP, it showed about 24 time slots with a "Yes" in them for being under FAP (just like it shows now for 25th and 26th at the end). In other words, data is changing from one day to next.

Anyways, looks like maybe, it is a typo that was in the system and now they are weeding it out again and changing it to what it is supposed to be.

Like I've already said, if it is 200MB in say 4-6 hours, and if I go over that I'll be FAP'd for 24 hours, I can live with that, heck they could make it a week. But 200MB per day? That will hurt me. As you can see, I don't even use service during peak times, but I do like to download (visting here, youtube, etc. you use that download quickly). Though I'd like to point out I would get FAP'd before 1 or 2 times per month total--I've went two months without getting FAP'd once.

 

[HCI]

04/22/2007 0:00 01:00 60 9.44 No 0.17
04/22/2007 1:00 02:00 60 26.71 No 0.26
04/22/2007 2:00 03:00 60 30.72 No 0.32
04/22/2007 3:00 04:00 59 69.32 No 0.34
04/22/2007 10:00 11:00 60 2.90 No 0.09
04/22/2007 23:00 00:00 60 26.47 No 0.43
04/23/2007 0:00 01:00 60 15.86 No 0.62
04/23/2007 1:000 2:00 60 66.54 No 0.32
04/23/2007 2:00 03:00 60 7.83 Yes 0.27


If what the new fap says is correct this is your problem. You used 255.79 in this 24 hour period. I really don't know because in your latest it say's your on for 60 mins and you are only using under 1 Meg.

 

[tonyp56]

Yeah, thats why I thought this is on a 24 hour rolling count for FAP. But now I'm not so sure. Because of the night before last, that 24 hour period I had over 300MB, but I went over 200MB in about 4 or 5 hours (which I 100% agree with, I understand Hughesnet has to have a FAP and I agree with 24 hour punishment for going over, however, I will/would have problem if the 200MB is for a full day.) Anyways, I guess time will tell.

Thanks for looking, and responding.

 

[jwhite6069]

I think when my Contract with hughesnet is over I'm going to switch to wildblue. This new policy is a bunch of BS! When you get FAPed, your done for the day.

 

[HCI]

I think when my Contract with hughesnet is over I'm going to switch to wildblue. This new policy is a bunch of BS! When you get FAPed, your done for the day.

When you get FAPed with wildblue your done for the rest of the month.

Best thing to do with both services is monitor your downloads. If you need more room upgrade. Its not that hard once you know how to do it.

 

[jwhite6069]

What kind of policy does starband have?

 

[tonyp56]

Truth is, with satellite broadband (from any company) you are going to have some issues/differences compared to DSL, WiFI, and Cable. One of them being latency: it takes time to go up to space, back to earth (NOC) out to web, find info, back to NOC, back to space, and then finally back to users home.

However, I don't buy into the idea that because satellite is complicated, it cost more money but there isn't as much bandwidth (6Mbps down is $35 from AT&T, about $15 cheaper than 700Kbps down from satellite). For starters, what stops Hughesnet from upgrading their NOC so that bandwidth is increased for everyone? I've heard people say that the bottleneck is the satellite not the NOC. However, why then have system wide FAP? Why not FAP everyone on certain satellites whom go over? If one satellite has more heavy users, enforce FAP harder. Additonally, I really don't believe the bottleneck is the satellite. And if it is, Hughesnet needs to stop taking new customers, and give their current customers the best service possible. It is only going to get worse as more and more users drag system down. Of course I know putting up new satellites (or leasing more space) is expensive, however, would upgrading NOC, or even adding a few other NOC's (say one for the West, Mid, and Eastern part of the country?) which IMO would reduce traffic going to single NOC, be cheaper? Seems that this may not speed everything up, since there is bound to be a bottleneck at the satellite, but wouldn't this help? Does AT&T have one Network place for all AT&T Yahoo DSL traffic? I'm pretty sure that answer is NO. In fact, does any other non-satellite broadband provider have only one location to handle system traffic? Talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket.

At least have backup NOC (in a different part of country, so not affected by same conditions) so that if main NOC goes down because of weather or something, there is another place for data transfer to take place.

Would this cost money? Yes. However, if Hughesnet wants to last more than five or so years, they need to make an attempt to provide better service to customers. If that means take no new customers, then I think they should. Which is better, constant income month after month, or the intial income from new customers whom eventually drop service?

FAP, would be less of a deal if bandwidth would/could be increased, for everyone, at or below current prices. For one, if you pay $59.99 a month you automatically expect X level of service, however, for $39.99 expectations are lower. Getting FAP'd on $40 isn't as bad as getting FAP'd on $60.

 

[HCI]

I don't think you fully understand how the system works tony. Hughes does have two NOC's. North Las Veges and Germantown. Hughes uses a number of satellites with a number of transponders. Each transponder has a limited amount of bandwith and the more users that are on at a time the smaller the bandwith tube is. This is were the bottlenecking comes from. It does not matter if Hughes had 100 noc's there is only a limited number of space on each transponder. This is why DVB-S2 was so important to them.

Hughes has been around awhile and will continue to stay. People think that since the service does not compare to cable they are not going to have much of a chance. Hughes was operateing before they started offereing internet to rural customers. Its not what is keeping them afloat.

Statement from their last quarter and year earnings.


Hughes Network Systems, LLC (HNS)

"HNS had strong financial performance in 2006," said Pradman Kaul, president and chief executive officer. "Revenues increased by 6% over 2005 to $858 million and our profitability in 2006 was also very strong. Operating Income for the year was $58 million, a growth of 27% over 2005; EBITDA increased by 24% to $108 million in 2006 over 2005; and Adjusted EBITDA grew by 9% to $126 million in the same period. We generated $92 million of cash from operations in 2006, which is more than double what we generated in 2005. The major contributors to revenue growth were our consumer/SMB and mobile satellite businesses. Consumer/SMB subscribers grew 19% from 274,400 at the end of 2005 to 327,500 at the end of 2006. Revenue in the consumer/SMB business also grew by 18% over FY 2005 to $292 million. Revenue from our mobile satellite business grew 47% in 2006 over 2005, primarily through revenue from Thuraya, Terrestar, and ICO. Our North American and International enterprise businesses continued to be a steady revenue base contributing over half of HNS' total revenue in 2006, with significant orders from Exxon Mobil, Walgreens, Saudi MOFA, Enlaces Integra, Rite Aid, GTECH, Federal Express, Telmex, Galaxy Broadband, Murphy Oil, Jack in the Box, Sonic, Real Time, Yum Brands, and others. Overall, we are pleased that we have delivered on our business plan both financially and strategically in 2006."

"These impressive full-year results were a result of sustained quarterly performance, including a strong fourth quarter," continued Kaul. "We grew fourth quarter 2006 revenue by 7% and EBITDA by 13% over the fourth quarter of 2005. Adjusted EBITDA for fourth quarter 2006 grew 11% over the same period in 2005. The growth engines in the fourth quarter were once again the consumer/SMB and mobile satellite businesses; the consumer/SMB revenue grew by 19% in the fourth quarter of 2006 over the fourth quarter of 2005, and the mobile satellite revenue more than doubled in the fourth quarter of 2006 over the fourth quarter of 2005."

 

[Stargazer]

That sounds like a bunch of bull. Cable/DSL/Wireless internet ROCKS! We do not enforce a FAP on our customers unless we see someone hogging a lot of the bandwidth. I hope to increase our bandwidth 7 fold here soon for expansion on our wireless. FAP and ping issues along with price is why I never went with satellite.

 

[tonyp56]

I don't think you fully understand how the system works tony. Hughes does have two NOC's. North Las Veges and Germantown.

Which Germantown? Seriously, simply asking, didn't know of a different NOC. Do both NOC's serve all customers, or only certain areas?

Hughes uses a number of satellites with a number of transponders. Each transponder has a limited amount of bandwidth and the more users that are on at a time the smaller the bandwith tube is. This is were the bottlenecking comes from. It does not matter if Hughes had 100 noc's there is only a limited number of space on each transponder. This is why DVB-S2 was so important to them.Hughes has been around awhile and will continue to stay. People think that since the service does not compare to cable they are not going to have much of a chance. Hughes was operateing before they started offereing internet to rural customers. Its not what is keeping them afloat.

OK, this is why I ask, why does Hughesnet continue to take on new customers? If they've only got so much space, and they are limited on that space, why continue to strain it? I guess they are planning on launching another satellite. However, is one satellite really going to give them enough of a relief from bottleneck to simply keep service at current levels, let alone increase service, with them adding approx fifty-thousand new customers a year (if numbers from 2005 to 2006 hold)?

What I meant by increase bandwidth, I don't think they should suddenly give customers 3Mbps down and 512Kbps up for $59.99 a month or anything. However, Why not bump up backbone? Of course, same bottlenecks will exist; however, I believe it would be at least a little better. For instance, we all hate dial up, however, which computer would you rather browse with on dial-up? An old Pentium 233 MHz, 128MB of Ram, with a 56K modem (the bottleneck), or a P4 2.5 GHz, with 2 gigs of Ram and a 56K modem? If your answer is "they are both the same because you are limited to 56K" your wrong. In fact, the P4 would actually browse faster (not to mention connect at a faster speed). (From personal experience had a 233 MHz computer that would only connect at 28.8--even though it had 56K modem--the new computer (with newer modem of course) connected at 46.6--with same phone cord and on same phone line). My point is, even with bottlenecks, if setup is right, before and after bottleneck, even where there are bottlenecks there can be a bandwidth increase, if not an increase, at least reduced dependency on lower bandwidth that could possibly slow things down. I mean if every Hughes satellite except one, was to hit the NOC(s) with traffic, things are bound to slow down for everyone, even those on the one satellite that isn't busy.

I also feel that they should lower the price, or they should introduce some cheaper packages if they plan on continuing to add new customers. Say 256Kbps down and 60Kbps up for $30 a month being one of them. If service is meant to be used for browsing and very, very small downloads (Hughesnet's website mostly talks about browsing) then why wouldn't this speed be enough for that? Then, Hughesnet could do 1) increase customer base, simply put offering cheaper internet packages would draw more customers, which would be good. 2) Since majority sign up for faster browsing, most of Hughesnet's customers could be on cheaper and slower package, and therefore use up less bandwidth, which would give Hughesnet more overall available bandwidth. Let’s face it; you won't download as much on 256Kbps as you will on 850Kbps (average for me). Also, getting hit with a FAP when you are on a $30 plan would be less of a insult, and I believe customers wouldn't complain as much (I know I wouldn't) about it. Additionally, since most of income comes from business accounts anyways, Hughesnet if anything would be no worse off financially. But I would reason that in fact, Hughesnet would increase revenue, perhaps increasing expenses too by adding customers, but the eventual pay off would be great.

Finally, Hughesnet, as a company has been around for a long time. However, GM owned it, which in turn owned Directv and Direcway too. Before Directv and Direcway (which I still remember both of these starting) Hughesnet, rather Hughes as a company was around (owned by GM of course). After being sold by GM, and eventually getting rid of majority stake in Directv, Hughesnet, is really all by themselves now. No backings like before from GM, no TV revenue, nothing, just Hughesnet satellite and equipment sales (which I concede as huge).

If things don't change soon, I feel that Hughesnet will no longer be around (at the very least offering "consumer" grade internet via satellite). Now you and others state how many places are impossible to reach with landline/cable, I do agree with that. However, with other satellite internet providers out there, Hughesnet is getting some competition. Along with companies working on using OTA signal for broadband connection, WiFi (that is getting better, going further than before, and usually isn't affected by clouds, rain, snow, etc.), and finally, telco/cable companies waking up and expanding service further than before--perhaps not 100%, but even 5% cuts into Hughesnet's potential customer pool and eventual profits.

With all of that, Hughesnet can't continue to pretend there isn't a threat to them (the playground and the rules have changed, and will continue to change). They've got to spend some money to make service the best it can be. They've got to offer something to attract new customers, and give something to keep current customers. If not, then why even try? If they'd simply up the quality of customer service so that when you call them, you are able to get answers, and you are able to understand the person on the other end of phone, that would go a long ways alone.

Just my 2 cents,... Of course, all of this is just IMO. BTW, The Tate, not trying to start argument, just wanting to express how I feel about Hughesnet, you've got to admit, Hughesnet could do some things better, upgrade system, or something. Surely, you can't say they 100% perfect. That is all I am saying too. Is it complicated? Yes. Complicated beyond my understanding, very likely. However, some things are just common sense. As more and more companies offer cheaper broadband to more and more people, Hughesnet will begin to lose customer base. Yes, they've added customers (not counting business side, which again I concede as huge) but really as long as they've been around, to only have 327,000 customers, that is a very small amount of customers for new company, let alone one (DirecPC, Direcway, and now Hughesnet) that has been around for as long as they have been. All of this said do I believe Hughes as a company will go away, no, but Hughesnet as a service I believe will unless things change soon.