Talk:HughesNet

Non-POV issues concerning FAP
Hi - I read the FAP section and found it to be informative and accurate. I didn't read the POV as strongly as earlier readers - maybe it's been edited since then? There aren't enough sources for sure, but the information seems accurate enough. I'm helping a friend with their Hughesnet system and this information is explanatory for their experiences. Please don't delete this section entirely - it's very useful. Stevemidgley (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is extremely important and must be kept. This is the only place on the Internet where the FAP is described in further detail. Nowhere on ANY of the Hughes site is the policy clearly explained. The official Hughes Fair Access Policy FAQ section explains that we are punished for 24 hours if we go over our daily limit, but it does NOT anywhere say that this is a rolling 24-hour period. When I contacted the company about it, they said it was "implied." (Elle, July 6, 09)

The section on the FAP must be reworded for non-POV reasons. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an editorial. --KJRehberg 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's definitely not neutral and there are no sources cited. I don't understand why this is left on the page. I'm a new wiki editor, but I thought that content in violation of wiki policy was deleted. Allergy-mom 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does have numerous inaccuracies, eg: fap goes to below 2kbps for four hours (not 24) before it goes to 7-12 kbps (for 20 hours), etc, they also ignore that low bandwith high packet rates are subject to random disconnections (as i've noticed with RTS games over the internet, if you play 'like a pro' your connection tends to mysteriously cut out like weather outages every few hours for a while even during clear skies, etc..) even though during a typical hour the game sends less than 500 kb of data, if you (the end user) exceeds 200 packets per minute (which is semi-pro apm, true pros go up to 1200 apm) the connection becomes shakey after a few games... and the 200 mb doesnt include packet overhead, only the data size for packets.

also, with modern downloading software one can dl at 10 kbps even after being fapped (during the last 20 hours) and the conenction will still unfap, if you use the full 12kbps the fap period extends, but modern downloading software only needs a few configurations tweaks to work around the fap issue. if you think this article section is bad you should read the wiki on wildblue... the whole wiki needs to be redone with citations etc. starband which is the oldest game in satelite internet seems to have the least restrictive fap/use metering, but they cost the most, and before 2006 they had the oldest/ least effective sat equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.21 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the use of mb is wrong - what is a milibit? SimonMWatts 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

whoops the customer care page was incorrectly displaying things, they were saying fap free time was metered and vice verse, incorrectly so i deleted my comment..

The service does go to the slow speed for 24 hours now, not the 4 hours as before. The FAP can be viewed at: http://www.nationwidesatellite.com/HughesNet/service/HughesNet_fair_access_policy.asp

The text of the page in the url above that states this is: "The Fair Access Policy is straightforward. Based on an analysis of customer usage data, Hughes has established a download threshold for each of the HughesNet service plans that is well above the typical usage rates. Subscribers who exceed that threshold will experience reduced download speeds for approximately 24 hours."

Not only is the FAP section un-biased, in my mind it understates the problem. My vote is to keep it in as it is not advertised that you could have an average of 100Mb/day effective high speed rate in a worst case on a 200Mb/day plan once the 'punishment' is included in the calculation. (Yes, I am a biased hughes net user who was burned when it went from a limit per day to a limit per day + punishment without notice other than service below the level that was sold prior to the 24h limit and based on the still advertised 200MB/day (without the link to the FAP working unless you are a user on the following page:) http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity%5BOID%5BA88DE5C756665B4FA1951234C6C9B659%5D%5D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.104 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article understated the speed reduction. My recent experience was less than 2Kbps immediately after the threshold was exceeded. There was no explicit warning. It was a very rainy day and we had no idea as to the cause of the speed reduction until we checked the modem (http://192.168.0.1) and found the system status lamp red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.77 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think this section is accurate (and possibly under-emphasizes the FAP issue). I believe most rational people understand the need and purpose of the FAP and would be perfectly willing to stay within the alloted threshold. That said, it is difficult to do when there is no convenient or reliable means to check usage. Hughesnet provides no tools or utilities to show your status in real-time and there is no warning you are approaching or have exceeded the limits. This is a capability I believe most people assume would be available (without having to buy 3rd party software that tries to estimate the usage).

As far as the statements about changing policies, unclear communication, ambiguous and poorly defined (or at least poorly published) FAP specifications, these are all accurate and are not embellishments or slanderous. 67.142.130.20 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Jeff


 * Actually, HughesNet does allow you to monitor your bandwidth usage: http://customercare.myhughesnet.com/frm_usage.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.59 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We can monitor our usage on that page, but it is not promptly updated (only about 2 hours after the fact), which leaves us vulnerable to FAPping if we're not aware of a download (being done by someone else in the house, for example). There is no counter nor any tools to add up the "rolling" 24-hour period. (Elle, July 6, 09)

Does anyone have any info as to the availiability of MB left after Fair Use Policy is removed for the 24 hour period? Does it give back the typical usage or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.161.28 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No sources
This whole article does not cite any sources. I think it needs a whole re-write. --Micwa (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out this diff:
[[]]

Why was this changed?

- Do they not use VSAT? Is it not a two way service?

- Do they not use Ka and Ku bands?

- Do they not use a dish that attaches to a building or pole?

- Do they not have tech support?

- Is there no latency going to space and back? Note, that section was copy-pasted from their FAQ.

- Are the speeds not frequently lower than advertised? (Answer: they are)

Wjlafrance (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an advert, how go guide, etc. Nor does it engage in copyright violations, which would including stealing content from other's websties. Your restoration of that inappropriate content has been reverted as vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Following that logic, we should remove from the Star Trek article that it featured Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner, as that'd be an advert. But it's not, it's simply explaining details of Star Trek. If you'd like, I can write up a description of their FAP, which will be more explanatory than theirs anyhow. Wjlafrance (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the same logic in any sense. It is a rather ridiculous comparison really. Their FAP is irrelevant to this article. This is an encyclopedic article on the company, and detailed information on the intricacies of their company and what technology they use to provide their service is unnecessary and excessively minor detail. They have tech support...so what? So does any other company. It would only be noteworthy if they didn't. The latency is also irrelevant, a nd unless there are actual reliable sources discussing problems with speeds (and not whining from current or former customers), it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how to guide, not an advertisement, not for the shoving in of original research and personal opinion, and not a complaint forum. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)