None of the five I've put in came in at 12, they all tested about 8 down, 2 up. Being so new I can't believe it's due to network congestion, so not sure what's up, could be the site I use to test. Regardless, web pages load amazingly fast, and video plays smooth.
WildBlue ViaSat1 the real scoop
- Thread starter Chris Conant WildBlue
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 175
- Views 30K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Ah, OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Unless a way around these issues is found, (That and the low data caps) it's never really going to be a replacement for a wired connection. However, for people who live in the sticks, it's better than dial-up.
Hmm, perhaps the 12 MB down is false advertisement then. If it is not due to congestion which it shouldn't have that being so new then they need to advertise 8 MB instead of 12 MB.
A cap at 8Mb can mean an issue with a 10Mb port. Check the satellite hardware specs and router.
Not false, when prefaced with "up to". All shared bandwidth providers - especially satellite - hedge their performance claims with that modifier. Under those 12 meg beams you'll eventually see service metered out something like this.
Numbers aren't set in concrete. This Is just an example that was uploaded for illustration purposes only.
//greg//
Last edited:
If nobody ever sees 12 MB or close to that then what is the difference in saying 12 MB and 20 or 100 MB? it is up to 20 or up to 100 MB right? If the capacity is already going from 12 to 8 MB due to congestion then I could only imagine how much slower this service is going to get when it gets a lot more people on it.
It's this simple; you get what you pay for. FYI, there are also (up to) 40 meg business/enterprise plans available from the same satellite. And yes, there is a finite RF bandwidth available per beam. But almost without exception, the terrestrial server capacity associated with that beam becomes saturated - LONG before the beam itself becomes stressed.
Free advice: it almost always helps to understand even just a little about how something works - before shoving the criticism stick into overdrive.
//greg//
I admit, I do not know how it all works, just don't think a company should advertise up to 12 MB if nobody sees it at least once in a while. I am not saying that I am not impressed with what they are doing now. They are coming a long way and I knew they would eventually. It is a big improvement from where they were. I am glad to see that those in rural areas are starting to get some decent broadband from satellite. I know what slow dialup and satellite broadband is like. This was much needed with all the video content online these days.
That's the way it's been for years. I have up to 512Kbps. The last couple years, below 200Kbps is common during the evening, sometimes below 100. Downloads sometimes go below dialup speed (not FAPPED). Not to mention pages timing out or it flat out not working. And there isn't anything wrong with my equipment or dish aiming, it's been checked. Also the same with my neighbors, I work on their systems. Not interference because we are miles apart. These are on the sats in Nebraska that they say are working good at 5 meg. It used to be consistent over 500, sometimes over 600.
Apples and oranges. You're talking Ku-band, this is a Ka-band discussion. Besides, there's never been 5MB consumer grade satellite service in Nebraska anyway - unless/until you upgrade to the SurfBeam2 modem that was only introduced this year.
//greg//
...umm yeah, I know very well what's going on, new equipment is required very obviously (I've said that before...). The discussion veered off topic as topics do to include "up to" package pricing, so I merely reported what we currently get as customers on the existing packages, to show that it's common to be less than "up to" speeds. I'm just saying with the current system and current packages, I and others are seeing less than 2/5 or 1/5 of "up to" speed on our package routinely. I only mentioned 5 meg, because they are saying that the satellites are not overloaded now, and can provide service for customers at 5 meg, with the new equipment. The new system is completely different but it is using the exact same satellites that are up there since VS-1 doesn't service this area, I dare say as people get on the service, much lower than "up to" speed will be seen. The current system that is not overloaded provides the speed I mention, that's all I'm saying.
By "they" saying that 5 meg was working well in Nebraska, I am referring to the installer that mentioned that point specifically in this thread, I don't know anyone with that service.
I rest my case.
There is no 5 meg consumer grade satellite service in Nebraska except the new Exede. There is no Exede12 coverage. And the Exede5 service is not available - and cannot be made available - to anyone who does not have the new SurfBeam2 modem. Doesn't matter WHICH satellite they're on.
//greg//
Last edited:
You rest your case?? That's what I said?? I guess I don't know why you started arguing with what I said in the first place. I never said people with old equipment could get Exede service. I was not comparing the 5 meg service (which is Exede, obviously, sorry for not stating the name specifically, just thought everyone knew that since 5 meg has never been available before Exede) to the current Wildblue service which I and my neighbors have. They said the 5 meg service (aka Exede) is working good on the same satellites, that's what I meant. I just said the service was on the same satellites, because it is, very obviously requiring the Exede equipment for reception. So I was not comparing apples and oranges.
I will state this, please read it slowly. Current customers on current WB service are getting the speeds I mentioned. They get those speeds on the current WB hardware on the current existing WB system. This current system, getting those speeds is part of the area that WB/VIasat has stated is not full of subscribers, is not congested. Since it is not congested (but still offers the speeds stated at a fair amount less than "up to" speed), they decided to not offer VS-1 coverage in this area (that's what they said). I simply stated (well, was trying to state) that 5 meg service (only available with exede equipment), with a similar number of subscribers, would likely get lower than "up to" stated package speed as subscribers get it. That's all. If you feel the need to again reply with the point you seem to think you need to make, please reread, because I wasn't saying anything about getting 5 meg/Exede service with old wildblue equipment. I just said the current sats were working good at 5 meg (left out Exede, sorry). Again, 5 meg not available on Wildblue, so obviously Exede service.
The topic was brought up about paying for an up to speed and not getting it, so I felt I would share the situation of myself and others, facts, that's all.
Guess I can't say it any more plainly than that.
Ok. Took a little prodding for you to refine the thought process though. So now - after such considerable elucidation - go back and read what you originally wrote.
//greg//
//greg//
Yeah I did, kind of wish I would have never mentioned 5 meg though.
Ignore that part and I guess I can easily understand the rest though. I see 5 meg service and I automatically equate it to Exede, I know that others wouldn't, that's just what I do and I don't think about it.
Just saying again they say our beam isn't crowded, yet people are calling me complaining about how terrible their service has been, and showing me, we see the speeds reported. I'll admit to not knowing the capacity of the "Exede side" (not accurate, but that's what I'll call it) and I could look it up and figure it out, but if the "old side" is not full and we see these speeds, I don't expect it would take very much time for the "Exede side" to slow down considerably when people start signing up. Just saying that now "they" say it is performing well (as it should with no one on). Wildblue did as well when it was initially launched, very well, I was impressed back then. It's nothing like it was.
One question that could have been asked though was when I mentioned 5 meg, if I meant Exede, then I would have figured out where the confusion came from faster. Or I guess I could have gotten an interest in the English language when I was back in school so that I would be a bit more succinct.
Methinks that's enough on the subject, unless I said some other confusing something or other. In which case, please just ignore it.
Ignore that part and I guess I can easily understand the rest though. I see 5 meg service and I automatically equate it to Exede, I know that others wouldn't, that's just what I do and I don't think about it.Just saying again they say our beam isn't crowded, yet people are calling me complaining about how terrible their service has been, and showing me, we see the speeds reported. I'll admit to not knowing the capacity of the "Exede side" (not accurate, but that's what I'll call it) and I could look it up and figure it out, but if the "old side" is not full and we see these speeds, I don't expect it would take very much time for the "Exede side" to slow down considerably when people start signing up. Just saying that now "they" say it is performing well (as it should with no one on). Wildblue did as well when it was initially launched, very well, I was impressed back then. It's nothing like it was.
One question that could have been asked though was when I mentioned 5 meg, if I meant Exede, then I would have figured out where the confusion came from faster. Or I guess I could have gotten an interest in the English language when I was back in school so that I would be a bit more succinct.
Methinks that's enough on the subject, unless I said some other confusing something or other. In which case, please just ignore it.
