# DoD with Hughesnet



## Brantel (Dec 8, 2006)

Hughesnet has informed me that there is no FAP for me from 3 to 6 AM Eastern.

Is there a way to configure the queue to only download between those hours?

Anyone else having any success at using DoD on Hughesnet?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

A three hour window is effectively a death blow to DOD given the Hughesnet transfer speeds. At the most expensive level, you're looking at a maximum of 1.5Mbps (ProPak; $80-100/month) which should yield transfer times of 3:1 or higher.


----------



## Brantel (Dec 8, 2006)

harsh said:


> A three hour window is effectively a death blow to DOD given the Hughesnet transfer speeds. At the most expensive level, you're looking at a maximum of 1.5Mbps (ProPak; $80-100/month) which should yield transfer times of 3:1 or higher.


Quite aware of what it cost because I have had it for about 3 years. No other options other than dialup so this is what I am stuck with.

Looks like DTV is either throttling the downloads or something with everyone reporting slow download speeds even with their super high speed connections. So at this time it does not look like the Hughesnet is the major bottlekneck.

Question still stands unanswered... Can you tell the box when you want it to download?


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

No.


----------



## Brantel (Dec 8, 2006)

I may be able to restrict the box's access to the internet to a certain time period on my router. I will have to look into it.

My opinion is that most of the major ISP's will start to implement more restrictive FAP's that are similar to Hughesnet's.

The more web enabled and dependant everything gets, the more precious bandwidth will become.


----------



## michaelyork29 (Jun 22, 2007)

I'm sorry, but when I saw the title of this thread, I couldn't resist laughing.. 

Currently, there is no way to queue up the downloads for a certain time...

The transfer speeds are ridiculously slow anyways...I'm not sure how much you could download in those 3 hours...


----------



## Rasputin (Aug 31, 2006)

I too am stuck with HughesNet. I tried to download 2 30 min. programs today and it down loaded the first pretty quick but the other one shut down after 21 min. I went to the HughesNet System Control Center and it said I had surpassed the fair download limit or what ever it is called. There was a message on the TV that there was a problem with the internet connection. It kept going on and off till I deleted the second program. Tonight my computer is still running at a snails pace so I guess there will not be any DoD downloads with HughesNet.

Pat


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

There is no way at present to set the HR20 to download programs at a specific time. I'm not sure this would work, but there are routers that will allow you to limit what times a device is able to access the network. You might want to give that try if you can.

During a three hour window you should be able to download at two hours of SD programming and maybe a bit more.


----------



## or270 (Feb 12, 2006)

For Pacific time it is 12-3AM, Downloaded 1.4GB in that window.About 2 hours worth of VOD shows.

Best I can do with whats available to me.

Seem to have trouble downloading the shows that are pay per view with the $ sign.


----------



## Ti-maniac (Aug 4, 2007)

or270 said:


> For Pacific time it is 12-3AM, Downloaded 1.4GB in that window.About 2 hours worth of VOD shows.
> 
> Best I can do with whats available to me.
> 
> Seem to have trouble downloading the shows that are pay per view with the $ sign.


Guess you were lucky.
Yesterday I came to my country home with Hughesnet to try out DoD on it. Well it did not work well. The next morning I woke up to Hughesnet being effectively disconnected due to FAP limitations.

I did not know what was going on at first. I called Hughesnet and they said I was turned off because of fair use limitation, and it would not be restored for 24 hours. They said the download was between 12 am and 1 am (contrary to the above discussion). It must of tried to download then.

Hughesnet was totally unsympathetic.

Upon further investigation, Hughesnet actually has a 450MB DAILY limit. Other satellite providers like Wild Blue have a monthly limit (19GB).

But look at Hughesnet advertising, on every page, upper left "Broadband unbound".

Certainly this has to be false advertising.

I called DTV and they know all about fair use, and said, too bad, there is nothing the can do about it because there are thousands of providers.

Etc., etc.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ti-maniac said:


> Guess you were lucky.
> They said the download was between 12 am and 1 am (contrary to the above discussion). It must of tried to download then.


Looks like you got bad info from Customer Service (imagine that!!)

As noted above by someone else, the "FAP free" download window varies by time zone. So, it's a different time period for you out west than it is here in the midwest or the east coast.

You can check your account useage (download/upload)- and get your exact "FAP free" time period via the Hughesnet "myway" page. You'll need your site id number. That will give you an hourly of your useage. I did this about 2 months ago when trying to decide whether I could truly telecommute without getting "FAPed" - your "FAP free" period will show up in this review. As noted by others, mine was - indeed - a 3 hour window.



> But look at Hughesnet advertising, on every page, upper left "Broadband unbound".
> 
> Certainly this has to be false advertising


Of course, what does "unbound" really mean? Especially since HN pitches itself on being faster than dial-up - which it is.

Unlike Verizon which (apparently/allegedly) advertised "unlimited" broadband service at one time (it no longer does). Also, I found that HN was upfront about the FAP . . . AND they (at the time I subscribed) had a 30-day trial period. If you didn't like the service and cancelled within the trial period, you were off the hook for the rest of your plan (of course, if you *bought* your equipment outright, you didn't get a refund for that).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Of course, what does "unbound" really mean?


In this instance, "unbound" means not limited to the existing wired networks.


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

Brantel said:


> I may be able to restrict the box's access to the internet to a certain time period on my router. I will have to look into it.
> 
> My opinion is that most of the major ISP's will start to implement more restrictive FAP's that are similar to Hughesnet's.
> 
> The more web enabled and dependant everything gets, the more precious bandwidth will become.


<snort> Are you serious? Bandwidth isn't like oil--it's cheap and getting cheaper. Barring new competition, I expect the price to stay about the same while the speeds continue to rise. Shoot, I've got a 15/1 connection and don't push it very hard.

Compare it to long-distance telephone calls 20 years ago and it makes a lot more sense.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

tooloud10 said:


> <snort> Are you serious? Bandwidth isn't like oil--it's cheap and getting cheaper. Barring new competition, I expect the price to stay about the same while the speeds continue to rise. Shoot, I've got a 15/1 connection and don't push it very hard.
> 
> Compare it to long-distance telephone calls 20 years ago and it makes a lot more sense.


Though it wasn't my comment, I certainly understand where he's coming from.

I think it's a matter of perspective. Globally? Sure, bandwith is getting bigger, better, faster, and cheaper.

Locally? Well, much of the United States (geographically) today still isn't being adequately served with *basic* broadband service. While some people - mostly in urban areas - have multiple options for basic 1 to 5 Mbps broadband service, much of the country (geographically) is still operating on the equivalent two dixie cups strung together (to stay with your long distance analogy). And the alternatives those people (including me) have are neither cheap nor plentiful.

Even when broadband IS available, the average internet speed in the United States is only about 2Mbps (source: http://pressesc.com/01179677598_us_internet_slow). In comparison to many industrialized countries, US broadband is downright pokey.

Why?

DSL still suffers from "distance from central phone office limitations" that - in a country as big (geographically) as the US - need to be overcome, but breakthroughs do not seem to be occuring nearly fast enough to keep up with the demand for internet bandwith. Cable still suffers from "number of people" limitations that in a country as populous as the United States, also don't seem to be occuring fast enough - as not only the number of people grows, but the number of devices that use (or want to use) the internet explodes.

If that doesn't change fast, then yes - in the United States - demand for broadband could well swamp supply, causing providers to ration the available bandwith in some (possibly many) areas (some of which are already poorly served).

At the same time, countries - like Japan - have leaped frog the United States in providing more and higher capacity high-speed broadband connections (in Japan's case in the form of DSL) - at a cheaper cost - than in the United States. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990_pf.html ). So, yes, more, better, and faster broadband connection there . . . in Japan.

But those developments in Japan (or other countries) does me - and many others - here in the United States any direct good today how?


----------



## eatswodo (Nov 20, 2005)

tooloud10 said:


> <snort> Are you serious? Bandwidth isn't like oil--it's cheap and getting cheaper. Barring new competition, I expect the price to stay about the same while the speeds continue to rise.


Where do you live? Here in a southwestern suburb of Minneapolis, my choices are:

1) Mediacom cable. Started at $49.95/month. Oops, sorry, make that $59.95/month, because I'm not a cable subscriber. Oops, double sorry; here's another $10 a month because 'bandwidth is cheap, and getting cheaper'. So now we're at $69.95/month, with another increase pending.
2) Qwest DSL. I can only get 1.5Mbps, because of my distance from the CO. $44.95/month, unless I sign up for a 2-year commitment, in which case it's $26.95. Oops, the ISP is MSN, which doesn't work with a Mac. I change to another ISP, don't read the small print, and I'm stuck with a 10Mb download limit per month - unless I pay a $200 penalty to break the contract.
3) Dial-up. No thanks.

I bet I'm not alone. I'll also bet that as services like DoD gain wider acceptance, those providing the bandwidth will find more ways of making you pay for it.

Actually, I don't have a real problem with any of this - it's the market at work. What I do have a problem with is that there is *NO competition*. If Comcast (for example) could provide me with the same service as Mediacom, I don't for a minute imagine it would cost me $69.95 a month.


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

eatswodo said:


> Where do you live? Here in a southwestern suburb of Minneapolis, my choices are:
> 
> 1) Mediacom cable. Started at $49.95/month. Oops, sorry, make that $59.95/month, because I'm not a cable subscriber. Oops, double sorry; here's another $10 a month because 'bandwidth is cheap, and getting cheaper'. So now we're at $69.95/month, with another increase pending.
> 2) Qwest DSL. I can only get 1.5Mbps, because of my distance from the CO. $44.95/month, unless I sign up for a 2-year commitment, in which case it's $26.95. Oops, the ISP is MSN, which doesn't work with a Mac. I change to another ISP, don't read the small print, and I'm stuck with a 10Mb download limit per month - unless I pay a $200 penalty to break the contract.
> 3) Dial-up. No thanks.


1) Mediacom is my provider. There's effectively no competition (DSL?) and I pay $65 for a 15/1 connection.
2) I can get 1.5/768 DSL, but that barely counts as broadband these days.
3) Agreed.

All that said, the price hasn't really risen much. Here's what I've paid after signing up for cable modem service in a town with no other competition:

1/256 service for $50/month
They upgraded me to 2/256 service for $50/month
They upgraded me to 5/256 for $50/month
They upgraded me to 5/1 for $50/month
I upgraded to 10/1 for $65/month
They upgraded me to 15/1 for $65 month

I originally signed up in 2000. My bill has hardly changed, though my speeds have gone up--significantly--and it's happened to a LOT of cable subscribers.

I understand that broadband connections still aren't everywhere, but in the big picture, prices are going DOWN, not up, and it's happening pretty fast. That said, I can't imagine that any place that currently has broadband available will ever see a significant rise in pricing.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

tooloud10 said:


> I understand that broadband connections still aren't everywhere, but in the big picture, prices are going DOWN, not up, and it's happening pretty fast. That said, I can't imagine that any place that currently has broadband available will ever see a significant rise in pricing.


Price increases are one thing . . . restricting/limiting bandwith useage quite another. And possible limitations being place on your use of the bandwith provided was the subject. You may have 15/1 service, but just try using it 24/7 and see what happens.

It's not for nothing that Verizon - after advertising "unlimited" mobile broadband service - imposed a "soft" FAP on some of its account users who - in Verizon's view - were hogging the bandwith provided. If bandwith was so cheap and easy to upgrade, it would seem more logical for Verizon to upgrade its bandwith rather than to P.O. its customers.

It is interesting also to note that according to a report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 20 out of 30 industrialized countries surveyed (2/3rds), ISP providers use some sort of "cap" on bandwidth useage. The average bandwith cap is 21 gigabytes per month. (source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Global-Data-on-Caps-Speeds-Prices-89161 ) Those who exceed the "cap" are either throttled down to dial-up speed or pay an "excess" use charge for each additional MB used.

Here's another discussion of the "problem" with a different spin on the price side . . . namely, "billing-by-the-byte": (source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/88523 )


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tooloud10 said:


> Bandwidth isn't like oil--it's cheap and getting cheaper.


Terrestrial bandwidth is getting cheap and plentiful, but it is pretty hard to keep lofting satellites and we all know.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I am not sure if this would work, but I have put the dd-wrt firmware on my WRT54GS and use it for the bridge connection on my HR20. There is a parental setting that you can say when the MAC address can use the internet, perhaps setting the parental control to the specified times the kciking off the DOD queue, you will get it to work duting the programed hours.

Just a thought!


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

eatswodo said:


> Where do you live? Here in a southwestern suburb of Minneapolis, my choices are:
> 
> 1) Mediacom cable. Started at $49.95/month. Oops, sorry, make that $59.95/month, because I'm not a cable subscriber. Oops, double sorry; here's another $10 a month because 'bandwidth is cheap, and getting cheaper'. So now we're at $69.95/month, with another increase pending.
> 2) Qwest DSL. I can only get 1.5Mbps, because of my distance from the CO. $44.95/month, unless I sign up for a 2-year commitment, in which case it's $26.95. Oops, the ISP is MSN, which doesn't work with a Mac. I change to another ISP, don't read the small print, and I'm stuck with a 10Mb download limit per month - unless I pay a $200 penalty to break the contract.
> ...


I don't understand your issue with Qwest. The DSL modem makes the internet connection for you. You only need the MSN stuff if you want e-mail. Even then, you could use web-mail and have no issues.


----------



## eatswodo (Nov 20, 2005)

MikeW said:


> I don't understand your issue with Qwest. The DSL modem makes the internet connection for you. You only need the MSN stuff if you want e-mail. Even then, you could use web-mail and have no issues.


I really don't have an issue with Qwest - reading my original post, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. My comments about MSN were not relevant to this discussion about bandwidth availability and price.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Spanky_Partain said:


> There is a parental setting that you can say when the MAC address can use the internet, perhaps setting the parental control to the specified times the kciking off the DOD queue, you will get it to work duting the programed hours.


While this would keep you within the bounds of the FAP, it is unlikely that you would complete your downloads with a complete loss of connectivity for nineteen hours.


----------



## themorg (Jul 13, 2005)

We are one of the long time satellite users that have seen service and speeds steadily drop since Hughes took over. With DirecWay, we used to get up to 3MB download speeds at slow times, and we were rarely under 1.5MB. This was 5 years ago!!

Has anyone gotten Hughes to extend the FAP for VOD? or talked to DirecTV about it?


----------

