I cannot believe Viasat allows so many customers to attempt to share so little bandwidth. Paying way too much and cant use service.

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 7 months ago
  • Acknowledged
I cannot believe Viasat allows so many customers to attempt to share so little bandwidth. After kids get out of school each day and on weekends I get about .4 MBPS. Thats Point 4.. Th
Photo of rmduke

rmduke

  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 11 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 320 Posts
  • 205 Reply Likes
That is exactly the problem.  And every one of those customers is paying way too much just like you are for service they cant use either.  Which what ???????

Makes them a bunch of money, and looks good to investors making the stock prices go/stay up.
  
They lock new customers in for a 2 year "service contract" so once they figure out it doesnt work half the time, they cant leave, and if they do, Viasat still makes money from the early termination fees, which what ???????

Makes them a bunch of money, and looks good to investors making the stock prices go/stay up. 

Sadly its not just Viasat.  This seems to be the business model for the 21st century.  Customers mean NOTHING ..... its all about the $$$$$$$$$$.  From poor quality, over priced goods and services that dont last or perform as expected, to food and drugs that make you sick or flat out kill you.  ITS ALL ABOUT THE $HAREHOLDER$ ... THE CONSUMER DOESNT MATTER!

One thing Ive come to learn, and not simply with Viasat but ANY provider, of ANY service.  If there is a "service contract" ... there is a reason there is a service contract!!   HAPPY, SATISFIED CUSTOMERS DONT LEAVE!
(Edited)
Photo of Karen Weindel

Karen Weindel

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Viasat is  the worst internet provider that I have ever worked with. The internet speed is slow and sometimes it would stop without reason. I called customer service and they said that I had the cheapest modem. I cancelled my service and asked them to remove their equiptment and they said that it would cost $90.00.
Photo of ExSatUser

ExSatUser

  • 1593 Posts
  • 932 Reply Likes
Of course.  You can do it yourself you know.

And why it exactly did you get Viasat for in the first place, especially if you had other internet options available to you.
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
If Viasat were to limit the number of subscribers based on peak usage period usage, there'd probably be 1/4th the number of current subscribers. Viasat would probably need to raise prices by a factor of 4 or so to make up for the lost revenue. Decreasing ARPU is not a good business strategy when selling a limited resource. Viasat's current strategy is to maintain subscriber levels while increasing average revenue per user. As of the last reporting quarter, the subscriber count of 585000 was still well below the peak of 696000.   

Not many of us would be willing to pay four times the cost we incur now.

It's only business, Viasat's primary responsibility is to their shareholders and employees. We get to vote with our feet to affect a business strategy change unless we're also shareholders.
(Edited)
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 320 Posts
  • 204 Reply Likes
Although I agree with you, we need to further break down the demographics of those current and peak subscribers by beam.   I could care less that a beam in California can hold 100,000 more subscribers, if MY beam is 10,000 over capacity.

When Wildblue/Exede/Viasat started, their mission statement was to supply high speed internet to rural subscribers who lacked other viable alternatives.  It seems their focus has turned to the heavily populated, high volume areas already served by land based providers.

Its nice they want to expand and increase their market share, but not at the expense of us who were the basis of the industry and still desperately need them.
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
Agreed you do have to look at subscriber counts on a beam by beam basis.

Unfortunately on Viasat-1 at least, I don't think it's possible to shift capacity from an under-utilized beam to an over-utilized beam and you're stuck with capacity that's  available at launch in a beam's target footprint.

There was a suggestion that Viasat-2 had that capability to shift capacity between service areas. That may have been impacted by the antenna deployment issues. Haven't heard much about that since Viasat-2 was placed into service.

Yes it does appear Viasat-2 beams (the 100 Mbps high density ones at least) were directed at areas surrounding larger population densities - but even then, I suspect they felt there was a larger potential market of customers under-served by viable land-based providers than in a real rural environment. At the same time the antenna deployment issues may have shifted the planned footprints. 

 For example 100 square mile area in Virginia near DC is probably going to turn up more potential customers (not served by a viable land alternatives), than a rural 100 square mile area in rural Alabama. In my area, go 3-4 miles west of I-95 and it's still very populated but few internet alternatives exist off the beaten tracks.

It's population density of those that are under-served (not total population density) used for planning coverage I'm betting. 

Don't talk about mission statements. I had plenty of employers with noble mission statements and core values that were quick to abandon them once their pocketbooks were affected. Lot's of fellow employees too who bought into the "we're doing this for the good of others, world peace and mankind" - at least until they got laid off and their tune changed quite dramatically when faced with the real world.  Unless you're profitable, you can't achieve those lofty goals ;)

For now, I personally think Viasat is content to maintain market share not increase it and just increase average revenue per subscriber. Hold the line until Viasat-3 is launched and regroup. 

We'll see if that holds come February's earnings call.       
(Edited)
Photo of rmduke

rmduke

  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Reducing the "service provided" to no service is not a viable business strategy. Cable service offers more bandwidth by a factor of 10 for half the price. How is that a good business strategy. This business is cornering a market that is helpless. The Rural divide is being punished as other service providers cannot reach them and their only recourse is to pay, as in my case, for access that is never available or usable during peak hours. From 3pm to midnight on weekdays and all day on weekends and holidays my available download is an average of .4mb. (thats "point four") That is not enough to watch a one minute video on Youtube. Much less attempt to place an order on the internet or simply stream NETFLIX. So remind me again why I should pay in excess of $100 per month to use my internet only between midnight and noon. We all have been paying the "universal service charge" on our phone bills for more than 20 years. This money was designated, by law, to solve this very "digital divide" issue for rural access to the Internet. Where was this money spent? It must be 100's of Billions by now. Children in rural areas are severely disadvantaged by this limited access. It is commonly expected that they all have "access" to the Internet to keep up with growing online presence of schoolwork and social development. 
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
Nobody debates that and I'm not defending Viasat (although we might differ on whether internet access is a universal human right) - but no more capacity will be forthcoming until Viasat launches more satellites. Land-based providers have the advantage of hopping in the truck and adding capacity - instead I'd ask what land-based providers aren't extending their service to the last mile - perhaps because it isn't good business sense.  

FWIW, Viasat did just receive some funding from a CAF auction - how they are going to use it, I don't know - perhaps subsidized installs or service. That's not going to address their capacity shortage unless used to speed up the next launch or somehow expand it's capacity for the launches starting in 2020 - if it were used to subsidize installs or service, it'll only put more strain on the already taxed satellite capacity - we're from the government and we want to help.
(Edited)
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 320 Posts
  • 204 Reply Likes
My wifes parents live 4 miles from us.  Their place is "the end of the line" for DSL.  There are only 7 houses in that 4 miles between us.  The phone company petitions the state every year to not be "forced" to provide land based phone service out here, their complaint .... "the revenue generated doesnt justify the equipment upkeep."   The state denies it every year due to our serious lack of cell phone coverage.  Therefore it is more than safe to assume we will NEVER see an upgrade to DSL.

As for Viasat, I do not believe there is a "capacity" problem with VS2, but more of a coverage problem.  What remains to be seen, if it will ever be TRULY exposed, is whether it is an equipment failure, or an engineering failure, or both.  Its just extremely odd that those suffering the most on VS1 seem to benefit the least from VS2. 

It is also my strong suspicion, my uneducated OPINION, but I cant help but feel there are issues with their prioritizing/throttling system.  Among other things, I just cant get over the fact that it seemed like overnight I went from enjoying 2 - 5 Mbps while in restriction to LESS THAN 1.  5PM - less than 1, 11PM - less than 1, 5AM - less than 1, no matter what time it is, peak, off peak, a second before or after my free zone I am LESS THAN 1!  I just cant believe that is ALL congestion.  11;59PM I have 0.37 Mbps restricted, but enter my free zone and 12:01AM I jump to 16 Mbps?  

NOT RESTRICTED I have seen my speed jump 5 - 10 Mbps at midnight entering my free zone ... THAT IS NOT CONGESTION SLOWING ME DOWN ...... THAT IS VIASAT!
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
Depending on which plan you're on that sounds exactly how it's supposed to work when restricted! Not restricted is a different story and if so have you reported it and had it looked into?

With a free zone starting at midnight it sounds like you're on a classic plan - on those yes, go over your plan and your throttled by Viasat. At midnight, the free zone, your unthrottled until 05:00 AM.

And yes, until beams were loaded up you probably got better speeds when dapped - that was the case as I recall when Viasat-1 first launched, and then they went and signed up another customer. Now they can't cut into somebody else's speed that isn't under restriction. You're hard throttled, Liberty plan  is better in that regard with a higher throttled speed and deprioritization.

I had an Exede 10 Classic Plan - after careful comparison with Liberty 12, I switched to Liberty 12 at less than what I paid for the Exede 10 and it works much better for my needs even on the rare occasion I go over my 12 GB priority data. I got 2 more GB of priority data for 2 less hours of Free zone that were unusable anyway until 0300 or so for less $$$.

Again not to defend Viasat, but I've learned to embrace the suck and work around the limits - I have no other viable choice for now. When I do, it's hasta la vista baby, I won't be back, Viasat will be forgotten, won't let Viasat's door hit me in the ass on the way out and Viasat certainly won't be living rent free in my head despite moving on like some of those who come in here after leaving only to whine.

Viasat owes me no loyalty for being a customer, nor I them - they owe me what I pay them for and in my case I get what I'm paying for but understand that's not the case for everyone. For me it's neen easier to work around the limits and game the system so to speak on a Liberty Plan than a Classic Plan - but only because I have the flexibility to shift my use to non-peak hours and not be tied to prime time live.

I'm not trying to get anyone to stay or attract new customers. In fact, the fewer the merrier for me - maybe I should just resort to the random Viasat sucks drive by posts going forward. If you're on Beam 329 get off my lawn and you potential new kids stay off and don't even think about it ;)   
(Edited)
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 320 Posts
  • 204 Reply Likes
As I said I simply "know what I see" and I am on the Exede 12/10 plan because I am a night owl and the 12 to 5 free zone is priceless to me ... a LOT more valuable than limited unlimited for $100 MORE a month!

I never saw speeds below 1 until the launch of "limited unlimited"
If "congestion" is the issue, how can I see an UNRESTRICTED speed of 7 Mbps BEFORE my free zone then, BOOM jump to over my "up to" speed a minute later unless I am being "throttled" a.k.a RESTRICTED during the UNRESTRICTED usage I PAID FOR!  I am reasonably certain half the subscribers on my beam do not shut their internet down at midnight so I can enjoy my free zone, thats just ludicrous.

For now I feel trapped, with no viable alternatives I am stuck with Viasat until something better comes along.  My problem is I am not under contract, I am not a new customer that feels lied to.  I KNOW  it could be better, I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS BETTER!  The price went up and the service went down ... WAY DOWN!
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
If "congestion" is the issue, how can I see an UNRESTRICTED speed of 7
Mbps BEFORE my free zone then, BOOM jump to over my "up to" speed a
minute later unless I am being "throttled" a.k.a RESTRICTED during the
UNRESTRICTED usage I PAID FOR!  I am reasonably certain half the subscribers on my beam do not shut their internet down at midnight so I can enjoy my free zone, thats just ludicrous.
As I implied above , that's something you should get checked and explained if not above your data limit (i.e. if not restricted) - that's not how it's supposed to work; however, it would certainly be consistent with Viasat's published Network Management Policy - they can basically do what ever they want within reason to manage available bandwidth. Seek an explanation but you won't get one here - but good luck getting one from an authoritative source .

Were you one of those that received an email explanation that advertised "speeds" are an average (or was it median) when taken over a 24 hour period?

I remember when it was better too - in some cases it was because it made no sense then to enforce the policies lacking any congestion at the time - and then they went ahead and added customers while introducing plans that only encouraged more pressure on a limited resource.

When unlimited plans were introduced on Viasat-1, the first question I asked was:

"For years, we've been told there was insufficient capacity on Viasat-1 to support unlimited plans or even bigger plans. Where did all of this extra capacity suddenly come from in the fall of 2017?"

I never got an answer.

Like me, don't expect an explanation for your midnight  behavior when not restricted.

P.S. Looking at some of the legal documents there does seem to be a recent shift on some toward use of the terminology "You will receive the median up to speed on your service plan" - medians  Either one can be skewed. Even the FCC's measuring broadband reports have shifted to the use of medians.
(Edited)
Photo of rmduke

rmduke

  • 3 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I completed a post-grad thesis on the subject of digital divide and last mile issues in 2005. I can tell you that all land-based providers aren't extending their service the last mile. DSL providers are unable to extend their service because of the technical limited distance of that capability. Cable providers are not extending because physical cable does not extend to those communities either. The limited customer base versus the densely populated areas present a business model concentrating in the densely populated areas with no concern with "extending" infrastructure to the less populated areas. The cost (should be subsidized by federal collection of the USF) for laying the infrastructure to support a competition of providers. As far as a "universal right" of Internet access goes. We are spending millions of tax dollars bringing cellular and internet service to sparsely populated areas of third world countries; that is shocking to me when we have children that are severely disadvantaged in the education arena and in the job markets because of limited access. I don't care whether they can surf porn or join Facebook or play video games but the growth disadvantage is real. It is especially real in rural, economically depressed, areas populated primarily by minority children. I believe there is a solution available and that the company who finds it and implements its strategy will become the next tech giant on the market. Also, thank you for your frank and informative responses.
Photo of Deku (The #1 Hero Data Saver)

Deku (The #1 Hero Data Saver), Champion

  • 931 Posts
  • 505 Reply Likes
@rmduke

for some reason... why does it feel like you are TWEEZERS BUT!!! in disguise :l but yet... you could always be someone else who has just recently joined.

Deku's mind: Now don't be saying that kind of stuff to people who are just like this TWEEZERS person you've named by accident. I do want to know why you nicknamed him TWEEZERS.

Deku: yeah I know that. I shouldn't just jump to conclusions at all.

imma done role-play by the way XD sorry about that :p

sorry if I jumped to conclusions and stuff ;-;
Photo of VeteranSatUser

VeteranSatUser, Champion

  • 5133 Posts
  • 3177 Reply Likes
You could be the anti-Duku too! Deku's evil twin !
Photo of Deku (The #1 Hero Data Saver)

Deku (The #1 Hero Data Saver), Champion

  • 931 Posts
  • 505 Reply Likes
@veteransatuser

whats this anti-Duku mean??? i dont get you quite clearly :l what does Duku mean???
Photo of mferner

mferner

  • 317 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Viasat needs to come out with a feature so we can turn off priority data during the day and late at night when speed is good or give us free data late at night or increase priority data caps because in the evening its rough after going over Priority data! Turning off priority data would be cool than I would always be able to watch videos at night because I prolly wouldnt go over priority data! example when I got home today at 4:00pm my speed was 40 mbps and now its 1.89 mbps at 9:30 pm and Im over my priority data
Photo of GabeU

GabeU, Champion

  • 2245 Posts
  • 1367 Reply Likes
They could mitigate the issues caused by congestion by limiting the number of subscribers, but in order to remain a viable, profit making company they would have to charge double or triple what they do in order to make up for the lost revenue they would otherwise have.  Very few people are going to pay $300 or more per month for internet, so they can't go that way.  

It's an unfortunate situation, but there's not really any way around it.  Or at least not right now.  

Cutting the overall speed of the service may help, but then you have people who won't bother with it because they don't believe it's fast enough, especially when cable and fiber offer ten or twenty times the speed (of the aforementioned lower speed).  Unfortunately, the majority of internet users aren't tech oriented, so they don't know that, in order to do most internet related things, you don't need 25Mbps.  Plus, again, it's the price. No one wants to pay $100 per month for a service that only offers 5Mbps.  

Again, it's an unfortunate situation, but it is what it is until they hit some type of technological advance in which throughput can be increased greatly on satellites, compared to what it is now, without it increasing the cost very much.  Upgrading ground based stations isn't difficult.  It's the satellite that is the choke point.  
Photo of GabeU

GabeU, Champion

  • 2245 Posts
  • 1367 Reply Likes
You and me, both.  Unfortunately, too few people would.  I mean, don't get me wrong, it would work fine for a good number of them, but many don't realize it.  

There isn't a thing that I do now that I couldn't do with 5Mbps.  Nothing.  Large file downloads would take longer, and that would be a drawback, of course, but that's it.  And it's not enough of a drawback to not make it worth it.  
(Edited)
Photo of Ron Frank

Ron Frank

  • 320 Posts
  • 205 Reply Likes
As I have said in the past, I stayed on the 10G plan because 5 years ago I couldnt tell when I went into restriction.  "Up to" 12 Mbps I usually saw 4 to 8 and in restriction dropped to 2 to 5.  I SAW NO DIFFERENCE!  I could watch Youtube, surf the web, ANYTHING.

Now is a different story.   When restricted ... FORGET IT!  NEVER above 1!!

My "restricted" internet speed went from WHO CARES to USELESS!
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
To guarantee no less than even 1 Mbps at any time would likely require limiting subscriber counts to a rough order of magnitude that is 1/4 of what they are now. Guaranteeing no less than 2 Mbps at anytime half that to 1/8. That's just a rough estimate based Viasat's total capacity and published subscriber counts and doesn't even factor in commercial and government use that undoubtedly have dedicate bandwidth.

Prices would go up to make up for the lost revenue.

What you're asking for is dedicated bandwidth not shared bandwidth and it would be a no less and no more situation - for an idea of monthly cost search for the cost of a dedicated T1 line at 1.5 Mbps ;)

But just for grins...

https://electronics.costhelper.com/t1.html

Shared bandwidth is more cost effective for consumers but comes with some disadvantages of its own such as the need for the "up to" qualifier and confusing network management policies.

The best we can do on satellite is ensure we're using our meager amount of shared bandwidth efficiently and eliminate some of the waste and annoyance that's imposed on us by others like CNN - right Gabe?

There are come tricks that can be used to place less pressure on your data and available bandwidth. For example, with a few clicks I can get the Daily Mail web site's home page to transfer only 982KB to be vs. 8MB - less data and more responsive.

It's even worse starting a 10MB without an ad blocker and continues to use data in the background using javascript as long as you stay on the page - the page fuly loads in 45 seconds or so with no hacks - with the hacks the page loads in just over a couple seconds. My connection is certainly no faster but it sure appears that way - appearances can be deceiving. 

If you must know... Viasat Browser, the browser's Video Data Saver enabled at all times, uBlock Origin enabled on that site, javascript disabled for that site with uBlock origin and User Agent Switcher extension to spoof Android Kitkat. It's all setup one time for the site and I don't have to worry about them using my data inefficiently until they figure out a new way to waste my data. With that my restricted speed goes from useless to usable.

Where there's  a will, there's a way - but ther's gotta be a will and there's no easy button. It's what you make of it. You have to hunt down who's wasting your data and force them to stop. If I can;t tame an unruly site, I just stop using it or block the site in its entirety.

Then of course you've got folks like the following who burn upwards of 1.5 GB per day on speed tests:

https://testmy.net/quickstats/mawhelchel99

I hope it's an unlimited plan - but whatever floats your boat - it's your data use it like you want to but I can think of more productive ways to use that 1.5 GB per day ;)
(Edited)
Photo of GabeU

GabeU, Champion

  • 2245 Posts
  • 1367 Reply Likes
Might that be an account for someone that works for ViaSat and is testing for them?  I know Hughes has a couple of accounts like that, where you see tests being performed for them.  
Photo of Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

Old Labs (VS1-329-L12FZ)

  • 4281 Posts
  • 4367 Reply Likes
In that case I don't believe so with some minimal sleuthing but with the speeds it gets I'm sure it's Viasat-2 unlimited - I'll have what beam he/she is on ;)
(Edited)
Photo of David S.

David S.

  • 33 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
It's my understanding that big telcos made a deal with the government to expand its services then just pocketed the money and abandoned the rural community.