HX testimonial

Heres what one of our customers thought of the Bentley Walker HX service =))

I have to say that once the problems with the modem at my house were resolved the performance is amazing, it is the most efficient link I have ever seen over any kind of satellite.

Want to explain WHY your prices are 3 times more expensive than American HughesNet customers? Also throw in WHY you don't offer your customers the same speeds as the US?
McD

Thanks for posting the throttling info, Eric.

40 Mb download limit sounds OK for me if I would be one PC and use Internet occasionally - something like home or office environment. (I guess that's the main HX niche.)

As always - you get what you pay for and I completely agree.

Eric
Sorry wasn’t trying to create any aggravation with my post, but the original post is by Bentley Walker, “praising” their own system, and I was only asking them to respond (if they wish to), to their pricing, and service plans!  I am an individual user (of HughesNet), and the subject of pricing (between Europe and the US, discussed by Greg, USN Retired Forum Moderator and myself) came up recently in a previous thread here:
https://www.satsig.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=direcway;action=display;num=11...

There is clearly a huge price difference between the USA and Europe, and Bentley Walker is one of the main distributors of HughesNet in Europe, and if they come onto an open forum praising their product, can they not elaborate further by answering some pertinent questions? I am just inviting them to comment.
McD

Perhaps I can pour a little oil on troubled waters here. I too have wondered why the non-US providers do not publish their pricing plans on their websites. I suspect that part of the reason may be international currency rates, coupled with inconsistent tax and tarrif loads among nations. Hughes advertises it's basic price structures in North America, the resellers follow suit. Hughes does NOT publish the same outside of America, where resellers also follow suit.

Regarding the higher non-US costs to the consumer; note that Hughes currently leases 65 transponders on 11 satellites in providing service to North America. The operative word is TRANSPONDER. Non-US providers may not typically have a customer base large enough to lease RF bandwidth on that scale. Consider it bulk rate pricing; meaning cheaper per MHz of  RF bandwidth to lease an entire 24 or 36 MHz transponder than it is to lease any segment of that same 24 or 36 MHz. Hughes can generate enough North American customers to populate an entire transponder in a matter of months. I doubt the same can be said of their overseas resellers. Surprising as it may sound, the lower per MHz lease costs may then be passed on as lower rates to the North America customer.

That said, I feel that Hughes itself should lend a helping hand to the overseas resellers. I don't see any technical reason that Hughes couldn't lease a series of transponders providing overlapping EuroAfroAsian coverage. Hughes could then turn right around and sub-lease to resellers in MHz blocks. The savings realized from subdividing a full transponder lease could then be passed on to the customer base. That would TRULY give the Hughes resellers a competitive edge.

Just a SWAG mind you, but at least that's how I see it working.

//greg//

Quote:
Similar approaching identical Pat. Tech specs on the HN7700S and HX50 look pretty much in lockstep. Even the software versions aren't that far apart.  My HN7000S was shipped earlier this year with v5.3.0.15 (currently updated to v5.6.0.24), and the HX50 is now said to be shipping with v5.3.0.28 (updated upon commissioning I assume).  From what I can see, the major difference is that the HX system includes a dedicated ODU. I believe the reason for that is optimization for use via selected satellites covering selected locations in the mid-east. See
https://www.hns.com/HUGHES/Doc/0/JSREC7E106HKB4SFKPIH7VP063/HX50_H35656_A4_LR_09...

https://www.eeenterprisesinc.com/pdf/HN7700S.pdf

https://www.hnseu.com/files/press/BentleyWalker.2%20HX.Final.UK.pdf

//greg//

I'm not looking for arguments here, but I personally wouldn't categorize that difference as major. The DW7x00 series is not forward compatible to DVB-S2. But the HN7x00S series and the HX50 series are backward compatible to DVB-S. So the advantage is temporary, until such time as the HNS/EU gateways gear up to DVB-S2.

And this "50% improved efficiency" is essentially in the form of increased bandwidth availble to the provider. From the customer perspective, the only tangible benefit is the adaptive outroute.

//greg//

I've been too busy to put the kind of research into the new Hughes platform that it deserves.  When I look at the tech specs, and brochures I do see some differences. The real key is in the capabilities of the Hub, not the remote modems. 

As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong), but the DVB/S2-ACM (i.e. HX) hub is a completely different platform with a different OS than the basic DW/HN platform.  Is that correct? 

I read all the information that BW provided on the new platform, and indeed it appears that Hughes has leveraged a number of features that iDirect pioneered and added them to their new hub.  To the best of my knowledge these features (such as CIR, QoS and jitter control mechanisms) still aren't part of the basic DW/HN platform.  There was a pretty good mix of new features and the new hub did appear to be designed to compete in the enterprise market against iDirect rather than in the residential/SOHO market where DW/HN reigns as champion. 

iDirect's inroute or upload technology still beats out everyone else, the new Group QoS feature is unique and amazing, and the Hughes advantage in DVB-S2/ACM will go away when iDirect ships their new OS.  Further iDirect will leverage the existing iDirect Hubs, while I'm pretty sure (though not positive) that Hughes has a completely different hub for their new platform (along with a hefty price tag). 

So, I think the original discussion centered around why the costs were higher for the "HX" platform, and to the best of my knowledge, there is a legitimate reason for the price disparity. 

I can't help making a plug for iDirect.   If you check out the iDirect forum, you'll see the new post by TDMAMike that indicates iDirect's market leadership is growing at a most impressive rate:  https://www.satsig.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=idirect;action=display;num=119...

I don't see anything in the new "HX" platform that will slow that rate of growth down, particularly once iDirect releases DVB-S2/ACM.

Fun discussion.  Happy holidays, everybody!

Pat

Hi all, looking at the previous blogs posted around the new HX technology I would like to post some points addressing issues raised. I would like to quantify from a hub operators and customers perspective.
Some of the hub operators advantages:
The new HX does offer a different OS to the HN (S1) system, there are many features but the core difference is the QoS features both on the outbound and the return channels. There are 3 flavours, best effort, CIR and CBR. This enables hub operators to provide a spread of offerings that will be compatible with shared broadband access, VoIP and video conferencing. On the CBR there is a particularly nice feature that allows allocation of CBR in predefined steps with percentage triggers.
The iDirect group QoS is a very nice feature however HNS has been offering IP QoS on the return channel for many years now and the forward channel QoS can be provided by third party bandwidth allocation devices installed in our network. Further point on the group QoS on any system, 1Mbps of bandwidth is still 1Mbps of bandwidth. The group QoS of any system should be used with care as it can allow high contention mini networks within hub operators networks with no documented grade of service and could damage the reputation of the top level hub operator.
Regarding the comments on a 50% increase in bandwidth, take for example a system 5/6 QPSK with 5Msym of bandwidth available, this provides approximately 8.3Mbps of usable bandwidth to the operator. At present our HX system is running at 8/9 8PSK allowing Bentley Walker to feed to the network 13.3Mbps of bandwidth. Whilst it is true that hub operators could pocket the additional bandwidth by adding more sites on the network, Bentley Walker believe in passing this bandwidth back to the customer in forms of higher quotas and consistent high performance.
Regarding operational and support we find that the HX requires less hub operator input as the option file required in iDirect terminals has caused issues with customers during hub and bandwidth upgrades. In line with most DVB platforms, the HX system allows bandwidth upgrades to be carried out in advance and transparently to the customer thus causing no service interruption.
Further on support, the HX system has a vast range of SNMP reporting features, allowing top level support staff to quickly identify any issues on hub components or remote modems.
Customers advantages:
The HX modem is incredibly easy to install with an auto sensing DHCP port, GUI based configuration, auto software download and Bentley Walkers unique pin based commissioning. This means that customers can install any time any place without need for network operators support.
The modems web based reporting is truly comprehensive and on our version of software 5.6.1.7 a 24 hour self diagnostics report is available to the customer. This gives the customer a full health check on all aspects such as uplink, downlink, LAN, DNS caching, Turbo page performance and many other features on the RF and IP side.
I hope the above highlights in a concise way some of the advantages available to hub operators and end users of the HX system.

"iDirect's market leadership"

In what respect?

Several comments on the posts above:

AW:  The new HX does offer a different OS to the HN (S1) system, there are many features but the core difference is the QoS features both on the outbound and the return channels.

PAT:  Thus, there is a basic difference in the two systems and some rationality for higher costs.

AW: There are 3 flavours, best effort, CIR and CBR. This enables hub operators to provide a spread of offerings that will be compatible with shared broadband access, VoIP and video conferencing.

PAT:  Exactly.  It is a new OS.  The HNS web site specifically pointed out no support for VoIP on the basic DW/HN service.  The new “HX” service specifically supports VoIP.  So there is a difference.   iDirect of course has provided CIR since the beginning.  Through jitter-control mechanisms, iDirect has provided constant bit rate (CBR) for a long time – I’m not sure how the HX CBR differs, if at all. I’m also curious whether the “HX” service can offer a combination of these capabilities.  iDirect can deliver services with or without CIR, for example on the same carriers.

AW:  HNS has been offering IP QoS on the return channel for many years now and the forward channel QoS can be provided by third party bandwidth allocation devices installed in our network.

PAT:  If HNS has been offering QoS on the return channel for many years, why does their web site specifically point out lack of support for VoIP?  I’ve never seen any discussion in this or any other forum regarding the ability to set QoS on the return link.  How does a customer request this?  How is it configured?  What exactly do you mean by “QoS”?  QoS stands for “Quality of Service” and generally and usually refers to the ability to prioritize or de-prioritize specific traffic based on user requirements.  Unlike HNS, iDirect integrated QoS into the hub in BOTH directions long ago, and was the first to do so.  It can be argued that network management is more complicated when external devices are used to provide bandwidth management instead of integrated into the hub.  Further, although there are now a couple systems (iDirect, Linkstar, HX, perhaps others) that support some form of QoS, not all network operators will permit customers to request that certain traffic types be controlled by the system.  Others simply don’t have the expertise to do this properly. Keep in mind that the availability of a feature doesn’t mean it is always used, or used properly.

AW:  Further point on the group QoS on any system, 1Mbps of bandwidth is still 1Mbps of bandwidth. The group QoS of any system should be used with care as it can allow high contention mini networks within hub operators networks with no documented grade of service and could damage the reputation of the top level hub operator.

PAT:  Nonsense.  This is FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) raised because HNS does not support this extremely useful and unique feature.  GQoS allows operators to deliver multiple private networks within their commercial or private services without the cost of a VNO (another unique capability pioneered by iDirect).  The amount of bandwidth available to a customer can be mathematically determined on both the upload and download.  The customer pays for the bandwidth they want, based on the contention ratios they desire.  The feature is a bit complex because it has so many capabilities, so the user will be smart to select an experienced and knowledgeable network operator, but the feature itself is a fantastic addition to the capabilities of the iDirect system.  I love it when companies try to downplay features they don’t have, while at the same time they are feverishly working to play “catch-up” back in the Engineering Dept. Name me a “new and unique” feature from HNS. 

AW:  Whilst it is true that hub operators could pocket the additional bandwidth by adding more sites on the network, Bentley Walker believe in passing this bandwidth back to the customer in forms of higher quotas and consistent high performance.

PAT:  Chuckle!  iDirect used to put out this same marketing hype when they owned the most efficient outbound and inbound.  They still have the most efficient inroute.  True, DVB-S2/ACM is more efficient, and HNS currently has an advantage in delivering this before iDirect.  However, the question is – how long will the “additional bandwidth” be delivered to the end customer instead of supporting more remote sites?  Like most things in life, you tend to get what you pay for.  If you’re delivering more bandwidth, you’re going to charge for it – particularly when your competition has the same capabilities.

AW:  Regarding operational and support we find that the HX requires less hub operator input as the option file required in iDirect terminals has caused issues with customers during hub and bandwidth upgrades.

PAT: The options file issue presented itself on older OS versions, when the customer did not leave their modem powered on during scheduled upgrades, in which case the options file needed to be loaded manually.  Now, remotes can be powered down during an upgrade and they will receive the new files when they power up.  You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

...continued...

Greg:  Thanks Mr Walker. Although some of the industry language occasionally borders on nebulous, it seems you've reasonably reinforced the observations I made above.

PAT:  Funny, I interpreted his remarks differently.  I believe the question at hand had to do with why services cost more overseas than in the US.  From the discussion above, it seems to me that in fact the “HX” system is fundamentally superior and justifies the higher costs.  I’m still trying to understand if moving the original DW/HNS system to DVB-S2/ACM on the outbound is going to in any way improve the features and capabilities of the legacy hardware on the old systems?  I’m not seeing that. Perhaps the newer versions of the 7000 on new inroutes will be able to leverage new features.  There’s no way an old 4000 series is going to run these new features.  Right?


ScooterZ56:  "iDirect's market leadership" In what respect? 

PAT:  Leader in pioneering new features that others are just now adding to their product lines.  Continuing leadership in new features and capabilities such as GroupQoS, Transec/FIPS security, Spread Spectrum and mobility solutions, flexible hub solutions, BGP routing, higher upstream data rates, etc.  Leadership in terms of number of hubs sold.  Leadership in terms of highest percentage gains in new terminal sales to the enterprise market.   

How do YOU define “market leadership?”


Eric:  .  I guess if you install 3 racks of 5-IF hubs and get 15 individuals, each operating as VNO then you can claim to have 15 new VSAT hubs in action.

PAT:  Come on Eric!  The press release refers to physical hubs, not “virtual” hubs. 

Eric:  You need to see things in perspective.  My impression is that iDirect hubs have relatively few customers each, whereas HX, Direcway, Hughesnet, LinkStar, Surfbeam or Gilat hubs may have many thousands of customer sites.

PAT:  Absolutely you have to see things in perspective!  Let’s start with the press release that goes on to say:  “In addition, the report shows that iDirect recorded the fastest growth in enterprise terminals shipped in 2006, increasing by almost 50 percent over 2005 figures and totaling nearly 10 percent of overall market share.”

That’s 2006 figures and 2007 has been another banner year for iDirect.  I wish that the press release discussed revenue instead of product numbers.  Because they offer more features, iDirect’s terminals tend to be priced a bit higher than the competition.  Of far more importance to network operators however, is the amount of service revenue generated.  What’s the typical service cost for a DW/HN service?  $100/mo.?”  How about Linkstar?  Maybe $250/mo.?  My average iDirect-enabled service cost is well over $1000/mo. 

While there may be fewer end customers on iDirect hubs, they are by and large enterprise customers, and therefore larger customers with bigger bandwidth requirements and more diverse IP and business requirements.  The good news is that customers have the option of residential/SOHO class services or enterprise class services.  Those of us who work with iDirect-enabled services prefer higher revenue, higher margin customers.  The really good thing about iDirect is that they essentially created the enterprise market for satellite services, and as we can now see by all the advancements folks like HNS are adding, the importance of this market is being recognized and competition is likely to increase to the mutual benefit of the industry and our customers.

Eric:  One of the biggest 'investments' in setting up a hub, of any kind, is learning how to operate it well.  This 'skill requirement overhead' is clearly best used at a hub with very many customer sites, so that the cost of the several expert staff needed to run it can be spread over many customers.

PAT:  I don't agree.  First of all the size and quality of the expert staff is not driven by the number of customers, but by the amount of revenue generated.  When you have large numbers of unsophisticated customers you end up with tiers of support in which the first tier can barely spell “network” and in which the customer must endure pain and frustration as the “so-called engineer” goes through his script, before he is permitted to speak with someone qualified to help with the problem.  Further, in the enterprise market you are dealing with a much wider span of IP and business requirements compared with a residential class service in which the goal is primarily to deliver browsing services; so engineers tend to get educated much more quickly in a wide range of technical and business issues.  Despite a much smaller client base, I’ll put the support engineers I work with against residential class service engineers, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.  In the enterprise business, to be successful you have to be good in both satellite and IP.  Many network operators unfortunately are lucky to be good in just one of these areas.

Whew.  My fingers are tired.  Happy Holidays.

Pat

Business Satellite Solutions, LLC
www.bsatellite.com

The original point was the testimonial.

I have to agree with Pat that simply posting testimonials here is not really a nice idea. If we'd all start to post that what this forum would turn into? I understand Mr. Walker's original intention to get the sales going ASAP because they probably have costs invested into launching the new HX service. But it is the same with many other operators, isn't it?

During the technical discussions, Mr. Walker has at least clarified where he got those "50% more bandwidth statements". I would appreciate if further advertisements of HX would hold something like "if compared to an older DirecWay system that runs QPSK" so readers could understand. Just running around and yelling it's twice faster (than what?) is at least strange. Kudos to Hughes for implementing DVB-S2 first, but personally I would feel myself safer with a much more efficient iDirect's D-TDMA uplink. Besides, the DVB-S2 implementation is around the corner and the temporary HX advantage clock is already on the downcount.

To summarize, I would also like to point that we are comparing apples and oranges here:

The HX the way BW sells it is designed for small groups of users - homes, small cafes or local networks. It would be enormously expensive to put, say, something like a 100+ PCs network on this service. Those who say it's lightning fast now, wait a little till capacity gets saturated. Now add VoIP or videoconferencing and cost gets exponentially higher due to inefficient uplink - you need to give away more and more precious timeslots to fight with the jitter. iDirect platform has been specifically designed to support streaming traffic that is a must-have in today's world. The round robin on the uplink works perfectly - you have the ability to fill your carrier capacity efficiently to offer a fair price. iDirect's extensive feature set and unique combination of powerful, truly working, not a paper theory, QoS and efficient proprietary uplink technology allows Infiniti to fit almost any connectivity task. With BusinessCom, iDirect's jurisdiction ends approximately at the point when we service large ISPs. I wouldn't sleep well if I'd try to connect even a 100-200 PCs network to HX.