1 edit |
DirecTV offering ViaSat and HughesNet BroadbandIf there are reasonably priced larger data cap plans available, this could be a good deal for those in rural areas that have only dial-up. I was against using Federal Stimulus funds to subsidize satellite internet service based on the lousy performance that existed before Exede. I now can see a decent case to be made for it. The competition will be from expanded LTE coverage and fixed location "White-space Broadband". In some rural areas the low number of Over The Air (OTA) television broadcasters may lead to an impressive number of fixed location White-space ISPs. |
|
|
me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2012-May-17 1:21 pm
What exactly is this exede? Does it get ping time lower finally? |
|
|
Exede is based on a new satellite that was put into orbit. The new satellite, ViaSat-1, is described as having more data transmission capability than all other existing commercial internet access satellites combined. It has allowed for the possibility of a 10x increase in data transmission rates for satellite internet customers and the addition of customers who could not get service due to the overloaded spot beams of existing satellites used by Wild Blue.
No, ping times will not go down. A data packet dealing with a 46,000 mile round trip is going to have some cost in terms of time. As top executives at ViaSat have said, gamers are not who the system was built for. Ping sensitive applications will not like this Exede service anymore than they liked the old WildBlue service.
|
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
said by davidhoffman:No, ping times will not go down. A data packet dealing with a 46,000 mile round trip is going to have some cost in terms of time. Yep, can't beat the laws of physics. Just ask LightSquared. ..unless someone develops subspace communications.. |
|
me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
|
to davidhoffman
Was any of the broadband stimulus money spent on this? I certainly hope not, if its not being spent to decrease latency so sat internet then there is no reason to spend federal money on the crap tier of internet. This is just me personal feelings on it, but the money should be spent on wireless or dsl or stuff solutions that don't give the people what amounts to castrated internet, that wont help our problem. I know how bad it truly is, 2000ms ping time, can't use it for anything for than browsing or file transfers. Gaming and VoIP/skype, and any time sensitive stuff(which a lot of business use) is out of the question with it still.
Yeah I know I sound like I'm going really hard on the sat internet, but I had it for two year, two horrid horrid years. |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to davidhoffman
said by davidhoffman:If there are reasonably priced larger data cap plans available, this could be a good deal for those in rural areas that have only dial-up. It's not going to be a good deal. I'd stick with dial-up over satellite. 200-500 MB day cap? That's a joke. Verizon 4G home internet is a joke too but the caps are better than satellite though the overages suck. |
|
|
Anyone confused yet?So DirecTV, whose former parent company used to own HughesNet, which was previously known as DirecWay, and DirecPC before that, stopped promoting HughestNet, when their competitor in the TV world, Dish Network, purchased them and switched their alliance to Wild Blue. Now after saying they were going to sever ties with them, DirecTV will be bundling both Wild Blue, now known as Exede and their former sister company HughesNet, which again is owned by their sole satellite TV competitor
I havent looked at satellite internet pricing in a while, so I just went to Wild Bl
err
.Exedes website. With the top plan, for only $130/month, plus the $10/month modem rental fee you can get a whopping 25GB worth of data a month. How many hours of HD content from DirecTVs On Demand service can you download before you eat that up without doing anything else. With HughesNet, for only $110/month you get that generous 450MB/day data allowance.
I really dont see how either option in their present form could be good for any of the things listed. And I really dont see a DirecTV/Exede or DirecTV/HughesNet combo, being all that much better. |
|
|
Peachtreeman to SimbaSeven
Anon
2012-May-18 2:16 pm
to SimbaSeven
Re: DirecTV offering ViaSat and HughesNet BroadbandQuantum Entanglement is the only faster source of communication known to man. Distance isn't a factor nor is interference. Problem is that we've only successfully transmitting a Quantum Entangled particle about 600KM and it takes quite a bit of "not friendly to space" tech.
Maybe in 20-25 years it'll microwave tech. |
|
|
to me1212
Again, the service is not for latency sensitive applications, and the top executives at ViaSat have stated that emphatically. You cannot change the laws of physics. If someone wants to create a super version of the Iridium 66 low orbit satellite network, you might get lower ping times. Good luck finding the trillions of dollars that would cost. Not even Google could finance that.
The ability to get news, market data, educational information, health information, medical information, and similar content that is not latency sensitive, is still very important to businesses and residents in dial-up only areas. Gaming, Skype, and video conferencing are nice to have features that have less priority than more basic World Wide Web functions for dial-up users.
Most of the Federal Stimulus money for broadband went to fiber optic backbone and middle mile projects. But in order to quickly solve some connectivity issues in very remote rural areas they decided that microwave and satellite offerings had to be part of the mix of solutions. DSL would not work in some areas because the distance to the central office was too great. In order to reduce the distance sufficiently, you would have to run a very long fiber connection to a remote DSLAM. The cost of that, in some cases, was too large on a per potential subscriber basis, and it would take too long to install. Cellular connections providing the same capability as satellite would have required very large antennas and bidirectional amplifiers. Steerable 60ft diameter dish antennas are not inexpensive to build or operate.
Satellite based broadband is not for every potential internet user. It does help some people who live or work in remote areas, similar to the original Big Ugly Dish C-band satellite television subscribers, who could not get regular Over The Air broadcast television because they were too far from the transmitting antenna. |
|
davidhoffman |
to 88615298
I know families in Forsyth County Georgia who are not low income by any means. They have not been able to get a cable or DSL installation for broadband. The POTS wiring is so old, dial-up is barely functional. They are so far from the cellular towers, and in such tall dense forest, that no mobile phones work, even if you are sitting on the roof 40 feet in the air. In order to use cellular broadband they would need to spend hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars on the best parabolic antennas, antenna mounts, lowest attenuation cables, bidirectional amplifiers, electrical power support, and installation costs. In those cases, Exede might be a better value. |
|