SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | Simply Pathetic
That consumers even have to go with a sat provider is bad enough, but adding insult to injury that they can't access broadband in any other matter and are then subject to ridiculously low caps. This is just another glaring reminder that the U.S. is a first world country with third world broadband choices. The only positive I see in this matter is at least HughesNet isn't pretending there aren't any caps in place like certain other providers have and then pleading stupidity when they get caught by their own subscriber base (cough Comcrap cough.) |
|
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | why don't offer an unlimited services |
|
Clint3200
join:2007-06-20
Ada, OK
| reply to SilverSurfer
I pay $60 and have to tip-toe around any type of true broadband for fear of the dreaded FAP.
They know they are the ONLY choice for much of rural America and therefore they can stick it to us.
If DSL or anything else ever becomes available I will switch instantly. |
|
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs: | reply to SilverSurfer
I agree holy crap that is HORRIBLE!!!!
I'd feel so bad for someone who eats up all there MB's on a freah install of Microsoft Windows XP! could easily eat all that up on updates poor people. |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| And I thought I had it bad
Holy cow... And I thought I had it bad when our limit here at University of Illinois was 750mb (this semester it was raise to a very generous 2000).
200? Yikes...
I mean even just normal browsing you could chew that up pretty easily.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to jchambers28
Re: Simply Pathetic
said by jchambers28  :why don't offer an unlimited services Maybe because satellite broadband has capacity limitations. It isn't a just a question of money. It is how much bandwidth you can put on a satellite. |
|
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | reply to Clint3200
i looked at your review does sprint offer wireless in your town |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to SilverSurfer
Do you have any idea how much it costs, and how much time is required, to design, engineer, manufacture, test, tweak design, re-manufacture, retest, build multiple systems, launch, and manage a satellite? Then throw in multiple ground-stations and O&M for future years.
I know your post was more directed at slamming the US because you feel that we are so bad off, so I guess this was more of a rhetorical question. Anyway, if you think that our "first world country" has such "third world broadband choices", then I invite you to look around at other countries, weigh your benefits and costs of living, and then let us know which country is so much better. Serious question as I've been a lot of places and I'd like to read your frame of reference. |
|
booticon
join:2007-07-31
East Lyme, CT | Heh.
Fap. |
|
rosco
Premium
join:2003-11-10
USA | fap fap fap indeed |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to SilverSurfer
Re: Simply Pathetic
said by SilverSurfer :That consumers even have to go with a sat provider is bad enough, but adding insult to injury that they can't access broadband in any other matter and are then subject to ridiculously low caps. This is just another glaring reminder that the U.S. is a first world country with third world broadband choices. The only positive I see in this matter is at least HughesNet isn't pretending there aren't any caps in place like certain other providers have and then pleading stupidity when they get caught by their own subscriber base (cough Comcrap cough.) Wrong, Wrong Wrong.
The U.S. has AMAZING broadband selections. Not many countries have symmetrical fiber to the home 20/20 for $60/month.
The problem is that America is GIGANTIC and for some people satellite broadband is the ONLY option for ANY kind of internet.
Chances are if you are in the middle of no where, you probably lead a much more simpler life that doesn't rely on broadband like us city slickers and suburbanites need.
I do however agree that for the prices they charge these caps are crazy.... But you also have to remember that bandwidth is SEVERELY limited when it comes to satellites. You can't just add another fiber trunk like a normal ISP can do. The "cap" after a certain amount of usage should be somewhere in the range of 128kbps or so, and bandwidth permitting on the satellite, they should allow 1GB or so of usage. 200 megabytes is way too low for most people nowadays.
-Tzale |
|
Belinrahs
This ship is taking me far away
join:2007-09-07
Nashville, MI
clubs: 
·Millenicom
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Bleh!
Recap, shall we? Why exactly do the big-name companies (I won't mention Comcast for you people, however I'd take it over HughesNet any day.) not invest a little money in bringing service to us rurals? Why is the FCC (and the rest of the federal government) holding back progress?
Hughes is OK for me until this fixed-antenna WiFi manages to acquire signal for a tower that's 1 mile away from me. Stupid trees, stupid elevation, stupid...life...
--
DW6000/1m dish/SatMex5(99'W)/Small Office/Windows XP/Dell Latitude D820/DNS cache + TurboPage disabled, using OpenDNS!!!
PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!!! |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden | reply to rosco
Re: Heh.
said by rosco :fap fap fap indeed fap fap fap fap, splooge! |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to Belinrahs
Re: Bleh!
said by Belinrahs :Recap, shall we? Why exactly do the big-name companies (I won't mention Comcast for you people, however I'd take it over HughesNet any day.) not invest a little money in bringing service to us rurals? Why is the FCC (and the rest of the federal government) holding back progress? Hughes is OK for me until this fixed-antenna WiFi manages to acquire signal for a tower that's 1 mile away from me. Stupid trees, stupid elevation, stupid...life... Because it costs millions of dollars to roll out service to a dozen people in an area and they get back what? $50-200/month per customer? It would take centuries to break even. Why do you think people who live in really affluent suburban areas always get FIOS and other newer technologies first? Because they can make their money back faster!
I'm sure Comcast and all the other ISPs would LOVE to provide you service. The problem is that there is a limited amount of money and the laws of physics simply don't allow them to provide a broadband connection to you.
The easiest option is to either wait for some new technology that can be provided via wireless or via satellite (seems to be the only viable hope at this point), or move.
-Tzale |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| reply to Tzale
Re: Simply Pathetic
said by Tzale :Chances are if you are in the middle of no where, you probably lead a much more simpler life that doesn't rely on broadband like us city slickers and suburbanites need.-Tzale Chances are that if you live in town, it's in a ghetto and you can only live there because it's government subsidized housing. You should stop selling crack to buy broadband.
Yes, I meant for that to be just as stupid as your comment about rural life. |
|
TigerLord
Resident Pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal | reply to Tzale
Re: Bleh!
How can a US company in 2007 get away with this crap ? This isn't a third world country ! |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | reply to openbox9
Re: Simply Pathetic
said by openbox9 :if you think that our "first world country" has such "third world broadband choices", then I invite you to look around at other countries, weigh your benefits and costs of living, and then let us know which country is so much better. Serious question as I've been a lot of places and I'd like to read your frame of reference. It wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer the question anyway - Since the U.S. is the only country on the planet that lets people in -or for that matter accepts any and all human debris that washes up on its shores or crawls under a fence- regardless of age, education, income and/or ability to earn one, I am not able to seriously discuss with you my choice of which country I would dump the U.S. for. Just know that if it were an option, I would without a second thought.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by major marco :It wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer the question anyway - Since the U.S. is the only country on the planet that lets people in -or for that matter accepts any and all human debris that washes up on its shores or crawls under a fence- regardless of age, education, income and/or ability to earn one, I am not able to seriously discuss with you my choice of which country I would dump the U.S. for. Just know that if it were an option, I would without a second thought. I was attempting to ask a serious question, but anyway...are you seriously considering yourself "human debris"? I truly feel sorry for you if you feel that living in the US is so challenging. It's really not that hard to find another country to live in, you might want to give it a shot. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to TigerLord
Re: Bleh!
Capitalism. Don't like it, move to a socialistic country...or, praise the US' continued decay to such a state  |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
| hnFap?
Am I the only one finding 'loads' of sophomoric humor in the above article? I mean sure, given context its fine, but what fun its that? Remove the context, and damn, thats one dirty article.
Sorry, I couldn't help but regress intellectually a few years. |
|
