Satellite May Spread 1.2 Gbps Speeds Across Japan > So?

So?

Which makes it perfect for disaster response where the biggest problem is access to massive asset inventory and GIS datasets while out in the field after the communications network is down.
Residential broadband should not even be allowed to see a service like this at all; it should be reserved for critical infrastructure uses.

reply to DrModem
i beg the difference. if you download and upload that much this is a good and cheaper solution for the ISPs to provide you with cheaper access. plus if you are dl that much, you probably select the files/movies or what ever it is and walkaway until is done. so the ping times is relative unless you are one that monitor sec by sec a 5 or 30 gb download.

The article says that businesses will have access to 1.2 Gbps with a five meter dish. This would be a perfect way for localized ISP's to buy access and then send, say 20 Mbps, to rural customers via a wireless connection of some sort.

If I lived in the boonies, I would be glad to put up with the high latency if I could get 50-100 Mbps downloads. This would be much better than DirecTV's 1 Mbps with the same latency. Unless you play online games, there is no disadvantage except that websites will load a few milliseconds slower.

he means HughesNet »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughesnet

I am fully aware of what Hughesnet is. However I fail to see how you confuse it with DirecTV. Unless he thinks the Ethernet port on the back of the HR20s and 21s are for internet.

reply to PolarBear03

Heh, just think, you'll be able to burn your 250mb cap even faster!

reply to dvd536
Yeah, a decade ago.

reply to PolarBear03