| reply to Simba7
Re: Better than HughesNet.. I'm a former WB customer -- they're fine for what they are as long as you don't need to download pages that are real-time sensitive. A lot of flash applications simply won't load because the latency is terrible.
And then there's that 7.5G cap thing. TERRIBLE, terrible, terrible if you have a family. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by ShellMMG:I'm a former WB customer -- they're fine for what they are as long as you don't need to download pages that are real-time sensitive. A lot of flash applications simply won't load because the latency is terrible. And then there's that 7.5G cap thing. TERRIBLE, terrible, terrible if you have a family. Well Hughesnet cap is actually worse. 200 MB a day which is 6000 MB a month and that's upload and download combined. the 7.5 GB on WB is for download only. Now Hughesnet does have cap free time from 2 Am-7 Am EST. That's something WB needs to implement before I'd suggest them to friends that live in area where only dial-up is available. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | "very low usage caps"? "very low usage caps"? Talk about editorializing. The WB caps are much bigger than the cap on Verizon or Sprint wireless broadband, the only choices besides satellite available in my area, or in most locations where WB has costumers.
Verizon and Sprint are both at 5GB. We're not big bandwidth hogs at my house, but even we exceed that.
Please stop applying criteria appropriate to DSL/cable/fiber to satellite. They're two very different services, serving different customers bases. |
|
