| Broadband definition Do they have a good broadband definition? Considering all the apps that either don't work or work poorly over Satellite and the many subscriber's vocal opinions, Satellite is tough argument to sell on whether is could or should be considered broadband.
The Broadband definition should include fairly consistent low-latency; i.e. sub 200ms may be be pushing it for some, 150ms or less would be great.. any lower would be even better. Satellite doesn't fit the bill.
Reliability and rain-fade is yet another argument though not as common.
And perhaps no FAP's! |
|
|
|
Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH | said by lastmile:The Broadband definition should include fairly consistent low-latency; i.e. sub 200ms may be be pushing it for some, 150ms or less would be great.. any lower would be even better. Satellite doesn't fit the bill. Considering the physical distance between Earth and geosynchronous satellites this is impossible with the speed of light and all. From the hub dish to space and back to earth is over 40,000 miles and that's just one way!
I work for a VSAT company and we offer speeds up to 4mbit down and 1.5mbit up wit CIR speeds of 2.5mbit/896kbit. Latency is usually around 500-700ms. No you can't game on it but we have plenty of VoiP customers (with a slight delay), VPN users, etc. Some things do not work well (VPN using IPsec in tunnel mode) due to latency and the fact that IP spoofing is used.
If you have access to terrestrial broadband services then you should use those. By nature they're going to be more reliable and a better user experience. If you don't have access then satellite service is something you may want to research and see if it will work for you. |
|
| Agreed -- I / we understand the physical distance limitation. I don't think Satellite is a bad solution as it works for some things and some users.
In respect to the Country's broadband solution, it should be a broadband service that works for most, if not all Internet applications. I would think there is a significant number of gamers and growing numbers of VOIP users, VPN users(including IP-Sec/SSL), remote desktop, virtual office, video-conferencing, etc.. that could benefit if they had decent Internet access.
I think 200ms latency is a fair estimate and on-par with decent dial-up thus it could be a basic requirement. 3G wireless is also good but not consistent. As suggested, 500+ms would impact VOIP but if its your only alternative, then you have to deal with the delay but I would rather use the plain 'ole POTS line w/o delay.
Most Satellite packages I have seen cost significantly more than what an entry-level DSL connection would provide for 15-20.00 / month? I would think the 2.5mbit/896kbit 500-700ms latency Satellite connection is probably expensive and beyond what most people would consider to be affordable.
Why provide stimulus money to something that works only for a portion of Internet services?
I sure hope LTE holds true to some of its aspirations! |
|
Emiya
join:2006-03-30
Southington, OH | They're not giving the money only to any one specific technology and they're not targeting just residential service. Satellite based broadband services can expand the possibilities of industries working in remote and isolated areas where terrestrial based communications are difficult to deploy and even more difficult to maintain like in mountains. It's also incredibly useful in areas where existing infrastructure can be easily knocked out, both for backup connections and for disaster relief.
|
|
