| reply to Emiya
Re: Broadband definition 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.
|
