dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
114414
NHLiving
join:2012-01-29
Salisbury, NH

NHLiving to hdman

Member

to hdman

Re: New Exede customers, please post

Got it installed last Sunday.

Yes, the data limits are strict, yes I would love more, but since Fairpoint says they are not extending DSL service any time soon, Comcast wants $45,000 for installation of the last 1.5 miles to my home (12 homes on that stretch of road) and US Cellular only has a 5GB 3g package....satellite is basically the only option I have.

I'm glad that I was able to get the new Exede service. Speeds are as advertised and latency is around 600-650ms. I used VOIP for international calls and the quality was great with no noticeable lag.

I do hope that Hughesnet will up their game this year and that US Cellular will upgrade more of their towers to 4G as they keep saying that they are going to do and that all the rural broadband projects keep doing their thing. The more competition to push the technological advancements forward, the better.
rdurham
Premium Member
join:2002-10-13
Bowdon, GA

rdurham to hdman

Premium Member

to hdman
Should get mine installed today or tomorrow and I will let you all know how it goes. I can't wait to get it and try it out.
zeddlar
join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK

zeddlar to hdman

Member

to hdman
Well I have officially switched from HN to Millenicom. Why didn't I wait a month and go with Exede?. I look at it like this and I think this is the way any calm person weighing the facts and that knows anything about an internet connection is going to look at it. With Millenicom I get 20 GB download allowance, With exede I would get 25 GB down and up allowance which I consider to be close to the same cap because for most users 5 GB extra would cover and probably more than cover the upload side of things. With Millenicoms Hotspot I see an average of about 1.2 Mb/s down and 500 Kb/s or so up with 100 to 150ms latency and no 4G availible at this time and pay $70 a month with an up front cost of $230.

With exede I would get 12 or Mb/s down and whatever they give you on upload speed, 650ms+ latency with a 25 GB upload and download cap with a 2 year contract at $130 a month with a $300+ up front cost. Either plan will allow me to easily hit that 20 GB in a month easily and that 12 Mb/s speed is just going to let me do it faster so pretty much it all comes down to cost and latency and as you can see Millenicom wins that hands down. Now to Viasat's credit, that speed would allow me to watch uninterupted video streams much better but again that is just a rocket sled to the cap so is that really a plus? To some it might be but not to me.

The point is, I know that not everyone has a choice above and beyond satellite and dial-up and as a matter of fact, not so long ago I was in that boat but aiming this at the people that do have a choice like the DSL I keep seeing thrown up here, If a person really weighs their options, satellite isn't going to have a chance. All the speed in the world isn't going to make those caps or the latency or the high prices go away no matter what kind of pipe dream you try to induce on yourself.
DogT
join:2009-11-12
Hume, VA

DogT

Member

I am seriously considering dumping HN (since 06) because of the slow speeds in the evenings, last night it was around 50kbps. Mornings are always 1800kbps so I don't think it's the equipment. Millenicom looks to be similar to Verizon, each computer needs a card? If so that would double my price. exede looks pretty good since I can feed it into a router, I would just have to watch my monthly download limit. I never use the 475MB/day on my HN unless there's a large update on the Mac or Windoze. It's just that $380 fee for the installation and equipment. I don't see a bunch of people bailing out of HN here though? Is everyone just stuck?

dbirdman
MVM
join:2003-07-07
usa

1 edit

dbirdman

MVM

said by DogT:

I don't see a bunch of people bailing out of HN here though? Is everyone just stuck?

HN customers are either a) long-time users or b) under contract. Reasons for (b) not bailing should be obvious.

For (a) there are likely a lot of reasons, but I would bet the most common ones include that they fall in the half of the populace who consider Hughes FAP policies far superior to WB's. The ability to come out of FAP in 24 hours, and the 5 hours of FAP-Free per day. WB users fall in the half that would rather be able to download a 5GB file if necessary during the daytime, and husband their remaining allowance for 30 days.

If might be different if it weren't known that Hughes plans to have an almost identical satellite (close enough that ViaSat thinks Loral might have leaked their designs to Hughes) up this year, so it is not like some unknown future.
DogT
join:2009-11-12
Hume, VA

DogT

Member

That's kind of what I figured, but I bet there are a lot of people on HN like me that are not under any contract. It's probably a toss up at this time and I'm not sure I want to shell out $380 and go through all the setup and crap that will entail with a new system. Like you say, the 5 hour free period is a real good deal in some circumstances. I can download about 3GB in that time. It's too bad Mac and Windoze don't let you choose your own download time, I realize some people have worked around this, but for now.... The real slow periods are exasperating though.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to dbirdman

Anon

to dbirdman
said by dbirdman:

I wonder if you have any concept about the expectations of a DSL user - especially one so unhappy with their DSL (150GB per month minimum) that they would go to satellite?

Doing a quick Google search suggests all DSL providers do not offer same quota bucket.

Further, these snippets:

Both cable companies and customers stuck on slow DSL can thank telco investors for the stagnation

...customers stuck on slower DSL may eventually see faster speeds,...

»Cable is Eating DSL's Lunch in Un-Upgraded Markets [77] comments
DrStrangLov

DrStrangLov to chances14

Anon

to chances14
said by chances14:

a light web surfer on a dsl connection would not be at all happy with this service due to the fact that web pages and https will still load slower on satellite than their "old and slow" dsl connection

DSL speed varies as a function of distance to their equipment. Still folks getting download speed of 768 kilobits per second and upload speeds of up to 128 kbps.

And yes, slower...or faster speeds: YMMV
DrStrangLov

DrStrangLov to zeddlar

Anon

to zeddlar
said by zeddlar:

Why didn't I wait a month and go with Exede?. I look at it like this and I think this is the way any calm person weighing the facts...

Sorry, internet gamers are not "any calm person," just the facts.

Their decisions are biased...towards options with lower latency.

dbirdman
MVM
join:2003-07-07
usa

dbirdman to DrStrangLov

MVM

to DrStrangLov
said by DrStrangLov :

Doing a quick Google search suggests all DSL providers do not offer same quota bucket.

Certainly true, however, the DSL market leaders, based on recent data that may be as much as a year old:

1. AT&T 7.8M DSL subscribers 150GB Cap
2. Verizon 4.3M DSL subscribers No Cap
3. CenturyTel 2.3M DSL subscribers 150GB Cap
4. Earthlink 0.8M DSL subscribers No Cap

As the number of susbscribers trickle down to the very smallest companies the caps drop as low as 50GB, but the number of customers is comparable to a WISP - 5 figures or less.

At the time AT&T imposed the 150GB cap they said their average DSL customer used 18GB per month.

Sircolby450
join:2005-11-26

Sircolby450 to DrStrangLov

Member

to DrStrangLov
said by DrStrangLov :

said by zeddlar:

Why didn't I wait a month and go with Exede?. I look at it like this and I think this is the way any calm person weighing the facts...

Sorry, internet gamers are not "any calm person," just the facts.

Their decisions are biased...towards options with lower latency.

Latency affects EVERYBODY. It affects even casual web browsers. The only thing latency does not affect is downloads. The one thing that is not hindered by satellite latency is hindered by small caps.
said by DogT:

Millenicom looks to be similar to Verizon, each computer needs a card? If so that would double my price.

You can get routers for the air cards. So you would not need a card for every computer. If your area is covered by 3G you would probably be better off going that route.
chances14
join:2010-03-03
Michigan

chances14 to DrStrangLov

Member

to DrStrangLov
said by DrStrangLov :

said by chances14:

a light web surfer on a dsl connection would not be at all happy with this service due to the fact that web pages and https will still load slower on satellite than their "old and slow" dsl connection

DSL speed varies as a function of distance to their equipment. Still folks getting download speed of 768 kilobits per second and upload speeds of up to 128 kbps.

And yes, slower...or faster speeds: YMMV

i would take the dsl over satellite in a heartbeat. you are underestimating the importance of latency even for light web surfing
zeddlar
join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK

zeddlar to DogT

Member

to DogT
Like Sircolby said, you don't need a seperate card for each computer, First off you can get a wireless router that that usb stick will plug into and then the router disperses the internet just the same as if you had a modem with a lan wire run to the router, second you can use any router you want if you study up on the windows help and learn how to use internet connection sharing. By doing this you just plug the LAN cable from your computer with the stick in it into the wan port on your router and set up windows by the internet coneestion sharing instructions and you are off and running. The third option is to get the early bird special from millenicom and get the hotspot and that is a wireless router in itself and will serve up to 5 machines and then you don't need a stick and a router at all. You can also use a router and the internet connection sharing with the hotspot if you have more than 5 devices that need to access the internet but it is a bit more complicated to explain.

DrStrangeLov.... If you knew anything at all about gamers then you would know that they are the MOST likely people to sit down and calmly research the isp's availible to them, LOL. Havn't met a gamer yet that couldn't tell you exactly which internet connections were availible to them and the exact pro's and con's of each one of those services. It is the casual surfer that is less likely to do the research. And btw I didn't say anything at all about gaming in that post. But for the record, Millenicom takes the cake on that one too.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to dbirdman

Anon

to dbirdman
said by dbirdman:

Certainly true, however, the DSL market leaders

Using big city data really is not valid, with respect to satellite carriers wanting to attract DSL users. Ever heard of Rural Telephone Companies? You may remember, AT&T took the 'profits' in larger cities, and left the rural folks out in the cold. And in smaller cities where AT&T/etc exists, they ain't going to upgrade/etc DSL.
said by Sircolby450:

Latency affects EVERYBODY...The only thing latency does not affect is downloads.

Youtube works just fine, when one has the speed.

Again, latency is not an issue when sufficient bandwidth exists, except (1) Gamers, (2) VPNers, & (3) Heavy HTTPS usage.
said by chances14:

i would take the dsl over satellite in a heartbeat.

768/kbps down, with 128 kbps up

vs

12 mbps down, with 3 mbps up

Other than gamers, vpners, and those doing lots of https, I don't think so. Many web pages these days require downloading much more databytes than in 1994.

Having a constant turtle like internet speeds can never catch up to a fast rabbit who delays a moment at the start line.
DrStrangLov

DrStrangLov to zeddlar

Anon

to zeddlar
said by zeddlar:

Millenicom takes the cake on that one too.

Good Luck, as grohgreg said just recently:

"I too have a great cell phone connection, I can even see the tower light from my window at night. But when I tried their 3G internet service, it absolutely sucked."

I've heard this story before...then comes the pilgrims, and your service goes to pot.

PS: Not a rational decision, as based upon previous users learning the hard way about cellphone plans.

JuanDeaux
Premium Member
join:2012-02-07
Flat Rock, IL

JuanDeaux to dbirdman

Premium Member

to dbirdman
said by dbirdman:

said by Dr Laredo :

I really don't see ViaSat returning to 'dark ages' of satellite...they want to entice DSL users to come onboard.

I wonder if you have any concept about the expectations of a DSL user - especially one so unhappy with their DSL (150GB per month minimum) that they would go to satellite?

Even slow DSL (which would be in the range of 758K down) is near instant for most web pages, including secure. The unhappy DSL user is one downloading files slowly, and wanting to do it fast, so 12Mbps sounds wonderful.

Couldn't agree more. I've had WildBlue Pro Pak for 4 years and Starband for 6 years prior to that, but the Exede package offerings were the final straw for me. Increased speed and cost with a decrease in bandwidth was very disappointing, especially after all of the hoopla leading up to the satellite launch and commissioning. I would have bought into something like 3.0Mbps, a much larger fap and no increase in charges.

Fortunately for me, I do have another option. I met with a rural telephone co-op installer today to arrange getting connected to DSL. It is going to cost >$1000 to run the wire and get hooked up for 3.0 Mbps service, although I may be limited to 1.5Mbps due to distance. They charge $49.95/mo, with no cap, but do require installation of a land-line phone @ $26/mo (before the myriad of mysterious telephone taxes and fees). Regardless, I am giddy with the prospect of finally ditching satellite internet access.

Even though this switch is going to cost me significantly, I am looking forward to finally being able to more fully utilize internet resources. I'll be able to click on video links, which I have done sparingly in the past, not worry about downloading OS updates and the like, stream audio, etc. I feel like I'm emigrating from a third world country!

By the way, has anyone else wondered if the Exede brand is an inside joke, somehow related to how much additional revenue Viasat expects to generate from subscribers Execeding their cap/dap/fap?

Sircolby450
join:2005-11-26

Sircolby450 to DrStrangLov

Member

to DrStrangLov
said by DrStrangLov :

said by dbirdman:

Certainly true, however, the DSL market leaders

Using big city data really is not valid, with respect to satellite carriers wanting to attract DSL users. Ever heard of Rural Telephone Companies? You may remember, AT&T took the 'profits' in larger cities, and left the rural folks out in the cold. And in smaller cities where AT&T/etc exists, they ain't going to upgrade/etc DSL.
said by Sircolby450:

Latency affects EVERYBODY...The only thing latency does not affect is downloads.

Youtube works just fine, when one has the speed.

Again, latency is not an issue when sufficient bandwidth exists, except (1) Gamers, (2) VPNers, & (3) Heavy HTTPS usage.
said by chances14:

i would take the dsl over satellite in a heartbeat.

768/kbps down, with 128 kbps up

vs

12 mbps down, with 3 mbps up

Other than gamers, vpners, and those doing lots of https, I don't think so. Many web pages these days require downloading much more databytes than in 1994.

Having a constant turtle like internet speeds can never catch up to a fast rabbit who delays a moment at the start line.

Are you seriously suggesting that Youtube covers HTTP browsing in general? There is more to the web than Youtube. A slow connection can stream 480p Youtube just fine. It is irrelevant that the 12 mbps connection can stream 720p better since that would put you over your limit in a heartbeat.

"Many web pages these days require downloading much more databytes than in 1994."

The extra data is compensated for by the lower latency.(The DSL connection will start loading first) In fact the latency is going to make more of a difference than that speed in most websites other than maybe a flash intensive website. A website like this one would load significantly faster over the 768k DSL connection. Also if you load a large amount of graphic intensive websites every month guess what is going to happen to you! FAP! I have used AT&T's measly 500k WiFi in Hotels and I can say with full confidence web browsing is still faster than satellite. Are you seriously trying to suggest that satellite can compete with DSL, because honestly I find that laughable at best. I pity anyone that makes the mistake of dumping DSL for satellite.
DogT
join:2009-11-12
Hume, VA

DogT to zeddlar

Member

to zeddlar
zeddlar,
I guess I'll have to call millenicom and talk to them. I'm not sure how good it works here in the boonies though. I have AT&T cell and it's only good for about 1 or 2 bars in specific places in the house. I'm assuming it's a cell system?

I was going on info that I got when I talked to the Verizon people and they said I had to have a device for each computer, plus I didn't like the speed and limits and no doubt it wouldn't work on the downstairs computer.

I'm always on the lookout to get away from HN.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to Sircolby450

Anon

to Sircolby450
said by Sircolby450:

A slow connection can stream 480p Youtube just fine.

I have 256kbps internet. youtube videos keeps bffering. initially it was very smooth but it really sucks now.?

Reader Response: "To stream properly you should have at least a 2 Mb/s connection, prefably a 4 Mb/s one."

PS: Around 2000 era, I used a 256 kbps WISP...when youtube came, it would have to buffer.

Sircolby450
join:2005-11-26

Sircolby450

Member

said by DrStrangLov :

said by Sircolby450:

A slow connection can stream 480p Youtube just fine.

I have 256kbps internet. youtube videos keeps bffering. initially it was very smooth but it really sucks now.?

Reader Response: "To stream properly you should have at least a 2 Mb/s connection, prefably a 4 Mb/s one."

PS: Around 2000 era, I used a 256 kbps WISP...when youtube came, it would have to buffer.

Ah so now DSL is 256k? Come on now. You are cherry picking. 768k can stream 480p with minimal buffering. I can watch a lot more Youtube videos on 768k than a limited 12mbps connection. I would much rather wait for my videos to load than worry about them pushing me over my data allowance. If you are a Youtube watcher you will eat that data allowance in no time. Also if I want to watch 720p on the 768k connection I can. Just open it up let it start loading and come back and watch it later. With Wildblue you can forget it. 720p videos would eat your allowance like nobodies business. Again I reiterate. Your speed is useless without a cap big enough to support the use of it.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to Sircolby450

Anon

to Sircolby450
said by Sircolby450:

A slow connection can stream 480p Youtube just fine.

Footnote - FYI, here's a simple Youtube video parameters...notice the Bitrate column in Mbits/s.

»www.youtube.com22/watch? ··· 0_YK9rB4


zeddlar
join:2007-04-09
Jay, OK

zeddlar to DrStrangLov

Member

to DrStrangLov
LOL, the tower I draw off of has a population of about 800 with another 200 rural residents maybe in range of that tower, the people in town can't get a signal because the town is in a valley and the signal overshoots them, there is a creek I can almost jump across for the grandest attraction for people to move there so and at least 30 chicken farms with 8 to 10 houses each and 2 ranches and a protien plant at the chicken plant which all works together to stink those same said pilgrims out before they come house hunting so I think I am safe from the pilgrims, LMAO. Just that protien plant alone can gag a maggot at 10 miles down wind and that tower sets right beside that plant. Also if you take a look on the Millenicom site, you will see that the speeds on the verizon side of the service are pretty decent really. I dunno where you get your info but as usual it sounds to be from about 10 years ago. #g is pushed to the limit in urban areas but there again, if you live in one of those areas there is a good chance you don't need satellite or cell internet. Oh and before you try to throw this one out there, the nearest major highway is about 15 or so miles from that tower and covered with towers of it's own so no congestion there either.

zeddlar

zeddlar

Member

Good enough till the you tube video I just watched was loaded by the time the song was about half way through on auto quality full screen.

DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to zeddlar

Anon

to zeddlar
said by zeddlar:

LOL, the tower I draw off of

Many of those rural towers only have a T1: 1.544 mbps

Millenicom - To my awareness, they just resale...and from doing a local search, and knowing my closet cell tower has only a T1, their "analysis" is a joke.

I'm sure a few folks might get lucky, but most are stuck on the slow lane during primetime.

bak2sat
@alltel.com

bak2sat to zeddlar

Anon

to zeddlar
I am thinking about jumping from Alltel 3G to Exede. I currently have a very poor signal with Alltel 3G (I have an external signal booster also to help). I am in a divested area that didn't get sold to Verizon because of a possible monopoly (THANKS FCC). I believe the cell tower is overloaded due to everyone in this area relying on Aircards for their internet since it is noticeably slower in the evenings and weekends.

The best I can get is 275Kbps sometimes less than 100Kbps and I am paying $60/month but it is a legacy plan with unlimited data. The speed seems to be getting worse and worse by the month I used to get 1.2-1.5 Mbps two years ago. My ping is usually around 300-650ms.

I am aware of the 7.5 GB/month two way Up and Down limit but I am thinking that I shouldnt hit my threshold often as little as I am at home. And I have a rooted smartphone with a tether app for backup internet.

Am I correct in the $49/month plus $9.99/month for the equipment lease and a $150 installation fee being standard for Exede? I thought I read somewhere that the cancellation fee was $15/month which doesn't seem all that bad if you need to get out.

I hope that I can get decent browsing (I dont think 600ms latency is that bad is it?) maybe even a netflix standard deff movie in once in awhile. Maybe I will even be able to youtube without waiting 15 mins for a buffer. Am I crazy? I had sat (Direcway) back in the day and I remember the terrible tech support and blackouts. But that 12 Mbps sounds tempting!!

byzw
@acsalaska.net

byzw

Anon

Can someone post their typical clear sky downstream signal to noise ratio?

Nick Adams
@wildblue.net

Nick Adams to bak2sat

Anon

to bak2sat
I got excede today; former Hughes.net since 2003. Unbelievable. 18.1 mbps 2.20 mbps, 650 latency. Youtube works. Surfing good.

My install began yesterday - 5 hrs. The install completed today - 20 mins. First installer had never seen the system in person. Had some internet training (installed 100s of wildblue sats). Second installer had hands on training and had installed 5 excedes before me. Ist installer did not understand how to provision the system.

Very happy. Working from home. Sweet.

compuguybna
join:2009-06-17
Nashville, TN

1 edit

compuguybna to DrStrangLov

Member

to DrStrangLov

4G device off a far LTE tower?

Looks like he's pulling off a close LTE tower, but the signal isn't strong enough, so it reverts back to 3G.

Its NOT a T-1 tower, probably a fiber fed tower, because the provider is WIRELESS DATA SERVICE, and not Cellco Partnership (which is a EVDO 3G tower).

said by DrStrangLov
Many of those rural towers only have a T1: 1.544 mbps

Millenicom - To my awareness, they just resale...and from doing a local search, and knowing my closet cell tower has only a T1, their "analysis" is a joke.

I'm sure a few folks might get lucky, but most are stuck on the slow lane during primetime.
[/BQUOTE :

compuguybna

compuguybna to Nick Adams

Member

to Nick Adams

Re: New Exede customers, please post

What plan are you on? Intersting that it still lists in the wildblue.net domain.
said by Nick Adams :

I got excede today; former Hughes.net since 2003. Unbelievable. 18.1 mbps 2.20 mbps, 650 latency. Youtube works. Surfing good.

My install began yesterday - 5 hrs. The install completed today - 20 mins. First installer had never seen the system in person. Had some internet training (installed 100s of wildblue sats). Second installer had hands on training and had installed 5 excedes before me. Ist installer did not understand how to provision the system.

Very happy. Working from home. Sweet.


DrStrangLov
@12.189.32.x

DrStrangLov to bak2sat

Anon

to bak2sat
said by bak2sat :

I am thinking about jumping from Alltel 3G to Exede.

I'll let zeddlar (et.al) take the rest of your comments...but, if one is OK with 7.5 GB/month, its a no brainer in my book....but if you live in Idaho, it will only have 5 mbps.

AWCC is in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, Ohio and Idaho...so, I don't know which state you live in.