| Vs DSL? So for ordinary web browsing how does 15 Mbps satellite (with the long latency) compare to 1.5 Mbps DSL? |
|
Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| said by PastTense:So for ordinary web browsing how does 15 Mbps satellite (with the long latency) compare to 1.5 Mbps DSL?
I'd say it's probably fairly similar, the new sat might be able to load pages a bit faster if it's a bit big.
Streaming would be pretty nice if there wasn't the massive cap.
But yeah... still the latency, you're never going to do any "twitch" gaming on sat, at least not any time soon. |
|
1 edit | reply to PastTense
DSL at 1,500Kbps would be a better choice because it would have a much higher cap to no cap at all and would be a hell of a lot cheaper. |
|
 diablo1892Say hello to my little friend
join:2011-04-21
Friendly, WV
·HughesNet Satell..
 ·Dialup USA, Inc.
·EarthLink
| reply to jmad980
said by jmad980:But yeah... still the latency, you're never going to do any "twitch" gaming on sat, at least not any time soon.
I doubt any satellite provider will ever be capable of gaming in the future... heres why: satellite= direct connection, still portable however. Wireless connection= the connection can be picked up all around or in a small area.
Either one of these types of ways for connecting is still lame cause you cannot host and you cannot get the best performance from your own connection
--
HN7000S/ 1 watt/ pro plus edition/ 4 pc's on a D-Link wired router/ 1-2 pc's on wireless D-Link router with password |
|
 LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| While true, the reason why is not what you stated.
The reason? The distance. Even at the speed of light, over the distance this has to travel, you will not be getting latency that you can play shooters (or any other game that requires quick reactions). |
|
