dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6008
share rss forum feed

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

ViaSat's Exede Internet Service Hits One-Year Anniversary

Satellite TODAY 03-18-2013]

ViaSat is celebrating the one-year anniversary of its Exede Internet service, reaching more than 285,000 subscribers on ViaSat-1 within the Exede residential broadband service’s first year of operation.

“Our results prove that driving down the cost of bandwidth can make satellite a better choice than slower terrestrial alternatives,” ViaSat chairman and CEO Mark Dankberg said in a statement. “The market success of ViaSat-1 strengthens our commitment to delivering a series of new satellites that push the boundaries of what’s possible in satellite broadband across a broad range of market opportunities.”

According to a Feb. 2013 FCC report, Exede Internet outperformed all other ISPs in delivering promised speeds to subscribers, with 90 percent of Exede subscribers receiving 140 percent or better of the advertised 12 Mbps speed during peak periods. Approximately 40 percent of new Exede subscribers are choosing this satellite service over other alternatives for fixed home use.

»www.satellitetoday.com/st/stbrie···837.html


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

40% may sound impressive, but what are those alternatives? It's definitely not fiber. It's almost certainly not cable. And it is very unlikely ADSL2+ or VDSL2. That leaves basically slow 1.5mbps ADSL circuits, often times over priced WISPs and HomeFusion, or dedicated T1 circuits that practically require your to mortgage your house. None of those are real competition unless you are lucky enough to fall in the territory of a WISP that actually knows what they are doing in which case it is very possible these subscribers have no idea they have an alternative to satellite.


DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

but what are those alternatives?

Three Considerations:

1. Locally Owned Rural ISPs - With Exede, your internet activities are "private." ISPs can log your activities, and if so desired, look at your email...whereas, with Exede, its rather doubtful "peeping Toms" exist unless government search warrant exists.

2. There are still rural cities without fast internet, be it DSL or cable. Even in my area on FIOS, if you don't buy bigger plan, Youtube will buffer on 480p and above.

3. Bean Counting - Many WISPs charge similar prices as Exede

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

said by DrStrangLov:

said by silbaco:

but what are those alternatives?

Three Considerations:

1. Locally Owned Rural ISPs - With Exede, your internet activities are "private." ISPs can log your activities, and if so desired, look at your email...whereas, with Exede, its rather doubtful "peeping Toms" exist unless government search warrant exists.

2. There are still rural cities without fast internet, be it DSL or cable. Even in my area on FIOS, if you don't buy bigger plan, Youtube will buffer on 480p and above.

3. Bean Counting - Many WISPs charge similar prices as Exede

1. Exede has employees too. They can do the same. But it is highly unlikely either will.

2. That has nothing to do with FiOS and everything to do with Google having insufficient infrastructure and some routing issues. Even the 3Mbps FiOS which almost no one has is more than capable of 480P. And unlike Exede, you can youtube all day long, everyday. There is no comparison between FiOS and Exede. And for easily 99% of the cable footprint, there is no comparison between cable and Exede.

3. Many do. But very few have caps even close to Exede's, unless you count Verizon which few consider a WISP.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

Verizon

Decision - With Verizon....go over limit...you pay, right?

I would prefer, when Caps exist with penalties, that user would have option to shut down service.

I know of one 3G Verizon customer who had a $300.00 overage fee one month...kids did it.

Hence, I want control of costs, and would take that ISP which limits liability.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

Even the 3Mbps FiOS

Hello...rural America....some plans are not that fast....reality check:

Comparing Internet Speeds Across the Nation



»www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011···l?ref=us

Downloads Are Slowest in Idaho, Study Finds

»www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/do···nted=all

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

318KBps or ~2.5Mbps is more than capable of streaming 480P youtube. Other than HD, it can do pretty much about everything.

The idea of rural America having slow internet is a myth. There are over a dozen providers in my state rolling out fiber to rural Americans. There are countless others rolling out faster remote DSLAMs capable of a minimum of 5Mbps or deploying uncapped wireless solutions including wimax. It is not impossible for rural Americans to have good internet, you just have to have a good provider.


DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

The idea of rural America having slow internet is a myth.

Here are plans for a local ISP (rural telco), who provides cable, and FIOS, depending upon your location.

Cable:
Entry Level (1.5Mbps x 256 kbps)- $29.95
Standard Level (4.0 Mbps x 384 kbps) – $36.95
Extreme Level (10 Mbps x 1 Mbps) – $49.95

Fiber to the Home (FTTH)
Standard Level FTTH- up to 4 Mbps-$36.95
Extreme Level FTTH up to 10 Mbps – $49.95

If you want to watch Netflix, they highly suggest Standard Level plan on cable cause when primetime comes, your speeds drop. And, they will not offer Netflex HD or even 4K. In other words, they will not guarantee 5 to 7 Mbps constant feed.

Keep in mind this is a progressive rural telco who bought out two cable companies in two different smaller cities, and installed new 750MHz cable in one, and new fiber optic truck lines (etc) in another city.

There are still old cable systems out there with older cable.


hdman
Flt Rider
Premium
join:2003-11-25
Appleton, WI
Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
reply to silbaco

Silbarco stated "The idea of rural America having slow internet is a myth". To which I say bah humbug!!! Any place that AT&T has a strangled hold on the State government will have poor rural speeds. AT&T lobbied control away from local towns in Wisconsin about 8 years ago, and left it at the State level. No longer are providers required to provide service to an area that is growing. They will only do it if and when it makes financial sense to them. The rule in our town was 13 houses per mile and the provider was required to put in the service. Now, they can provide service when they feel like it, and let me tell you, there is NO build outs going on in rural Wisconsin. They are all rushing to provide service to communities who already have choices, and are providing them more choices, and the rural areas get only one choice, and that is satellite. 3G was around for a while, then it got over sold, and the speeds dropped to modem speeds. 4G has been spotty to show up, but that is even more expensive than satellite. If you really think that rural America is getting connected, you would be very wrong in that assumption.
--
The proper way to break in a Harley: Grab a fist full of throttle, and ride it like you stole it!!!


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

said by hdman:

Silbarco stated "The idea of rural America having slow internet is a myth". To which I say bah humbug!!! Any place that AT&T has a strangled hold on the State government will have poor rural speeds. AT&T lobbied control away from local towns in Wisconsin about 8 years ago, and left it at the State level. No longer are providers required to provide service to an area that is growing. They will only do it if and when it makes financial sense to them. The rule in our town was 13 houses per mile and the provider was required to put in the service. Now, they can provide service when they feel like it, and let me tell you, there is NO build outs going on in rural Wisconsin. They are all rushing to provide service to communities who already have choices, and are providing them more choices, and the rural areas get only one choice, and that is satellite. 3G was around for a while, then it got over sold, and the speeds dropped to modem speeds. 4G has been spotty to show up, but that is even more expensive than satellite. If you really think that rural America is getting connected, you would be very wrong in that assumption.

No, I am not. I live in rural America. It may be different in At&t territory, but in other places there are people getting connected. Fairpoint and Frontier have been working to roll out DSL and improve their DSL in rural places. Independent and cooperative telcos have been rolling out DSL and ftth to their rural customers/members on a continuous basis. If they can't get the money to reach the very rural, they have been putting up wireless solutions such as wimax and providing often times 8-10 Mbps usually with high caps or no caps. It is happening all around. There are some small cable companies reaching out to the rural too.

Personally I think ftth is the best solution. Reduces maintenance significantly and provides much better service.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

Fairpoint and Frontier have been working to roll out DSL and improve their DSL in rural places.

1. Internet Access is the future...a given.

2. A bean counter needs to see a profit

3. Rural Telcos have been using government funding (via phone tax, grants and/or low interest loans).

In my area, a local rural telco went into cable business, and has fiber truck lines which passes "cable TV channels" to various cities. But, they are "conservative" on customers' Mbps pipe size, 10 Mbps max, even with fiber.

So across US, if item two is not true, it ain't going to happen. Where higher density rural populations exist, other solutions like WiMax WISPs are possible. Years ago, there was some free federal monies for setting up these...and I think in recent two years also.

DSL works around cities, not in rural locations. Where a housing "colony" exist in a rural location, it is possible for DSL...but not in sparsely density areas.

Those internet connections cost money...and pricing depends upon your location.

And in my area, AT&T has a foothold. When local rural telco installed fiber near your location, it was possible to get it if you had permission from AT&T. In most all cases, AT&T said no...even though AT&T has stated to Capital Hill it wants out of land-line service. And out here, AT&T is not going to lay fiber, period.


krenn

join:2006-08-23
Somerset, PA
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

With all that, it sounds like your not very rural at all. There is no push for any of what you described here. No DSL, no cable, no wimax, nothing. While I'm glad you can get what you can, a lot of us still can't. And there won't be anytime soon. It's either overpriced sat or overpriced 3g/4g service with ridiculous caps.



TonyKZ1

join:2010-04-08
Marble Hill, MO

said by krenn:

With all that, it sounds like your not very rural at all. There is no push for any of what you described here. No DSL, no cable, no wimax, nothing. While I'm glad you can get what you can, a lot of us still can't. And there won't be anytime soon. It's either overpriced sat or overpriced 3g/4g service with ridiculous caps.

That's the same where I'm at too. As you said, "there's nothing available but overpriced sat or overpriced 3g/4g service with ridiculous caps. I could even stand the caps, but still can't afford the service. Then my co-workers that live in town, talk about their 10-30Mbs+ internet connections with no caps and how cheap it is...
Tony

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to krenn

Well I happen to live in a state where there are dozens of cooperatives and independent telcos serving the majority of the state. Many of them feel that all there members must have service, one way or another.

I live on a rural gravel road, surrounded by fields on all sides, yet as of last week I have decent internet for the first time ever.


DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

independent telcos

Telcos have turfs in most all, if not all states. So, when a different telco installs fiber across the road from your driveway, if your telco does not give permission to leave....tough luck...SUFFER!

Congress and state legislators have not addressed this issue of telcos' "turf-rights" when fiber is being laid within a stone's throw from your driveway when you are with another telco.

As I've noted before, I'm within several miles of two rural telcos who have installed fiber. And one of them could have run fiber to four different homes on same roadway...but I'm with AT&T, who protects their turf, even when they want to get out of land-line business.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

At&t has no authority at stopping a company from overbuilding fiber in their territory unless your state has some strong anti-competitive laws. They can make life difficult for CLEC/Overbuilders, but they can't stop a company from deploying ftth. Fiber is not considered a telco service. There are some laws they must circumvent, such as subsidiary requirements, but completely doable.

My state remains #1 for rural ftth deployments. Woo hoo!

»www.bbpmag.com/Features/0312feat···lcos.php


DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by silbaco:

At&t has no authority at stopping a company from overbuilding fiber in their territory,,,

When television stations were erected, these owners got "turf rights," that's why you are not allowed to watch via cable/dbs non-local stations. Very common practice...have you noticed you can't get Canadian broadcasts down here?

From your cite:

"In most states, they must form CLEC subsidiaries to move outside their traditional service areas, but they are classified here as ILECs even if their fiber-to-the-home networks are only in their CLEC areas."

What the economic angles of the dangles for being a "CLEC" is unknown by me, but rest assured, my local telco is not; he requires the AT&T permission.

Also: WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW

1. As noted in previous years, larger telcos are more likely to deploy FTTH only in new developments; smaller telcos are more likely to replace their aging copper plant with fiber or to overbuild nearby areas.

Translation - Smaller telcos have been replacing around their cities, but few have reached out to us county folks.

2. The great majority of independent telcos that build fiber networks are incumbent providers or subsidiaries of incumbents.
----Of the independent telcos deploying fiber, 86 percent are incumbent carriers that are either replacing old copper plant with fiber, building fiber to new developments in their service areas or overbuilding towns near their service areas where they have name recognition – or some combination of the three.

With AT&T-BellSouth merger in 2006, they "promised" to deliver rural folks internet; here's what happened:

Many Rural AT&T Customers Still Lack High-Speed Internet Despite Merger Promise

Posted: 11/18/2012
...
...
...
That promise carried the day. The Federal Communications Commission allowed the two companies to merge on the condition that AT&T offer broadband Internet to every customer in its territory by the end of 2007.
...
...
...
They can choose between a satellite connection, which they say is more expensive and less reliable than wired Internet. If they can’t afford satellite, they are stuck with dial-up, which most Americans replaced years ago with Internet speeds that are more than 20 times faster

»www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1···508.html

viasatguy
Premium
join:2002-06-11
Carlsbad, CA
reply to silbaco

Providers still need some incentive (usually $$$) to get the fiber to your house ignoring any local competition issues.

There are a lot of estimates for costs per household and per mile out there, but from the same bbpmag source I found a link for modeling the cost per household served: »bbpmag.com/2011mags/marchapril11···iber.pdf

The cost could range from a few thousand dollars if the fiber is right along your street to several tens of thousands if it is a mile away or more.

Hard to make that model work for a rural area miles off the main route with a small number of houses to serve, each with a monthly service fee of tens of dollars per month.

So without universal service fund subsidies to help offset the cost it is understandable why some providers may pass an area by.


DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

said by viasatguy:

So without universal service fund subsidies

I'm not current, but FCC wanted to reduce these funds, which is what these rural telcos are using to finance their fiber deployment.

WASHINGTON (January 18, 2012)

Rural Telecom Associations Weigh In On Universal Service Reform in Response to Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Urge FCC to turn focus from cutting and reducing Universal Service Fund support for small carrier networks to adoption of a plan that will enable comparable and sustainable broadband access nationwide

»www.ntca.org/current-press-relea···ing.html

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to DrStrangLov

At&t is a crappy company. I don't doubt that people in their service area who can't get DSL now, never will. But not every company is that way.

A lot of money also comes from the rural utility service which is a division of the USDA. But the money does have to be paid back.