dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed
« Hi.
This is a sub-selection from why not

slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit
reply to amungus

Re: why not

They are working at providing internet service to rural areas.
According to the guidelines set forth.
"The major goals of Universal Service as mandated by the 1996 Act are as follows:

To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,
To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,
To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas,
To increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities,
To provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to the fund supporting universal service programs." (stolen from wikipedia).

Satellite internet falls under a few if not all of these provisions set forth. Why should just big telco be the only ones getting part of the pie, its clear which service can and does provide service consistently to the rural areas. ( the service might not be super fast but who knows maybe if some fluff money gets thrown their way it can get better or more innovative).


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by slckusr:

To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,

A total fail on all counts of this requirement. The service is overpriced, crappy, and not always available (FAP comes to mind). Now if introductory satellite was offered at $10/month and compete with dial-up, then that might actually be reasonable.

slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Charter
said by Thaler:

said by slckusr:

To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,

A total fail on all counts of this requirement. The service is overpriced, crappy, and not always available (FAP comes to mind). Now if introductory satellite was offered at $10/month and compete with dial-up, then that might actually be reasonable.

But whats the one internet service that doesnt completely ignore the rural folks, you know the people who are supposed to be benefiting from this fee. No internet is perfect ( weather affects my 3g too). Satellite was always for people too far from the cable company(until recent times) and most of those people who were too far from cable lived in the rural areas.

"To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas," hughsnet was offering internet for 59.99 a month, Att charges me 53.99. so the prices seem pretty comparable.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by slckusr:

"To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas," hughsnet was offering internet for 59.99 a month, Att charges me 53.99. so the prices seem pretty comparable.

Jeez, you're used to getting screwed, aren't you? Out here, introductory DSL (that blows away satellite) is offered at $15-20 a month! I even chip in for a higher rated package at $30 a month. $50 for this quality of service is absurd.

Spice300
Premium
join:2006-01-10
reply to slckusr
said by slckusr:

"The major goals of Universal Service as mandated by the 1996 Act are as follows:

To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,
To increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation,
To advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas,
To increase access to telecommunications and advanced services in schools, libraries and rural health care facilities,

Whereas Wildblue met most of these goals when it was launched in 2005, it no longer meets any of them. Due to decisions made by management, it is poor quality overpriced garbage worth about $10 / month and with a captive customer base.

Wildblue does not provide access to advanced telecommunication services such as VOIP, P2P, gaming nor streaming video on demand during prime time. Secure HTTP is pathetically slow and sometimes fails during prime time.

A service is not available when it is too expensive for low income households. It is not available when the low usage limit is exceeded nor when pages repeatedly time out during prime time and downloads crash.

Wildblue does not work for online classes due to the low usage limit and its slow speed. Try streaming a video for a class scheduled during prime time. The upload speeds are too slow for uploading streaming video as from a webcam or a video conference call. It is too limited.

For those who think Viasat-1 will solve these problems, think again. Each spot beam can support a limited number of customers due to the finite number of upload time slots. Where there is a popular spot beam, WB packs them full to maximize profit. Where the demand is low, such as the sparsely populated western states, they choke the bandwidth in the gateways (as by reducing the number of servers to save a buck). They artificially doubled the latency from about .6 seconds to about 1.4 seconds when they adopted the DAMA scheduler. Since December 2010 when I download a file during prime time, I observe stepped download speeds. Say I am download at a pathetic 30 kB/s. The speed suddenly drops to 15 kB/s, and if I continue downloading, it usually reaches a minimum of about 5 kB/s (dial-up speed) when page timeouts and partial page loads occur when multitasking, such as loading a page at BBR while downloading a file in another task.

Satellite Internet simply is not broadband and does not deserve one penny from the USF until they permanently clean up their act.
--
Value Pack, beam 31, Riverside gateway


Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:

said by slckusr:

Jeez, you're used to getting screwed, aren't you? Out here, introductory DSL (that blows away satellite) is offered at $15-20 a month! I even chip in for a higher rated package at $30 a month. $50 for this quality of service is absurd.

You don't live in the sticks. I have a few friends on Sat internet and TV because they have no other choice. It is their choice to live out where the buses don't run so I don't feel sorry for them and in fact they are very wealthy.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by Corehhi:

You don't live in the sticks. I have a few friends on Sat internet and TV because they have no other choice. It is their choice to live out where the buses don't run so I don't feel sorry for them and in fact they are very wealthy.

Except I do have family that's forced to operate by satellite, and are in no means wealthy. So yeah, I think they're getting a raw deal being charged 2-3 times broadband rates for 1/10th the service.

viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:

said by slckusr:

To promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,

A total fail on all counts of this requirement. The service is overpriced, crappy, and not always available (FAP comes to mind). ~snip~

Don't forget that whole 'clear view of the southern sky' bit.

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to Thaler
that's 2-3 times TERRESTRIAL broadband rates, that don't provide service to their location.

i suppose you could pay to run fiber to their home then. or even contract a cable company to run some co-ax.

except, i imagine it's cost prohibitive.

satellite internet costs are higher than terrestrial broadband. this is a fact. sending 1gb over a space link costs more than sending 1gb over a dslam. this IS rocket science.

satellite internet doesn't compete directly with terrestrial broadband, but it is certainly reasonably priced from the perspective of someone that isn't within reach of current wire-line infrastructure.

if you can't see that, then perhaps the service isn't for you, but it is certainly for acceptable for a lot of people.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
said by LucasLee:

that's 2-3 times TERRESTRIAL broadband rates, that don't provide service to their location.

But isn't that exactly what the USF is pushing for? Providing equivalent service (price, performance, and availability) for those that live in currently non-serviced areas?

said by LucasLee:

satellite internet costs are higher than terrestrial broadband. this is a fact. sending 1gb over a space link costs more than sending 1gb over a dslam. this IS rocket science.

Nobody's saying that. They're free to gouge their customers as they see fit. They just don't qualify at all for the terms that the USF is written up to provide for.

said by LucasLee:

if you can't see that, then perhaps the service isn't for you, but it is certainly for acceptable for a lot of people.

I have yet to see any satellite customer that's really happy with their service. Everyone I've met on WildBlue or HugesNet give the same story: "It's better than dial-up, but as soon as (insert DSL or cable provider name here) gets service to us, they are so f***ing gone." Satellite internet seems about as "acceptable" as paying taxes - they *need* the service, but there's just no other alternative.


Chuck kCAR

@teksavvy.com
reply to Spice300
Sounds a lot like what broadband internet is like in Canada.