dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7025
share rss forum feed


BasilAR
WildBlue

join:2006-07-20
Parks, AR

[Exede] $9.99/GB if you want more




At this rate one Netflix movie will run you about $30!
--
WildBlue - Beam 35 - value

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
Almost the same as Verizon at $10/GB for LTE. Not as good as Millenicom at $3/GB for 3G. It will be interesting to see what Hughesnet does for data pricing after they get the new high capacity satellite operational.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
said by davidhoffman:

Almost the same as Verizon at $10/GB for LTE

Does one have to pay for state/local taxes in those states without internet taxes?

DrStrangLov

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

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to DrStrangLov
For Georgia I see no taxes for the data modem I have. There is a $0.08 Verizon fee, so the total monthly charge for a data plan has that added to it. I guess that makes it a $0.016/GB fee, so data is actually $10.016/GB. Or it could be that Verizon just tacks on a 0.133% fee to every data only plans total cost. That for me would be 0.133% x $59.99/month=$0.08.

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
reply to BasilAR
Hughesnet has stated they are committed to their FAP free download zone. That certainly is better than a $9.99/GB deal any day of the week.

marsh_0x

join:2006-04-25
Tomahawk, WI
reply to BasilAR
I don't get it why to expect satellite for that reason of heavy BW downloads.
Netflix is $8 monthly via snail mail, isn't that logical ?

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
Some people might be able to afford Netflix using satellite internet service. They might be able to get the movie faster than waiting for regular postal service delivery in the remote parts of the country. These same people might have a $200,000 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 to get to work faster than their coworkers. People with lots of money can do interesting things the rest of us cannot afford.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to OldSatUser
said by OldSatUser:

Hughesnet has stated they are committed to their FAP free download zone.

Latest stats I could find...

In the first half of 2009, the median broadband user
consumed almost 2 gigabytes of data per month, whereas
the average (mean) user consumed over 9 gigabytes
per month.

Mean usage is driven by a small set of users who consume
large amounts of data.

»download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc- ··· ance.pdf

Hence, for typical users, having a download zone in the wee hours of the AM morning is an irrelevant matter.

For "power users," by all means, use Hughes.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to BasilAR
Interestingly, the 2 GB median does not state that it is limited to broadband. It apparently includes people on dial-up, making the 2 GB median inaccurate since users on dial-up would be hard pressed to use more than 2GB. The statistics are also 3 years old, making them extremely inaccurate.

In the age of Microsoft updates taking sometimes hundreds of MB alone every month, plus monthly software updates on things like browsers, charging $10 per GB is ridiculous. Especially when you figure that Viasat-1 is supposed to have a maximum capacity of 140gbps. There is no shortage of bandwidth. Especially not at off-peak times.

Right from Viasat's website regarding Viasat-1:
"In-orbit costs per Gbyte only a fraction of even the newest satellites in orbit."

Exede may have been designed by engineers, but the low caps prove they have the mindset of the CEOs of Wildblue. HughesNet has the perfect opportunity to crush Exede or change the industry like never before. I hope they take it.

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
I too hope Hughesnet won't make the mistakes that Viasat has made this year. I would love to tell Viasat what they can do with Exede and their low set data plans

With respect to movies via snail mail vs. the internet, I have no problem with snail mail. Unfortunately, more and more video content is via internet only...and DVD's are not being created.

Streaming video content is the way of the future. Of course, Exede's data plans are set to 2001 levels

DrStrangLov

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

Interestingly, the 2 GB median does not state that it is limited to broadband. It apparently includes people on dial-up

Report's Tittle: BROADBAND PERFORMANCE

BROADBAND - "Prior to the invention of home broadband, dial-up internet was the only means by which one could download songs, movies, e-mails," etc »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

Conclusion - Your assumption (dialup) assumes broadband means dialup, which is false.

Exede may have been designed by engineers, but the low caps prove they have the mindset of the CEOs of Wildblue. HughesNet has the perfect opportunity to crush Exede or change the industry like never before.

In case one has not followed historical aspects, its Hughes who is "catching up," and its Hughes who is changing its old tight wad behavior. Hughes is following ViaSat. Keep in mind, they still have customers on Spaceway 3 and leased transponders, so don't expect wonderful new offers on Gen IV....cause they ain't going to have economic incentives for the "cattle" to stampede from Spaceway 3 to Gen IV. And we know that Hughes execs have a track record for "stuffing" the beams

PS: All satellites are designed by engineers.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
said by DrStrangLov:

Report's Tittle: BROADBAND PERFORMANCE

BROADBAND - "Prior to the invention of home broadband, dial-up internet was the only means by which one could download songs, movies, e-mails," etc »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

Conclusion - Your assumption (dialup) assumes broadband means dialup, which is false.

Yes. Yet it clearly details comparing dial-up in the report on numerous occasions. In fact the very chart right above where you gathered this info includes dial-up. So unless it states dial-up is excluded or specifically states broadband, it isn't. And the report is still several years old. Usage has no doubt sky-rocketed with the explosive growth of services like Netflix, Hulu, HBO-GO, Spotify, etc.

Even this report states that connections with speeds in excess of 10mbps, users will use an average of 12GB per month. That means that Exede's bottom tier does not meet even the 2009 usage average. Bring that into 2012 terms and Exede's second tier no doubt suffers the fate as their first tier and the third is probably living dangerously. That makes Exede both expensive and incapable of meeting modern demand without charging excessive overages.

said by DrStrangLov:

In case one has not followed historical aspects, its Hughes who is "catching up," and its Hughes who is changing its old tight wad behavior. Hughes is following ViaSat. Keep in mind, they still have customers on Spaceway 3 and leased transponders, so don't expect wonderful new offers on Gen IV....cause they ain't going to have economic incentives for the "cattle" to stampede from Spaceway 3 to Gen IV. And we know that Hughes execs have a track record for "stuffing" the beams

HughesNet offered speeds higher than Wildblue and allowed for greater bandwidth usage. I would say that put them further ahead for quite a while. Exede may have beat them to the launch of a new satellite, but someone had to be first. Being first actually puts Exede at a disadvantage. It allows for their competitor to see their flaws. Clear was first to 4G and look how they have ended up.

Exede plans to stuff roughly 1 million users onto Viasat-1. I do not see how that is any better than HughesNet.

said by DrStrangLov:

PS: All satellites are designed by engineers.

Yes, but Exede is not a satellite. Your attempted slam has no relevance to this conversation.

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
said by silbaco:

That makes Exede both expensive and incapable of meeting modern demand without charging excessive overages.

I could not have said it better myself!

DrStrangLov

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

So unless it states dial-up is excluded or specifically states broadband, it isn't.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...
...
This paper is organized into three sections. The first section
examines how residential consumers use their broadband service
and classifies consumers into four distinct broadband use
profiles.

See: Exhibit 9:

Actual Download Speed Demands (Mbps) by Different Content and Application Types

PS: Broadband - The cable modem was the first broadband option available... »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

Even this report states that connections with speeds in excess of 10mbps, users will use an average of 12GB per month.

"At the prevailing growth rates discussed below,
consumers on average could use close to
..."

Two big assumptions...

HughesNet offered speeds higher than Wildblue and allowed for greater bandwidth usage. I would say that put them further ahead for quite a while.

Oh, with that beam stuffing on Spaceway 3, they have "higher speeds" during primetime?

PS: Hughes used leased transponders...Wildblue came out with a dedicated satellite, then Hughes came out with their bird. Then ViaSat bought Wildblue, and came out with ViaSat-1...then Hughes got a clone of ViaSat-1.

Exede plans to stuff roughly 1 million users onto Viasat-1.

Would you like to point to a valid reference?

Spice300
Premium
join:2006-01-10
Exede claimed that Viasat-1 can support 1.5 million customers. I estimate it can support 500,000 customers. Then there is the issue of whether Exede can find 500,000 people who want to spend money on their sorry, overpriced service.
--
Wildblue Value Pack, beam 31, Riverside gateway

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
said by Spice300:

Exede claimed that Viasat-1 can support 1.5 million customers.

At what speeds was that based?

I've seen old estimates at:

1.5 million total subscribers on one satellite (compared to 500,000 on
WildBlue-1)

Two million total subscribers on one satellite (compared to 500,000 on WildBlue-1)

***************

But, I have seen new estimates at around 650,000 users

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
reply to Spice300
Spice300... "Then there is the issue of whether Exede can find 500,000 people who want to spend money on their sorry, overpriced service."

I am betting no they can't. For people that do their homework, they will know better alternatives are coming.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...
...
This paper is organized into three sections. The first section
examines how residential consumers use their broadband service
and classifies consumers into four distinct broadband use
profiles.

See: Exhibit 9:

Actual Download Speed Demands (Mbps) by Different Content and Application Types

PS: Broadband - The cable modem was the first broadband option available... »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband

The executive summary has little to do with this conversation. It has to do with the overall study, yet the study includes sections with dial-up data. That would mean the executive summary conflicts with the actual report. Although this should be of no surprise coming from the FCC.

Exhibit 9 has nothing to do with this conversation. No one is questioning the bandwidth these services can provide. What matters is the actual usage the services provide and the ridiculously priced $10 per GB.

Whether or not the cable modem was first is again irrelevant to this conversation. However, according the old definition of broadband, I am pretty sure BISDN came out years before the cable modem.

said by DrStrangLov:

"At the prevailing growth rates discussed below,
consumers on average could use close to
..."

Two big assumptions...

I don't get it. What are the two big assumptions?

said by DrStrangLov:

Oh, with that beam stuffing on Spaceway 3, they have "higher speeds" during primetime?

PS: Hughes used leased transponders...Wildblue came out with a dedicated satellite, then Hughes came out with their bird. Then ViaSat bought Wildblue, and came out with ViaSat-1...then Hughes got a clone of ViaSat-1.

I do not think any satellite service up until now has provided their advertised speeds during primetime. I know WildBlue sure did not.

I do not remember Anik F2 being a "dedicated" Wildblue satellite when Wildblue launched.

said by DrStrangLov:

Would you like to point to a valid reference?

Sure thing! Right from Viasat's website:

ViaSat-1 to offer 12 Mbps download service packages to approximately 1 million subscribers

»www.viasat.com/broadband-satelli ··· viasat-1

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
said by silbaco:

The executive summary has little to do with this conversation.

Dialup is not broadband, period! Sorry, but on this point, one has bit the dust.

Re: Two big assumptions...

I don't get it. What are the two big assumptions?

1. prevailing growth rates discussed below

2. consumers on average could use close to

Note - Sorry, but streaming media like Netflix does not count for satellite users; hence, higher usage data would assume today that Netflix usage would be counted. Thus, more skewed data that's not relevant on satellite. Just ask any typical Hughes user what happens when Netflix is streamed in HD; as in, you can't see it all.

I do not remember Anik F2 being a "dedicated" Wildblue satellite when Wildblue launched.

Check out the lease terms....WB and Telesat are "buddies" when Anik-F2 launched...partners.

Sure thing! Right from Viasat's website:

Uh...that's PR...Public Relations....from an engineer's viewpoint

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
said by DrStrangLov:

Dialup is not broadband, period! Sorry, but on this point, one has bit the dust.

I never said it was.

said by DrStrangLov:

Note - Sorry, but streaming media like Netflix does not count for satellite users; hence, higher usage data would assume today that Netflix usage would be counted. Thus, more skewed data that's not relevant on satellite. Just ask any typical Hughes user what happens when Netflix is streamed in HD; as in, you can't see it all.

Sure it counts. The fact that satellite services cap so heavily that users can hardly use it does not make the data using it to calculate the "average" data consumed per month irrelevant to satellite services. You do not need to use HD to watch Netflix. It is just a nice bonus. A bonus that Exede will barely let their users enjoy. HughesNet's new customers will be able to enjoy it though. They may end up only being able to enjoy it during the unlimited period, but that is 5 more hours per day they will have the luxury. Or they will be able to do their downloads during the free period and use their daily usage for Netflix. Exede customers won't be able to do this.

said by DrStrangLov:

Check out the lease terms....WB and Telesat are "buddies" when Anik-F2 launched...partners.

Does not matter if they are buddies or not. They do not own Anik-F2, making them no better than HughesNet.

said by DrStrangLov:

Uh...that's PR...Public Relations....from an engineer's viewpoint

Irrelevant.

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
reply to BasilAR
There are some posters on here not worth the time of reading or responding to. I just use the ignore feature of the forum (which works quite well I might add).

I feel sorry for all those Exede users that will now have their data caps enforced, stuck for 2 years, AND then have to pay $9.99 to get "unfapped". I am sure the marketing geniuses think that will be a great way to make more money on the service. That is, if people continue to buy the service.

DrStrangLov

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

Re: Streaming

Sure it counts.

Very few Exede folks will experience it during normal viewing hours...not a relevant data point for satellite user data usage. Of course, even fewer Hughes folks will experience it, and maybe none for a HD movie during normal viewing hours, for most all folks.

Statistics must be based in reality, not a person's fantasy.

They do not own Anik-F2, making them no better than HughesNet.

Well now, Telesat does not "own" ViaSat-1...much ado about nothing. Wildblue entered into a long term agreement...have you noticed many beams are in US territory...not a coincidence.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to OldSatUser
said by OldSatUser:

There are some posters on here not worth the time of reading or responding to. I just use the ignore feature of the forum (which works quite well I might add).

I feel sorry for all those Exede users that will now have their data caps enforced, stuck for 2 years, AND then have to pay $9.99 to get "unfapped". I am sure the marketing geniuses think that will be a great way to make more money on the service. That is, if people continue to buy the service.

I never knew that feature existed. I rarely post, but I do a lot of reading. That could come in handy. Thanks for the tip.

The part that bothers me is the fact that people are already paying a lot of money for Exede. Now they have to pay these steep per GB costs as well. I actually think Exede is a good product. The performance is impressive and it has great potential. But it doesn't matter if people can't afford to use it.

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
You just click on a poster's name and hit the "ignore" option. Then all of his or her posts are screened out for you!

I agree Exede has potential. I would have already upgraded but because of the price/package levels no way. I think it is ridiculous what they are charging for it. I also think to let people use it unlimited at first was definitely unfair. Get people "hooked" on it with no cap, then slam the cap down and now they are stuck. I think Viasat did this intentionally too....despite their "claims" otherwise.

Just remember, you can have the best product in the world but if it is marketed wrong or isn't properly priced...it will go nowhere.

As of today Exede has to deal with Verizon 4G in some parts of the country. If there is a successful launch of Echostar 17 later today, Exede's competition will get a LOT tougher and I am hoping Hughesnet will deliver a product that will have the price/performance level that people need and deserve.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
said by OldSatUser:

Y

I would have already upgraded but because of the price/package levels no way. .... I am hoping Hughesnet will deliver a product that will have the price/performance level that people need and deserve.

Hughes has traditionally cost more...so good luck, its never been cheaper on satellite until Wildblue came along. Without Wildblue, Hughes would have raised/raised the prices.

As of today Exede has to deal with Verizon 4G in some parts of the country

Hint - Those people who could receive 3G might be able to receive 4G in the next year or two...since they install towers where they think the money is...but like 3 G getting overcrowded, so will 4G.


dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
usa
kudos:5
said by DrStrangLov:

Without Wildblue, Hughes would have raised/raised the prices.

A piece of conjecture on your part that you will have difficulty backing up.

DrStrangLov

join:2012-03-28
kudos:1
said by dbirdman:

A piece of conjecture on your part that you will have difficulty backing up.

Simple economics:

1. Transponder rates go up with time

2. Corp CEOs and employees want more money with time

3. Expenses rise with time.

That's what Ka band is all about...bringing down the costs. Spaceway 3 and ViaSat-1 have similiar build out costs, but ViaSat-1 brings about more bang for the buck invested.

Wildblue/ViaSat has been an "incentive" for Hughes to change...


dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
usa
kudos:5
said by DrStrangLov:

Wildblue/ViaSat has been an "incentive" for Hughes to change...

Hughes has been in operation more than twice as long as WB. Surely you must be able to find evidence of some pattern of behavior that "changed" when WB came along? No? Hmmm.
--
Motosat self-pointing dishes: 1.2-meter XF-3 on 93W, .74 meter G74 on 127W, SL-5 HD DirecTV|idirect 3100|Hughes HN7000S|Verizon UMW190 Air Card|1990 Blue Bird Wanderlodge Bus "Blue Thunder"|Author of hnFAP-Alert, PC-OPI and DSSatTool

OldSatUser

join:2012-05-10
Fresno, OH
I was one of the first Hughesnet customers (Direcpc at the time...back in the mid to late 90's I would say). There was no such thing as a FAP or "CAP" in the beginning...lol.

The old Direcpc one way worked great. In fact, in some respects it worked better than the two-way systems. For instance, you only had one-way latency back then.

Not sure when Wildblue/Viasat came along...but I know they were not "first to the party".