| |antdudeA Matrix AntPremium,VIPReviews:
·Time Warner Cable
said by FFH5:Unless they can get WISP? said by not :
Sat's inherently slow latency will always make satellite ISP service horrible. No one in their right mind should be using it.
It is better than dial-up unless playing online games or VOIP services.
said by clarknova156:"So the whole "dial up" comparison is just as out dated as bringing it up each time someone mentions sat internet."
Most people can at least get some 3G cell service now where they live. If you live somewhere that you just can't get anything , then why the hell did you move out there?
The people I know who aren't all over the internet and were born into situations where it just wasn't something they could get easily don't really care if they have it or not. So the whole "dial up" comparison is just as out dated as bringing it up each time someone mentions sat internet.
The majority of the country will end up getting internet thanks to LTE type networks anyway. Far cheaper than last mile fiber and much faster than the horrible latency of sat.
I know someone on here who keeps saying basically the exact same thing about cable when complaining about cable (Charter in particular) and their stupid current practices. He's always trying to tell people to leave. As if everyone in the country has multiple options for anything faster than dial up.
For some people, this could be the best thing in the world, especially if it's not as ridiculously priced as Hughes or Wildblue crap!
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonk ··· amonkey/
In the future... In the future, if Dish does follow through with the broadband plans and/or wireless provider plans, anyone think Karl will admit he was wrong ?
Re: In the future... Of course he won't admit he was wrong...
| Not a chance. Then again there won't be any evidence because any posts that prove it will be deleted for either being off topic or trolling. Just like this and probably your post will be deleted for pointing it out.|
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
Re: In the future... The key word is rumored
| You guys are being really kind to me, thanks. Note (as link above notes) I'm not alone in wondering if Dish's LTE build is a bluff, but don't bother actually reading what I write or the stories I link to -- just crap on me for fun. I really like how you don't actually say anything of substance about the actual subject (Dish LTE build), you just take a giant commentary crap on the author for no reason.|
Anyway, this is off topic. Locking it just in case some people want to oh, actually discuss the story.
Also, as a reminder, we're paying people to write their own stories. Since mine are clearly so unpalatable to you, and you clearly have vast insights into these issues, I'll be eagerly looking for your submissions.
Re: Great... it's satellite broadband that caters to rural customers... what would you really expect from that?
Re: Anyone understand physics of the electromagnetic spectrum?
said by PastTense:I think that's a bit of an overblown estimate, at least if the connections were actually being used concurrently.
I don't see how you can handle 2 million 5 Mbps connections off of one satellite. Could someone explain the physics of this?
Any comments on what kind of caps this service will have?
Unfortunately, I'm guessing (as there hasn't been an official announcement on them) it will be around Exede which is still pretty disappointing for the price point / latency.
Even if they do have all the "extra capacity" I imagine they're going to cap it aggressively.
Exede plans range from 7.5GB ($50)-25GB($130) Monthly; I imagine the prices and caps will be similar.
Historically Hughes plans have been daily (Tallying up to around the same ranges of data), but it might change with the new service.
Re: devils in the details.. Dish's boradband is going to be yet another option for folks who don't have wireline or fixed wireless options. Sat companies know they can't go after folks who have full-on low-latency broadband connectivity.
No cellular service In addition to having no other options for internet than satellite, we also can't get cellular service with a mile of where we live so we're almost stone-age without the satellite service.
The basic Hughesnet package works good for us compared to dial-up. Others have had major problems with it. We may be scraping snow off the dish in the Winter time, but we'll see how it works in a few more months.
Pricing is key I've said it before, the problem with satellite broadband marketing plans is that they are marketing it towards the wrong people. They need to market it towards the rural areas, where wired-broadband is not an option. Where I live, there are several areas that don't have access to any wired broadband options. No cable. No DSL. Most places do have cellular coverage, and cellular broadband is an option, but it's what? $60 a month for 3GB of data?
The majority of these people in these rural areas could care less about the download speed of their connection. These are people that are on dialup Internet connection and get, at best, 40kbps connections. As such, they've never used the Internet for a whole lot, so their monthly bandwidth needs are low as well. But when they are paying $15 or $20 a month for a dialup connection, they're not going to pay $60 a month just to get faster speeds.
Market this satellite broadband as an alternative to dialup. Set the max speed to 1mbps or even 512kbps if you really want to be conservative. Hey! It's still faster than dialup! A monthly bandwidth allotment of 10GB should be enough for most users. But the price is the selling point. $40 a month is what I'd like to see. Really I'd like to see $30 a month, but that's probably wishful thinking. I think satellite providers could get a lot of dialup customers, if they set their prices accordingly and don't focus so much on the download speed. Dialup users just want something that's "faster than dialup". Latency also isn't an issue because these are dialup users.