LTE vs Satellite That they're offering a 25 GB tier bodes well for those hoping for a more reasonable home based broadband LTE cap. With 25 GB you can watch the occasional netflix movie.
Re: LTE vs Satellite
said by biochemistry:Bullshit their old $80 plan offered 17 GB download and 5 GB upload. New $80 offers 15 GB TOTAL. That's a downgrade. $130 plan should be 50 GB minimum.
That they're offering a 25 GB tier bodes well for those hoping for a more reasonable home based broadband LTE cap. With 25 GB you can watch the occasional netflix movie.
Yes let's pay $8 a month for netlfix for the "occasional" movie.
·AT&T DSL Service
Re: LTE vs Satellite Agree.
Latency issues are obvious. Don't think anyone really debates that part of it. Try as they may, physics are physics.
The bigger issue is the cap. If there is little to no 3G, which already has low caps, and wired service is nowhere, this leaves satellite.
I hoped they'd increase, not decrease the allocations. If this were my only choice, I'd feel pretty let down. Surely they could up this to somewhere around DSL level caps (50-150GB/mo.) without too much trouble, at least overnight during "off-peak" hours.
Re: LTE vs Satellite if LTE were available where I am that would make sense...but it ain't. I am only 2 miles too far for anything. Yes it is a little rural but I am only 10 miles out from a fairly decent size community...just happen to be in a broadband hole. I hate the caps but this is still better than dial-up. I'll keep my eye on it and see how it goes. You city folks with your highspeed just don't understand how frustrating it is to be left out. I'll take the latency and deal with it...I don't plan on wasting my life playing games anyway.
Re: LTE vs Satellite I've been there, done that. Was on dialup, followed by a WISP, followed by 1.5/384 DSL at my parents' house. I've used WB's lowest-end plan. I know where you're at and feel your pain...
Kansas City, MO
advanced web acceleration Let's hope it's not a harddrive doing a web-cache physically located in the satellite... that would be an expensive repair call when the drive failed
Re: advanced web acceleration I'll take that job. "What the hell took you so long to replace that hard drive?"
| |said by dib22:Any kind of web caching is bound to be unsecure, and have issues. I would rather my bank page gets rendered on my computer than some strangers computer and then forwarded to me. Honestly, web accelerators are crap, just look at how many are having issues with Kindles WA, and how much cloudflare sucks.
Let's hope it's not a harddrive doing a web-cache physically located in the satellite... that would be an expensive repair call when the drive failed
Good and Bad Seems like a good option for those who want faster speed and only have existing sat services available. Bad for the low caps. Plus I imagine the web acceleration involves automatically downloading content to your computer behind the scenes which will no doubt eat up that cap a lot faster.
Lasers! Beam your data to you, faster, with our new "Star Wars" technology (patent pending)!
Customers like our speed and power! Take Mr Organa and his data speed increase on the planet Alderaan. "It happened to fast, like a million downloads, all at once----"
Ofcourse, we aren't responsible if your planet blows up! That is HOW good our Laser is!
| |baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
Sterling Heights, MI
Whats with odd brand spellings? Exede? Xfinity? Axess? Cmon.
More data please More details would be nice. Signup/install fees, trial period, early termination fees, etc.
It's also strange if you look at their coverage map that they chose to use the new 12Mbps beams over the eastern part of the country - just where they face the most competition from cable and DSL.
The western US is stuck with 5Mbps service.
Re: More data please True... On second thought, it looks like the higher speeds are going to areas where the subscriber density is higher.
Not Serious about competing w. landline broadband With those caps, they are obviously not positioning this to compete with landline broadband. So they are sticking with their strategy of targetting customers who are not served by landline. This probably makes sense, since no matter what they do they can't overcome their latency disadvantage. OTOH, LTE is a potential competitor, and the caps are "LTE-like" caps. I seems obvious that they view LTE as The Competition.
Feels Like Fiber? What marketing genius coined this? Although technical types can probably discern the right euphemism, typical satellite consumers might wonder how digestive regularity is connected with Internet service.
| |MoracCat godReviews:
Re: Feels Like Fiber? With pings times in the seconds (yes seconds), there's no way this can feel like fiber. Physically it's impossible since the signals for satellites travel very large distances.
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
Modem They should bundle a modem/router/proxy device that caches the content most viewed by the user. This way it seems faster than it really is. Though this wouldn't help for everything it would indeed help the latency aspect and keep bandwidth to a minimum.
Just as I thought. Their caps STILL suck.
There is nothing reality-based about 7.5GB usage. NOTHING. If anything, the cap becomes all the more noticeable and brutal, especially if you have kids who do more than just homework online.
The screws tighten. They've hooked up a firehose to fill a bucket.
caps These caps could be manageable if they had a fap free time during off peak hours
| |BasilAR WildBlue
$$$$ There is a sucker born every minute.
They'll sucker in the gullible, lock them in the two year contract and collect the money.
Beam 35 - value
Re: caps I wonder if they could put a proxy in the satellite. The way I understand it - right now the land based gateway handles everything. Even a 64GB SSD up there to cache Facebook would would for a lot of their users (and that would be nice if cached content was exempt from the cap)
said by bn1221:any kind of HDD or SSD in space, when it fails, is an issue. What happens if one fails? also, this satellite could implode under the strain they are gonna run it thru. Dont be surprised if the satellite has issues withing a year.
I wonder if they could put a proxy in the satellite. The way I understand it - right now the land based gateway handles everything. Even a 64GB SSD up there to cache Facebook would would for a lot of their users (and that would be nice if cached content was exempt from the cap)
said by Chubbysumo:Exactly. Which is why commercial sat payloads are kept as simple as possible. Essentially a bent pipe with no onboard processing.
any kind of HDD or SSD in space, when it fails, is an issue. What happens if one fails?
said by Chubbysumo:I'm sure you were joking, but for everyone else, there is no way to overload the sat.
also, this satellite could implode under the strain they are gonna run it thru. Dont be surprised if the satellite has issues withing a year.
Their FAP is crap Being one of those on WB now, without an alternative, this new service was so over-hyped. Their sales videos talk about being an alternative to DSL, downloading Netflix's etc. The speeds are better but at the same price the bandwidth allocations are lower. You also, now get to rent the modem for an additional $10/month. Installation will run around $150 and you sign a 2 year contract. So WB/Viasat still remains the choice of last resort.
Bon Aqua, TN
FB Fail Boat
Viasat Well just shoot it out of the sky because its worthless. Are satellite companies this retarded? I would rather have 3G service thru AT&T. Oh and ping forget about using satellite for any real 2012 YES 2012 common household reason.......when will the FCC grow balls and start making the right decisions. Must be a bunch of Democrats!!!
Bon Aqua, TN
said by 05678973:FCC isn't allowed to grow balls to question this sorta activity being the lobbyist have all the power. #1 problem with the industry and with this country if you ask me..
Well just shoot it out of the sky because its worthless. Are satellite companies this retarded? I would rather have 3G service thru AT&T. Oh and ping forget about using satellite for any real 2012 YES 2012 common household reason.......when will the FCC grow balls and start making the right decisions. Must be a bunch of Democrats!!!
Pure Disappointment Coming from a current HughesNet user, the 15GB/mo cap that we also deal with is horrendous! That's a mere 525Mb/day (and when I say day I mean literally a 24hr period!). There is virtually NOTHING I can do when usage caps are calculated on a per day quota...my playstation 3 game updates can't even download without the throttling kicking in and reducing the downstream to dial-up speeds! Makes doing anything impossible. And forget about 3G for the same cap issue (which in my area is also BARELY existent), LTE isn't offered here, and even with the 3G (my androids mobile hotspot picks up the satellites slack most days) my local service's signal strength combined with the type of NAT used makes two way communication almost impossible...Combine it all together and you have two services, both of which cost over $100/mo each, that simply cannot get the job done as well as the SLOWEST dsl landline that's available for $20/mo!!!
When will these satellite providers realize that if the consumer already has to deal with latency that makes two way communication practically impossible (no online gaming, barely works for Netflix, and think again if you think you're skype'ing anyone!) eliminating the possibility of using today's latest and most popular internet applications that they simply CANNOT be MORE expensive than a superior service!?!?!?!? If they want any real segment of the broadband (can you even consider 15GB/mo "broadband"????) market then they need to be CHEAPER than FiOS and have usage caps that are REALISTIC and EXCEED that of 3/4G wireless services...Otherwise, the only market share they will get are the poor schmucks like myself who's only other option is dial-up! Dial-up actually doesn't sound that bad when you consider the MUCH lower latency...at least online gaming can function...and for $10/mo where's the line get drawn? This is long winded but lets compare a moment:
Sat: $100+/month, no gaming, no skype, no netflix, ridiculous usage cap
Dial-up: $10/month, BARELY gaming (so that's better), no skype, no netflix, NO usage cap
So unless all you like to do is email and surf the web really quickly it would seem that dial-up is the smarter choice....you could consider bittorrent and just download your movies and music (because you should DEFINITELY have to BREAK THE LAW WHEN YOU PAY OVER A HUNDRED A MONTH JUST TO SEE THAT EPIDOSDE OF LOST!), but lets face it, with 525MB/day, you're not even doing much of THAT!
So I wrote a novel to express one point, one word, and everyone already knows it: PATHETIC....WORTHLESS...(ok, that's two words!)
I suggest everyone takes the months of Feb thru June and BOYCOTTS the satellite companies because of their FAP's....Maybe if ALL of their subscribers DIDN'T PAY THEM A DIME UNTIL THEY REMOVED THEIR RIDICULOUS FAPS they might get the point that their customers are TIRED OF BEING ANALY RAPED FOR A SERVICE THAT DOESN'T DO WHAT IS ADVERTISED!!!
| | I currently use Wildblue with the 512kbps plan. A proposed jump to 12mpbs for the same price sounds great to me, and if VoIP mostly works - it's better then not working at all for me now. I know some of you have issues with the bandwidth cap, but I'm currently living with it, and i'm looking forward to a connection that is quicker.
Looking forward to this
I'm using satellite service because I don't have any other option. This move by viasat makes it slightly less painful. Overall I'm happy with the trade - I have the joy of living outside the city with 40 acres to call my own and beautiful sunsets and mountains to look at. The internet isn't everything, but it is a very useful tool when it works.