 amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | why not With ViaSat-1 launch coming soon, at least they can justify paying off some of that as opposed to much of the funding being "slushed" around by other companies...
From what I've read, the new satellite will provide speeds that don't suck. | |
|
 |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: why not said by amungus:From what I've read, the new satellite will provide speeds that don't suck. They've been saying that for years, never happens. Part of the problem is "misery equilibrium." As soon as it improves any, more people pile onto it.
--
The obstruction of our energy infrastructure has led us into being the world's policeman.-Karl Denninger,market-ticker.org | |
|
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: why not True that they've been overpromising for years, but this new satellite may actually deliver... It's supposedly able to handle about 130 Gigabits/sec.
»www.viasat.com/broadband-satelli···viasat-1
If all goes as expected, it seems likely that Wildblue (and whoever else has contracted for bandwidth on this satellite) will actually be able to offer service that works reasonably well (obviously latency will still be high, but throughput would be improved...).
Last I read, it's expected to launch this summer and plans/equipment etc. will be available as soon as this fall... | |
|
| | | MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: why not said by amungus:It's supposedly able to handle about 130 Gigabits/sec. That sounds like a lot until you realize it's only 130,000 1Mb transfers.
--
The obstruction of our energy infrastructure has led us into being the world's policeman.-Karl Denninger,market-ticker.org | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·WildBlue
| said by amungus: (obviously latency will still be high, but throughput would be improved...). Which IMO makes it technically not "High Speed" internet. Sorry but satellite can never be a viable solution because of the latency. Trust me I use it at my parents house and the latency screws up everything.
--
[IMG]»img218.imageshack.us/img218/2636···3dg6.gif
Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit / Core i5 - 760 / GTX 460 1GB / 8GB DDR3 RAM / Vertex 2 120GB SSD | |
|
|  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | As soon as a satellite provider quits being Dial-Up v2.0, then we'll talk about broadband funds. Until then, you'd think charging $50 for a service who only has one real feature (doesn't tie up an existing phone line) shouldn't have a problem turning a profit from a captive audience. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by amungus:From what I've read, the new satellite will provide speeds that don't suck. Speed doesn't matter as long as their caps are as pathetic as mobile broadband's is. | |
|
| slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | 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). | |
|
| | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: why not said by Thaler: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. | |
|
| | | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: why not 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: why not Sounds a lot like what broadband internet is like in Canada. | |
|
| | | Namely, it will always have too high a latency. There is just that whole pesky speed of light thing, that is just unavoidable physics.
You have nearly 600ms of latency (two trips up and down to geosynchronous orbit). Which is effectively unusably "slow" no matter how much bandwidth you have.
Thus geosynchronous Satellite only ONLY makes sense when there are no wires around and no terrestrial wireless around. So if you're out in the Alaskan bush, yeah, it makes sense. But thats about it. | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by amungus:From what I've read, the new satellite will provide speeds that don't suck.
Pointless with FAP!
--
The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Why "reform" that wastes more? Any additional USF funds that go to satellite providers or to Verizon Wireless or AT&T Mobility are IMHO wasted dollars. Satellite internet isn't real broadband and AT&T and Verizon have proven over and over again that they don't care about rural areas. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Lame
| |
|
| | | Re: Lame said by pnh102:Reason number 87318971432890471390781238 to abolish the USF.
LOL  | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Lame All the USF is, is another re-election slush fund for politicians, it should be abolished but that will never happen for this very reason. | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
·Verizon FiOS
| Underserved? How can a satellite provider ask for $$$ to deploy broadband to underserved areas? Can't anyone in the US get satellite service?
The only argument that the satellite companies can make is that the entire country is underserved due to the underwhelming service being provided to everyone. | |
|
| | | Re: Underserved? I couldn't WAIT to get something other than Wildblue. Talk about desperate...satellite ISP is the definition of VERY last resort.
The latency and FAP wasn't too bad when I first subscribed. But then they oversold the beam, lopped 25% off bandwidth (10G down to 7.5G a month rolling average), and made changes that made latency worse -- 1100ms pings, anyone? -- and I'd had enough.
I will never EVER sign a contract with a cap again. I was FAP cop by default and the whole satellite ISP experience left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
Noway, no how should they get tax money. Period. | |
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
| satellite broadband? I thought FCC classified broadband as 4 down 1 up. Satellite cant even offer that. It would be a complete waste to give money to these folks trying to expand a service that can only be expanded so much till youre back in the same spot you were in before.
Give me cable, dsl, fiber or 4G, not satellite. | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: satellite broadband? said by Duramax08:I thought FCC classified broadband as 4 down 1 up. Satellite cant even offer that. Satellite can provide that, and does... AT commerial installations, limited in number and PRICED accordingly, IT can't offer that to everyone with current satellites and the cost of new sats will keep the price out of reach and non competitive in non-rural areas, for really rural areas it may be the ONLY choice and users will have to live with higher prices, lower speeds, and high latentcy.
It is possible to engineer a ADA wheelchair ramp to the top of mount everest... It is impractical and unaffordable to actually build it. | |
|
| | sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR | Re: satellite broadband? I think we should do away with all of the overpriced no service and screw the customers and go with national phone and broadband service by the gov. Seems we are paying for it anyway at least that way we only pay once and might get some decent prices vs speeds.
OH BOY and maybe even no caps. | |
|
| | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: satellite broadband? said by sparks:I think we should do away with all of the overpriced no service and screw the customers and go with national phone and broadband service by the gov.
No problem use eminent domain. Now where is my 400 trillion dollars? The US Constitution demands just compensation when private property is seized for the "public good". You do support and defend the US Constitution do you not?
As for the USF New Jersey gets not one penny yet paid in billions. Whhhaaaaaaa what a joke; it would be funny if it wasn't costing me money and the ability to get fiber to my premise. Excuse me I going to vomit now.
 | |
|
| | | | | | Re: satellite broadband? Your 400 Trillion Dollars was paid for with Tax bene's, USF, preferential, monopolistic laws.. etc. etc. etc. x 400 Trillion dollars!!!!!! AND what was promised was never delivered after all that. Where's the consumers frick'n 400 Trillion dollars worth of service??? Blast people when are we going to get it and realize we are being taken to the cleaners by big biz in cohoots with "OUR?" politicians... It was great to watch 60 minutes and listen to a CEO talk about contact with congress and how easy it is and that his senator calls him! Your constitution was never intended to give BUSINESS the same rights as citizens. For the PEOPLE by the PEOPLE... Declaration of Independance... Maybe it's finally time to take that document out of storage and start living by what it says again. Washington was smart enough to get out of government after a reasonable term. Maybe that's where we should start! | |
|
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: satellite broadband? said by avantwireles:Your 400 Trillion Dollars was paid for with Tax bene's, USF, preferential, monopolistic laws.. etc. etc. etc. x 400 Trillion dollars!!!!!!
Your constitution was never intended to give BUSINESS the same rights as citizens.
Raise your right; do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the "Tele Truth"? BTW how are they doing getting you FTTP? Not quite as good as Google but close.
Who owns these businesses (stock) you want to steel $400 trillion from? Could it be "people"? Go for it, steal from widows and orphans so the great unwashed can have free 100/100 porn in their outhouse. | |
|
| | | | said by tshirt: It is possible to engineer a ADA wheelchair ramp to the top of mount everest... It is impractical and unaffordable to actually build it.
That was awfully cute, but maybe we should focus on wheelchair ramps hobbled by DESIGN, as the neat-o cable cap. Wheelchair ramps with potholes and limited number of trips/day/user to keep the wheelchair racing "abusers" at bay. That might even help e-book piracy by those pesky wheelchair riders, to remember some "Fair and Balanced" commenter a while back that set a record of stupidity defending the cap(s).
I hear some theory that the Egyptians used a sand ramp 2 miles long to build the pyramids, maybe cable HSI might hire a few of those to help. | |
|
| | |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: satellite broadband? how does your obvious hatred of cable caps have anything to do with USF for broadband via sat. systems? His comment about the ramp also had nothing to do with cable just an example of how something is possible but impractical to do. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: satellite broadband? said by Ebolla:how does your obvious hatred of cable caps have anything to do with USF for broadband via sat. systems? His comment about the ramp also had nothing to do with cable just an example of how something is possible but impractical to do.
Because the caps are instituted by most providers, some with more excuses than others. NONE of the providers should get ANY USF funds as long as they engage in collusion agreements and monopolistic behaviour.
PROVIDE THE SERVICE YOU SOLD. Simple.
KEEP THE PAWS AWAY FROM THE FORCED SUBSIDIES THAT DELIVER NO VALUE. | |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | Always said I've always said we need to turn these birds off and have them propel to the moon/sun for the hell of it and to open up the area for more useful things.. I am in no way in hell in favor of usf going to satellite internet.. Its proved time after time again to be too crappy for the price, and heavily capped..
USF if even at all should be used to push fiber to all homes in this country.. After that is done, abolish the fund and allow isp's to lease the areas to provide service... . And no more free cell phones for the illegals!
Uh oh!!!! | |
|
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: Always said said by decifal:And no more free cell phones for the illegals!
You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't pull the mask off the O'll Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Slim...."s profits from the USF.
The richest man in the world knows how to game the system.
It looks like New Jersey is going to have to shovel more slop into the USF to pay Tracphone's Mexican fine. Mexico/New Mexico they all dine at the public trough I fill with every phone bill I pay.
quote:
Carlos Slim’s America Movil Unit Fined A Record $1.03 Billion for alleged monopolistic practices.
| |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Latency Satellite will never work. The latency will always be too high, it's a matter of physics. Let's get to wifi, 4G, or land-based options. Also, without government money, satellite is still there. | |
|
| | so many HD streams allowed but you can only get about a 1.5Mb download with daily caps? they should be able to give you unlimited 5Mb download all day considering a lot of people just leave their boxes on HD channels 24/7. | |
|
|  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: so many HD streams allowed said by nanaki333:but you can only get about a 1.5Mb download with daily caps? they should be able to give you unlimited 5Mb download all day considering a lot of people just leave their boxes on HD channels 24/7.
The tv channels are broadcast so every unique bit is only sent once. The existing internet traffic has to be checked and then resent if it doesn't reach the destination.
They could solve some of this by buffering popular content continuously on the customer hardware like what a dvr does then have the software on the box know to pull the large media from the cache. It's not simple but is possible and would give very fast connections for satellite users. Same thing would work for any sort of ISP but there seems to be a fetish with letting a million people transport the same bits a million times over the same pipe...  (and then bitch about heavy users)
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | | | Re: so many HD streams allowed I won't even comment on all that, multiple things wrong there. | |
|
| | | firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: so many HD streams allowed said by Corehhi:I won't even comment on all that, multiple things wrong there.
Nothing at all wrong, it just doesn't exist yet and the ones providing sat isp service probably don't want to invest in dedicated birds just for internet and not streaming live television.
As the ISP you can see what content is or becomes popular then that content could be broadcast to the customer equipment and if it's what a customer wants it's near instant and if it's not what they want they never know it's there. Storage is cheap and the chance to already have locally what you might want instantly beats any download you have to wait for. Also since this kind of internet recorder is cable of two way communication it can enable itself to buffer particular content based on the customers settings. So instead of having 100 channels of HD video streaming live you get the equivalent bandwidth for internet data to buffer for your future consumption.
All very possible for popular content that isn't wrapped in bs (drm) so good for most people except those getting rich off of duplicate transport of data.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | right i dont get near this like the plague....... simple bad 99 percent of the time | |
|
| | bash satellite... With all the problems using satellite for the internet, I'm thankfull every day for Hughesnet. It beats the hell out of 26.4 dialup any day!
Even with all the stimulus $$$ given away by Obama, people living in the boonies are many years away from getting real broadband. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | USF must die! It has served its purpose. Lets put it to bed. | |
|
1 edit | Hi. Hi. I have satellite for wont of any other options and would really, really prefer any money flung around flung toward alternatives. For those of you who have no idea what satellite is like, here are a few reasons why.
On a daily basis I deal with:
1. Shamefully low bandwidth caps (200MB) that penalize me for a full 24 hour period if I exceed them. Streaming media is a big no no, but I also have to ration my ordinary usage and plan necessary large downloads around a penalty free window that's only active while I'm sleeping.
2. Crazy latency.
3. Peak hours (5 - 11 PM) completely destroying my connection. Even email and browsing text only websites is out of the question.
4. Absurdly high pricing for an unreliable service.
5. Dial-up or below dial-up speeds as a normal baseline for most of the day.
Often I deal with:
1. Not even having a connection for up to half a day due to weather, peak hours or "God only knows."
2. Tech support and assistance from Hughesnet employees, resellers and even other users who have perfected the art of blaming the customer for every problem.
Satellite has a lot of limitations as a technology, but it's that last one that really says it all about satellite providers. Even if the infrastructure were updated, I would not expect to see any improvements in service from these companies.
Anyway, this is why real rural broadband is necessary. This is the only option many of us have, and in many ways it is worse than nothing at all.
P.S. I'm struggling to post this right now and have spent over an hour trying to keep a connection long enough and strong enough to submit some schoolwork. I'm probably going to just give up. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
| My 2 pennies I am currently on Dial up waiting to get my Hughesnet account back up and running.But I thought I would share my 2 cents.
In West Virginia undoubtedly one of the many underprivileged areas that this article talks about,we got screwed by Verizon thanks to the FCC.They let Verizon off the hook on their promise of running fiber to rural areas of this state and now Frontier is left picking up Verizons mess.
Thus leaving us with little choice for providers to even get connected.
With Net Neutrality being discussed left and right and from what I have read in MaximumPC Magazine limitations are to be made somewhat illegal....but they leave out wireless ISP's.I would assume this means Satellite to due to its very nature.
Now for my opinion.Satellite has no business getting any of this money when it could be granted to land based carriers and connect MORE people.
When I am up and running I pay $79.99 a month for a very finicky High Latency,speak to people that are hard to understand,connection.
Give me a land line any day.
--
Heavily Armed and Easily Provoked | |
|
| | Stuck I haven't even considered Satellite Services as an option because they're a trainwreck. What p's me off is that the community i reside in still is without DSL or Cable. We're 260 homes, about 1/2 full time residents, and from recent talks to Verizon and Comcast they dont care about expansino to us. How do i voice a complaint that will get heard? I've gone to local govt, gone to the Maryland Broadband Coop, gone to the broadband map. Do i just give up and pretend its 1996? | |
|
| Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
| Re: Stuck Well if Satellite is the only option other then Dial up and you get below 30kbs on Dial up.I would try Satellite.
The system or tech that Hughes deploys right now is good its the service part that leaves a bit lacking although the tokens and download helper app has helped alot.
But be warned Satellite is not equal to broadband/dsl/cable.It is actually in between Dial up and true DSL.If you can get a Cellphone connection it will be loads better.
--
Heavily Armed and Easily Provoked | |
|
| | | | Re: Stuck Unfortunately my house is at the end of 3g coverage for Verizon, so we can pull down as high as 300kbs at the highest test. I have an AT&T card that gets me roughly the same speed with a 5gb cap. I'd attempt satellite, but i've been told my VPN probably wont work with it, and the contract doesnt interest me since we're still hoping to get some kind of WISP or any other options. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Stuck Try a Booster.3g is cellphone correct?Try a cell booster,up a pole make a reflector.Anything to get better connections. | |
|
|
|
