Satellite Providers Once Again Promising To Suck Less Carriers still hyping boosted capacity of new satellites... We've mentioned how satellite broadband is the Rodney Dangerfield of broadband connectivity, given the ridiculously low caps, high prices, and slow speeds. With the satellite industry pushing for broadband stimulus funds, they're heavily hyping next year's launch of ViaSat 1, which Viasat insists will have more capacity than all current commercial satellites combined. The NY Times is running yet another in a number of articles where satellite providers insist they're finally getting ready to not suck: WildBlue’s alone will have 10 times the capacity of its three current satellites combined. Such behemoths, the companies say, will enable them, at prices similar to what they now charge, to provide Internet service at speeds many times faster than they now offer — as fast, in some cases, as fiber connections. Further, the companies argue, satellites can provide service more easily and cheaply per subscriber than their earthbound cable and phone company competitors, particularly to the 14 million to 24 million Americans who live in areas without broadband service. Most satellite customers will have to see this kind of satellite broadband Utopia to believe it. Satellite providers have been making these kind of over-the-horizon promises for the better part of a decade, but limited capacity and their pesky inability to defeat basic physics have left them as little more than marginal providers. Viasat purchased WildBlue in 2009, and says that they're planning to " reposition WildBlue as a higher-end service," as in, one that can actually deliver the speeds they promise. That might be a good place to start.
|
  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Latency Unless they can get around that pesky speed of light, latency is always going to kill them. | |
|  | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Latency Not necessarily. 22,500 miles x 4 is still only about half a second. If they can get traffic management back down to non-obscene levels then a sat connection won't be so sucktastic, with pings all over the place (700-2500ms). | |
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Latency said by iansltx:Not necessarily. 22,500 miles x 4 is still only about half a second. A 500ms ping is horrible, and completely useless for many applications. | |
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Latency Self-correction: It looks like O3b Networks satellites are medium earth orbit and have a round-trip latency of 125ms, which isn't nearly as bad, but is still useless for gaming and very frustrating for VoIP or video-conferencing. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| Re: Latency Again, have you tried a RELIABLE connection with 125ms latency and LOW JITTER? I hate satellites as much as anyone else, however 125ms is comparable to many cellular connections, over which I've done a video call or two before with a fair amount of success. Same thing with VoIP; I've held a perfectly audible voice conversation on an EvDO connection with 125+ ms of latency. | |
| | | | | | | Would the ground dish need to track the satellites?
If so, how long does it take to switch/track the next satellite? | |
| | | | | TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by vpoko:latency of 125ms, which isn't nearly as bad, but is still useless for gaming and very frustrating for VoIP or video-conferencing. LOL
I've been gaming with pings around to 100-130ms mark for years. Mainly due to the fact that I'm in western Canada and the great majority of game servers are located in eastern USA.
Never really had a problem with it. It's always been super smooth.
Packet loss and jitter is what really kills gaming and voip. On a rock steady connection 100ms is no big deal at all. | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Have you used a low-jitter, 500ms-ping connection? Sure, you can't do FPS over it, but even stuff like VoIP will work, provided the connection is reasonably jitter-free. | |
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
1 edit | Re: Latency said by iansltx:Have you used a low-jitter, 500ms-ping connection? Sure, you can't do FPS over it, but even stuff like VoIP will work, provided the connection is reasonably jitter-free. I agree VoIP will work, but it's annoying to have a conversation with a half second delay. To me, this will never be as viable as terrestrial broadband, though probably useful for people too far out to get anything else. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Latency I agree that the sat companies are giving themselves too much credit; only the most poorlyrun, oversubscribed-like-there's-no-tomorrow ISPs would even begin to compare to the quality of service (or lack thereof) that is commonplace with satellite. | |
|
| | | | | 500 ms is bad, but not THAT bad. VOIP and gaming are pretty much out. But a decent internet experience is possible. | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| They orbit 29,500 miles above the equator. We live several thousand miles from there. So, it's more like 30k x 2. Best case, that's over 300ms station-to-station, one way. That kind of latency plays havoc with a lot of stuff. And is infinitely annoying for any interactive session (like ssh or games.) | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Latency Have you used high-quality satellite comms? Neither have I, however I hear that latency isn't as bad of an issue on higher-grade systems. SSH, yeah, not so fun. Same with games. However you have to realize that you and I, who game and use SSH, aren't the majority of the population, and neither of us are even heavy enough users to go out and buy a T1 if we had to pick between that, sat or dialup.
Also, my friend Pythagoras says you're a bit liberal with your distance estimates. | |
| | | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Latency said by iansltx:Have you used high-quality satellite comms? Depends on your definition of "high quality", but yes, I have used satellite connectivity before. And I will repeat my lifelong stance... if you have any. other. option. don't use satellite internet.
Also, my friend Pythagoras says you're a bit liberal with your distance estimates. Yes, yes I am. (it's a bit more complicated... distance between two points on concentric spheres.) | |
|
| sparek
join:2002-06-10
Elizabethtown, KY | For rural areas where there is no DSL and no Cable, then those users have very little choice when it comes to broadband Internet.
Maybe a cellular based connection, but again that's going to set you back $60.
Whoever is the first to offer a 768kbps - 1mbps connection for about $30/mo (cellular networks or satellite) would likely get a lot of new customers.
I know of several rural area families that would love to have broadband Internet, but they aren't willing to pay $60/mo for it. Perhaps $30/mo. For those individuals they are currently using dialup. Latency is not going to be a big problem for those users, because all they've ever known is dialup which has slow speed and latency.
Now, to try to market satellite Internet where DSL and Cable Internet is available, that would be foolish in my opinion. | |
| | | | | | | sparek
join:2002-06-10
Elizabethtown, KY | Re: Latency This may be true and you may have a point in that maybe they should expect to pay a higher price. I still think $60/mo is a bit absurd, but that's just my opinion.
I'm just speaking from the experiences I have had with people that live in nearby rural areas. They have been stuck on dialup for years, they are used to pay about $20/mo for a dialup account. And really, a lot of them have learned to live without the Internet.
When you are stuck on dialup for so long, you tend to find other meaningful things in life. I often hear comments about advertisements on TV or news related interests where watchers are told to visit a website for more information. These rural people know that they can't get to those websites or that it will take too long to navigate through all of it (bloated Flash and images). They would like to have a faster Internet. I think some of them would be willing to pay a little more than the $20/mo they are paying now. But $60/mo is too much for these people. Is $60/mo unreasonable? Maybe not. I just think if the satellite companies (or cell companies) would lower their prices and increase their caps (lower the throughput speed if you have to) they would see more customers.
These rural people don't care about latency. Yes, satellite is horrible for anything that requires real-time navigation, gaming, VOIP, etc. But the large majority of these rural folks, they just want to be able to browse msnbc.com or lowes.com without it taking a day and a half.
I have used dialup before. I was brought up with dialup. And I still get to experience dialup every once in a while. It's horrible. Now for those of you that have had satellite before and claim that it is horrible, have you used dialup recently? Have you tried to visit any webpage while on dialup?
I've never used satellite Internet before, so I can't speak to it, but given its current price and the stories I have heard, if you have any other broadband options available to you, you should avoid satellite. But for the people that have no other broadband option, I think satellite could be an answer for them, if the price was more competitive.
For the record, I do live in a rural area, but I am lucky enough to have DSL. It is a very slow DSL, 768kbps, but it suits me just fine. I can visit a website and it loads up almost instantly. Going to these websites on a local dialup providers takes at least 5 minutes for the main page to load. Not to mention, that you then have to navigate your way to the area that you want to see. Yes, faster speeds are nice, but just giving everyone universal access to a 768kbps Internet service would be great and is really what I would like to see adopted. I don't know how cellular sites and satellite protocols work, but common math tells you that if you provide slower speeds you can handle more users. A 1mbps link can handle only 1 user with speeds of 1mbps, but can handle 2 users at 512kbps. Lower the minimum speeds so that these avenues can handle more people. | |
| | | | | |
| | Lasers! Lasers move FTL duh, I mean why don't they upgrade to the thick blue lasers, i hear they are 1.2x faster than red. | |
| | | | Re: Lasers! said by FTLFTW :
Lasers move FTL duh, I mean why don't they upgrade to the thick blue lasers, i hear they are 1.2x faster than red.
What? has anyone told Einstein? | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Government bailouts and "higher end service" "Higher end service" might also mean that WB is going to move their pricing up to...uh...compete with HughesNet, which starts at $60 per month rather than $50 (WB's starting price).
Both WB and HN got funding in the most recent ARRA broadband handout. The cost per potential subscriber was on the order of several hundred dollars, nearly as much as Windstream's FTTN grants. Something tells me that satellite broadband isn't nearly as efficient as these operators would like it to seem.
Sure, a 10 Gbps satellite could hold a LOT of customers bef...oh wait, HughesNet has that already with Spaceway 3 if I remember correctly...and their usage caps are still quite low (500MB per day, 2-6am free period excepted, unless you pay $180 per month for a 2M down, 500K up business plan with a 1.25GB daily cap). ViaSat may remedy this a bit, and I wouldn't be surprised to see 10 Mbps down satellite packages showing up in a few years. That said, these would probably have a 50GB monthly cap, 500 kbps of upload speed and cost $100 per month. | |
| | | Hughes Slurps up Fed Broadband Funds I see that Hughes got awarded $60 million of the government broadband funding!
A good example of a small company that needs the help.
I'm sure that they'll put it to good use helping get Internet speeds up .
I thought that the feds had raised the definition of "broadband" from little better than dial-up to something like 4Mbs? Hughes service doesn't meet that test...
The right political contributions get paid back. | |
| | | why do they need to improve. they have the market since no one else will even try to install service to these areas. hell after ike a lot of people had no choice if they wanted interent since time warner decided it would be too costly to reinstall lines.
road runner can bite my ass..
--
calling a illegal alien undocumented is like calling a drug dealer a undocumented pharmacist | |
| NyNexit
join:2009-11-01
Huntington, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| another thought I'll bet the folks living in middle america with a slow DSL and dial-up connection will jump at this if it ever makes it to market even if the latency is a pesky second or two.
**
We spend billions spent on web infrastructure....all so we can watch YouTube and go shopping. We can't fix our schools, or cure a disease but ... we've got......well crap.
** | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | FAP Until satellite can lose this, they'll never be taken as a viable alternative. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: FAP Yep even if they didn't have latency issues. Paying more for less isn't going to cut it. I know Hughesnet does have fap free times but they are from 2 AM -7 AM EST. That's a joke. That FAP free time should be no shorter than 8 hours. A cap of 5-7 GB for $50 a month is a joke. That's mobile internet levels. | |
|
 ansarSearch for HighSpeed
join:2004-12-10
Utica, MS | WildBlue used to be ok... WildBlue used to have 700ms pings and that was fine, even for my wife. But they intentionally upped it to barely usable delays. We dropped them after that. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
