dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
ViaSat 1 Satellite Gets Launch Date
After Three Delays Satellite Gets October 19 Launch
by Karl Bode 12:16PM Monday Oct 10 2011
Slow speeds, low caps and high prices have long made satellite the Rodney Dangerfield of broadband connectivity, though ViaSat has been promising that their new ViaSat-1 satellite will change all that. While the launch should provide more capacity, that capacity will likely go toward signing up more subscribers to companies like WildBlue -- who have had to turn away customers due to capacity limits. The new satellite might deliver slightly faster overall speeds, but obviously can't do a whole lot about latency, and likely won't result in more reasonable daily usage caps (dubbed "fair access policies" by carriers).

Click for full size
Unfortunately, the launch of ViaSat-1 was recently delayed for the third time. However, ViaSat reached out to us to note that the launch now has been officially scheduled for October 19 at 11:48 am. The company notes that the launch can be seen through a webcast on the ILS mission page here, or the ViaSat update page found here.

"The high-capacity Ka-band spot beam satellite has planned coverage over North America and Hawaii, enabling a variety of new, high-speed broadband services for WildBlue in the U.S. and Xplornet in Canada," a company spokesperson tells Broadband Reports.

"With a capacity estimated at 140 Gbps, ViaSat-1 will become the highest capacity satellite in the world once it is safely on orbit." As we noted, that capacity will likely be used to finally add more customers -- not to ease usage limits for existing customers. Still, the faster speeds will be a welcome addition to those struck out of range of other broadband options -- even if users will need to pay a premium for it.

The satellite will be launched from the historic Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on October 19, and the fueling of the ViaSat-1 spacecraft was completed back on October 3.

view:
topics flat nest 

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 recommendation

Not Broadband.

Its a shame in a country with so much wealth people have to resort to substandard internet access.

The USF alone could have criss crossed this country with so much access it would be coming out our noses, but because it was a government program the money just evaporated into CEO bonuses and other upper management "expenses"
jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3

Re: Not Broadband.

said by DataRiker:

The USF alone could have criss crossed this country with so much access it would be coming out our noses, but because it was a government program the money just evaporated into CEO bonuses and other upper management expenses"

Yep... very sad but true.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by DataRiker:

Its a shame in a country with so much wealth people have to resort to substandard internet access.

The USF alone could have criss crossed this country with so much access it would be coming out our noses, but because it was a government program the money just evaporated into CEO bonuses and other upper management "expenses"

Seriously. How many billions a year does the USF constitute? For how many years now? 15? Jeez the corruption just makes your head spin.

excvcsales

@tmodns.net

inflight wifi

This is going to be the same satellite that JetBlue is going to be using for their inflight WiFi.
ShellMMG

join:2009-04-16
Grass Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

NOT broadband. Period.

hey can take their ViaSat-1 satellite and stuff it up their collective...

As a former Wildblue customer, I was regularly abused by their FAP. I had 25% of my cap cut but my price sure as he77 stayed the same. And then they upped the latency to over 1100ms!

Satellite is NOT broadband, no matter how they market it towards the underserved and desperate. And, of course, they'll oversell those beams, too.
innoman
-
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1

Re: NOT broadband. Period.

It can be broadband, it just can't be High Speed Internet. There might be a broader pipe of bandwidth, you just can't use much or quickly.

Is that 11:18GMT?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: NOT broadband. Period.

said by innoman:

It can be broadband, it just can't be High Speed Internet.

Why not?
innoman
-
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
Reviews:
·VoicePulse

Re: NOT broadband. Period.

It's not very fast... It's not any faster than dial-up really if you measure speed in latency. You can get more through at a time because you have broader bandwidth though.

Really it's all semantics anyway.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by ShellMMG:

Satellite is NOT broadband, no matter how they market it towards the underserved and desperate.

I'm guessing that if you're underserved or desperate you might disagree.

dMarks
Melting Faces For Fun
Premium
join:2007-02-09
Jackson, MI

Re: NOT broadband. Period.

said by openbox9:

said by ShellMMG:

Satellite is NOT broadband, no matter how they market it towards the underserved and desperate.

I'm guessing that if you're underserved or desperate you might disagree.

I was in that boat before, and tried satellite. Went back to dial-up because it worked much better*. Sorry, but satellite simply sucks. That was my experience, and I'm quite sure I'm not alone in that.

*Note: that's not to say that satellite wasn't faster...on occasion it actually was. Not not often enough.
--
Windows 7 64 Professional|AMD Phenom II x4 965 BE (OCed 4.3GHz)|Asus M3N72-D Motherboard|4GB Patriot PC2-8500 1066MHz RAM|EVGA GeForce GTS 250 1GB Ram Superclock Edition x2|Corsair CMPSU 650HX 650w Modular|Lian Li Lancool PC-K62 Case

fish1000

@army.mil
I am underserved and desperate and I totally agree. Satellite is slightly better than dial up, but is not broadband by any stretch.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
They didnt purposely take your latency to over 1100ms, that is called congestion.
Satellite would be great if they did not oversell it and had no caps.
I would get it right now to get away from ATT if they had no caps an offered at least 3 meg actual down. I could care less about latency.
HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:6

Re: NOT broadband. Period.

said by Oh_No:

Satellite would be great if they did not oversell it and had no caps.

Despite what the scientists at CERN observed recently with the speed of neutrinos, for all practical purposes geostationary satellites will be limited by the speed of light. At 22,500 miles each way, your signal will inherently have a minimum of 250ms of unidirectional latency. That could hardly be considered "great".
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

Sircolby45

join:2005-11-26
said by Oh_No:

They didnt purposely take your latency to over 1100ms, that is called congestion.
Satellite would be great if they did not oversell it and had no caps.
I would get it right now to get away from ATT if they had no caps an offered at least 3 meg actual down. I could care less about latency.

Actually yes they did. I went from 500-600ms pings to 1100-3000ms pings overnight when I had Wildblue. They put in a traffic shaping policy that caused the high latency.(Modified version of DAMA) So yes they did purposely take that latency over 1100ms. As if normal satellite latency wasn't enough already.

"I could care less about latency."

I don't think you understand the effect latency has on performance. A 256k bottom of the line DSL connection will load a page before that 3mb satellite connection would. It would be finished before satellite gets started. Don't even get me started on SSL secured pages. I am not exaggerating when I say dial-up loads SSL faster than satellite.
--
[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

Murphy

@ccc.de

What happened to the fleet of 90-mile-high satellites?

Wasn't it Bill Gates who wanted to have fleet of satellites in polar orbit 90 miles high?

The idea was to get rid of the delay that you have with geosynchronous satellites and make it possible to have workable voip and internet as well as TV.

Before one satellite faded out, another one would come over the horizon and its signal seamlessly captured. That was the idea, anyway.

Even if the East West footprint for one fleet of satellites was relatively narrow, the North South footprint would be very long. I can see one fleet covering the East coast of the US, as well as a swath of Ontario, not to mention chunks of Mexico and South America. And not to forget the other side of the world.

So what went wrong?
mikefxu

join:2004-10-05
Titusville, FL

Re: What happened to the fleet of 90-mile-high satellites?

said by Murphy :

Wasn't it Bill Gates who wanted to have fleet of satellites in polar orbit 90 miles high?

The idea was to get rid of the delay that you have with geosynchronous satellites and make it possible to have workable voip and internet as well as TV.

Before one satellite faded out, another one would come over the horizon and its signal seamlessly captured. That was the idea, anyway.

Even if the East West footprint for one fleet of satellites was relatively narrow, the North South footprint would be very long. I can see one fleet covering the East coast of the US, as well as a swath of Ontario, not to mention chunks of Mexico and South America. And not to forget the other side of the world.

So what went wrong?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Speed

140 gbps is actually a very large amount of bandwidth. They could give 140,000 customers a dedicated 1 mbps line.

Of course latency is the real issue.