Wild Blue 18Mbps More Like 10Mbps

I would think the ROI on sat based broadband is not worth it

I can see putting some tax money into Satellite (even though it sucks big time) to help out those in the middle of nowhere who can't get anything else, but only a small portion of the total money going into broadband help.

Satellite sux any way you look at it.

I had them, they suck, a LOT and it is ALWAYS your fault if you have a problem and if you have a wireless router even better(worse for you). I hope they do not get one cent of our money, unless they make their network not suck and if they do not no money for them. Give it to good WISPs and make sure their network can support VoIP(it should be a "must" for any (W)ISP getting our money), or even wired ISPs if they are willing to expand to more rural areas.

But more importantly government money should only be spend on installing fiber to the home. Nothing else is worth the costs. Also satellite isn't even broadband. A one second delay + caps make it useless for anything but web surfing without videos.

I agree 100% NO ISP with a cap should be given any of our money, if they ever do get a cap they MUST pay it ALL back. And if we should be investing in anything fiber is the way to go.

the reason that everyone is looking to fiber as a panacea is simply because it has been in research and development for so long due to its use as a lan media. don't be so quick to count out the coaxial cable as a viable medium. its just that the research needs to follow. docsis 3 is proving to be a very quick way to upgrade speeds using existing infrastructure and modest upgrade fees.

what tends to be forgotten in all of this "fiber talk" is that several muni-ftth deployments have already occured, but are much less stellar (in terms of speed) than the recent ones in louisiana. everyone wants the symmetric 100meg speeds, but fails to realize the cost involved in such a deployment. isps/carriers should be interested in trying to future-proof their plant as best as possible, something that is done inherently with fiber. however, much of the fiber to the node used by the msos is already proofed and as technologies are being developed by motorola and cisco, they can be implemented in the plant and provide for customer expansion. i think the biggest issue lies in the fact that the big push for r&d hasn't come down the pipe until recently. design can only work so fast, and as a result we are seeing pre-standard and partially working bonding on the upstream. now that the push is there, i can safely say that the design should come faster and harder. lets not count out the future of coax.

the issue comes with the isps and not with the media being used.

q.

I know coax is still ok, but in time fiber will be the only thing there is(I think). So why not do it right the first time?

no, in your opinion fiber is the only solution. you are completely unaware of what coax can do. again, you have totally skimmed my post. coax has *a lot* of life left, especially if it is pushed to the 2ghz spectrum.

q.

Fiber is probably the preferred long term goal...But other technologies that can be deployed faster and more cost efficiently would be welcome by all the have nots as well. I don't think fiber should necessarily be the only technology to get a nod.

As for capping there should be stipulations for how ridiculously companies can "manage" their networks.

I think instead of investing in a last ditch solution for broadband more of the traditional forms of broadband (IE wireless, DSL, and cable) should be given some help from the government HOWEVER they must clearly state in order to receive a grant they must start expanding prior to getting the money, that way they can't take the money then sit on their hands.

I agree if we can't kill the wild spending the gov is doing then

at least require they complete a few steps
1. Order new equ in amounts needed to actually deploy to all service areas + 20% of non-current areas (or so much that they need to money to avoid bankruptcy)

2. deploy the new gear to 50% of areas not on the new tech yet

so for Comcast they would need to buy enough CMTS's and Cable modems to deploy to all areas that currently have D2 service plus to 20% of areas that don't have any broadband

then after 5 ISP's take the money then there wouldn't be any area that doesn't have real broadband

also in the set of standards for this real broadband should be described as within 5% of the current maximum speed available from a cunsumer ISP
(Ie CableVision will offer 101Mbit so they would all have to have a 96Mbit tiear available at bare minimum) it would just have to be available

next the 2nd tier from the 95% rule tier should be no less than half the speed of the top tier (ie 95Mbit is top so 47.5Mbit would be 2nd) and the 2nd must have a reasonable price

Well i think that this is ###################

PLEASE TRY AGAIN IN 3 HOURS

And joe six packs think satellite internet is better than cable.

Its "SA-TEL-LITE". "FAP"????? Whats a GB???? Why is my dang computer slow again, must be hackers and viruses.

IMO, it is better.....for TV

Just tv, and radio, but internet is a big fat NO WB is horrid I had it I know. Un-caped wireless is much better.

I don't think they get it that Satellite is pretty much a dead end.

10mbps? Hell, even some of the newer wireless technologies will eat that for lunch.. and if you have wired, jeez. My Cable Modem is faster than that.

Although, WB is a hell of alot better than HughesNet's crap. At least they give you a 17GB chunk instead of 150MB/day max then they drop you to less than dialup speeds. WTF??

I think HughesNet should give up and die off. They have the oldest, shi**iest technology out there. Sure, it was great a decade ago, but sure as hell not now.

Satellite isn't very upgradable either, unless you can get a 100Gbps Uplink to the satellite. Maybe they should try the beta technologies and get the fastest connection period (I heard Tbps speeds somewhere). Then they'll be able to handle the current capacity.

That's where I applaud Verizon's FiOS. Maybe more companies should follow them instead of trying to do newer things with old-as-hell technology (uhm.. DSL). Cable is old, but has the bandwidth to handle the traffic. The twisted pair? I'm surprised it's still being used.

What's the bandwidth of a single unshielded twisted pair again?

Alltel Axcess came through for me last year and I was finally able to hang my WB satellite in the garage.

Don't get me wrong -- they were much better than dialup. Compared to many users I had reliable service, a great install (Thank you, Waldron) and in 2+ years only had to have the dish repointed once. It was the 7.5GB FAP/cap that made me bang my head into the wall. When I signed the contract it started with 10G, but then they lopped 25% off all tiers and did NOT reduce the price. With two teenagers in the house plus a husband who's an adjunct professor, keeping below the cap and watching the FAP-O-Meter was a full time job for me. The nag list included, "pick up your socks, put your glass in the dishwasher, unplug the modem before you go to bed and NO You Tube until next week!"

If Uncle Sam really wants to help out we in rural areas they need to develop wifi, WiMax and encourage new technology rather than kill us with caps. Alltel is working out fine at the moment but when our unlimited contract expires in 18 months I'm going to be left to the mercy of Verizon. If they stick me with a 5G cap I'm in trouble.

Satellite is a joke! IMHO, it is far cheaper and easier to expand either cable, fiber, wireless, etc. in to any area. By the time Wildblue would launch the higher speed tiers, they would still be slow compared to terrestrial-based internet. If they were to offer 10mbps today, it would still only be average compared to usual speeds AND you have the unavoidable 2000ms latency.

I would rather have dialup =/

In other words, look elsewhere -- not at satellite.

cable tv is joke next to satellite tv.

Yes, but internet is the other way.

Satellite is a joke, but often is the only alternative for people who can't get any other broadband.

And thanks to the "screw the farmers" people who oppose rural broadband, satellite is a necessary evil.

I don't believe anyone opposes faster rural broadband, or wants to "screw the farmers". We just don't want to subsidize it with federal tax money. If you and yours aren't willing to pay a market rate to attract a terrestrial service provider (or build your own coop), satellite is a cost-effective choice.

Every time the subject of rural broadband comes up here, people here do indeed say that. Usually it's accompanied by stereotypical characterizations of rural residents as inbred bumpkins who wouldn't know how to use a PC, even if they have one. It's finished up with cries of "move, if you want it that bad".Yea, the anti-rural types always make the leap we're requesting tax subsidies, rather than just plain availability. It an old technique - distort an issue in order to demonize it, and thus make it easier to oppose.I'd love to pay a market rate. Well-regarded DSL "guru" and reporter Dave Burstein did an analysis in his last publication; he estimates the investment cost to deploy DSL from a fiber-cost remote cabinet to be $300 *maximum*. Fine, so to who in Verizon do I send my check? Heck, I'll send them twice that; they can make a little profit right off the bat, even before they start collecting monthly fees. But in my neighborhood, Verizon doesn't want to cannabolize their crappy, 5GB cap'd wireless service, so they refuse to install the DSL line cards.Since the ILECs got the FCC to drop line sharing several years ago, and they lobby state legislatures to prohibit local broadband, that's exremely difficult, if not impossible.

Anything that gets pings like I posted below needs to become extinct! Satellite IS NOT a viable technology. They are pretty much useless for anything but web browsing and even then it is painfully slow. If somebody is going to get money to cover rural areas it needs to be wireless companies or something capable of delivering some decent latency.

Also don't even get me started on the customer service for this company and Hughesnet. I have never felt less important to a company than Wildblue. They know that they are your only option and it shows. Oh your speeds are a tenth of what is advertised? Well I'm sorry that is within our acceptable limits so there is nothing we can do. What your latency is 4 times higher than it should be? *shrug*

Pinging google.com [209.85.171.100] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=1444ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2091ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2083ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2125ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2075ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=1679ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=1609ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2080ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=2106ms TTL=233
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=1623ms TTL=233

Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1444ms, Maximum = 2125ms, Average = 1891ms

Pinging 209.85.171.100 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=244
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=244
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=244
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=108ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 106ms, Maximum = 109ms, Average = 107ms

I win . The connection above is not my connection. It is my parents internet connection. I have the good stuff.

Pinging 209.85.171.100 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=240
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=240
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=88ms TTL=240
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=89ms TTL=240

Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 88ms, Maximum = 89ms, Average = 88ms

PING 209.85.171.100 (209.85.171.100): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.85.171.100: icmp_seq=0 ttl=244 time=13.667 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.171.100: icmp_seq=1 ttl=244 time=13.803 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.171.100: icmp_seq=2 ttl=244 time=13.018 ms
64 bytes from 209.85.171.100: icmp_seq=3 ttl=244 time=14.344 ms

--- 209.85.171.100 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 13.018/13.708/14.344/0.472 ms

I win.. :--
Xenophase - British Columbia's premier online gaming community.

Depends on where you're pinging. =p

Pinging testmy.net [74.54.226.166] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.54.226.166: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.54.226.166: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.54.226.166: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=52
Reply from 74.54.226.166: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=52

Ping statistics for 74.54.226.166:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

I miss my 9ms ping to yahoo.com when I was on SBC's original dsl service years ago.... uverse has some added ping time.

those a re some pretty good ping times up above, I wish we could get fiber, or dsl or cable for that matter.
We have WB and it is really slow. Online gaming is almost impossible. I try to play Killzone 2 on my PS3 and it's ridiculous. Im trying to unlock all of the classes for offline play, and in doing so i ruin a lot of matches, lol. From when i shoot someone to when they actually die is about a second or two, not lol.
What is the average ping for a stadard dsl line? Or the connections found in most college dorms?

Those are not satellite connections are they? 88ms on a satellite?

Sure we can all post our pings :P

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7000]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\user>ping youtube.com

Pinging youtube.com [208.117.236.69] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 208.117.236.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=244
Reply from 208.117.236.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=244
Reply from 208.117.236.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=244
Reply from 208.117.236.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 208.117.236.69:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 24ms, Maximum = 24ms, Average = 24ms

No 88ms is not physically possible on satellite. 480ms how long it takes light to travel without factoring in various delays. I am pinging from a fiber connection.

Absolutely horrible company. I strongly suggest no one use this service...even if your in the boonies (which is their targeted demographic). Check the Consumer Protection Agency's website and do a search...you'll see what I mean.
Hit their FAP in under a month of service. Was charged an exorbitant amount for terrible connection (to them it was always the weather). Absolutely rude costumer service. Honestly, I'm surprised their still in business. Wouldn't recommend this company to an enemy lest I be charged with tortue...lol.

I feel your pain dude, I had WB, they told me nothing of a cap when I singed up, and every time I called it was bad weather(on a bright sunny day?!?!?!) if it was ok weather it was my router OR there was bad weather in Canada(WTF?!@?!?) and Canada was only after we unplugged our router.

Thankfully now I am on an un-caped WISP, and I love it.

The technology that Wildblue (viasat) is pushing removes one hop over the satellite compared to what is currently in existence in the US. US marines in Japan report that WINDS ( the japanese system) is currently faster than anything we have on the ground in the US.

Do a little research and you will find that the technology behind Viasat is an order of magnitude better than existing satellite technology

as a VERY unhappy previous wildblue customer, I will do everything I can to keep OUR tax dollars going to this undeserving, out-of-date, worthless, fraudulent, service/company. Wildblue and satellite Internet shouldn't be considered broadband.. With the speeds they currently offer they aren't.. And yes they may offer speeds (up to 18 Mbps) but you'll probably be getting more like 5.. Based on the speeds i was getting. If the Government is spending our tax money then we should get a voice in which technology it's spent on. If you're trying to provide broadband to everyone then it should be broadband that's worth having. Something that people could actually play online gaming on. Which would in-turn help sell more video games, creating more jobs, etc.. Also you may even have more businesses opening in rural areas..

The satellite internet companies are seeing their end is near.. With High speed Broadband coming to rural areas with low pings they are done for.. And I'm all to happy.. I have so many stories I could tell you how wildblue screwed me over, but I just don't have the time.. I'm a proud comcast subscriber now (that I moved) and i'll only live where I can get HIGH SPEED INTERNET from now on..

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\efulton>ping google

Pinging google.MDOT.STATE.MS.US [10.1.1.212] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 10.1.1.212: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.1.1.212: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.1.1.212: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=63
Reply from 10.1.1.212: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=63

Ping statistics for 10.1.1.212:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

Pinging the proxy in Wildblue's Riverside Gateway using a Wildblue system while all other tasks in my computer are idle:

ping -n 20 -w 8000 12.213.224.60

Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1105ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1123ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1226ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1166ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1147ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1087ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1122ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1193ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1078ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1138ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1084ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1107ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1112ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1124ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1139ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1147ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1115ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=2421ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1144ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 12.213.224.60:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1078ms, Maximum = 2421ms, Average = 1194ms

The following pings were collected while loading cnn.com in another task. Notice the latency is as low as 582 ms under this condition.

ping -n 20 -w 8000 12.213.224.60

Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1291ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1119ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1152ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1118ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1186ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=2567ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1183ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=609ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1977ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1331ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=582ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=787ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1036ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1127ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1168ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=720ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1042ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1041ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1101ms TTL=58
Reply from 12.213.224.60: bytes=32 time=1110ms TTL=58

Ping statistics for 12.213.224.60:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 582ms, Maximum = 2567ms, Average = 1162ms

When the DAMA scheduler was implemented in November 2006, the latency reported by pings increased from about 600 ms to 1,200 ms.

Due to a minimum latency of about .5 seconds, geostationary satellite systems will always be slow for real time applications and protocols that require a lot of handshaking, such as secure HTTP. Assertions that it is no good for uploading, download and streaming are completely false. After the transfer is initially set up, the latency is irrelevant. If Wildblue does not pack too many customers onto a spot beam, the system uploads and download near the advertised speeds. My spot beam has never been overloaded.