Satellite Internet

[montge]

Quick qeustion, we're moving to a new house (new to us that is) and we're considering options for Internet Connetion/Phone Etc. Basic deal is I think we're to far for DSL, cable exists in the area but is $45+ a month (They probably add a surcharge for not having cable TV.) The other two options I have are Satellite or a Fractional T1 or SDSL/IDSL. My company is picking up the tab because there is no local office.

Problem with Satellite is the delay, however here's my question, if I consider it satellite internet, and as the new Ka-band satellite internet is a year off probably, who is the best company to co-exist with dish network. I realize that I will need a second two-way dish, however I way to make a upgrade easy in the future.

Right now I'm leaning towards the business class DSL or Fractional T1 (or cable if necessary.) As then I can use Vonage for VoIP service.

[Mike123abc]

If you have options other than satellite I would go with them. VoIP would be nearly impossible over satellite given the delays.

Cable modem is very popular and yes probably 55+/month without cable. But, it is the fastest local connection usually for the price.

You should check your phone for DSL. They are getting DSL out a lot further now. They put in neighborhood boxes (kind of like cable) and fiber back to the main office to get around the distant problems. DSL was not available in my area until a couple months ago when they finished putting in a local box. I still went with cable because it gives (in my area) 3mbit/sec down 384k/sec up for $55 (without cable), to get the same with DSL (if it were available at my house at this speed but it is not) would be $150/month.

[ats7627]

I will 2nd Mike's opinion. Satellite internet would be my last choice. We sell satellite internet service, and my first question to prospective customers is, "Is cable or DSL service available in your area?". The cost of the service and the delay, not to mention the fact that VPN service is only available at dial-up speeds or is not supported at all, just make cable or DSL service the way to go. We have a satellite internet demo system at work and we subscribe to cable. Enough said!

[Richard King]

As a dealer for Starband, I would 3rd the above comments. Starband works great in the proper application, but if you have access to another high speed service (DSL or cable) that would be the better way to go. I ONLY install it if nothing else is available to the customer. Posted using Starband.

[Chris Freeland]

Since your company's paying for it, I would go the Fractional T1 rout myself. :us:

[rocco]

Repeat after me, satellite internet bad!!!

Unless you are rolling in dough (big bucks), I would strongly discourage you from internet via satellite. I just cancelled Direcway after six months. Their fee was $40 per month + ISP charges or 49 per month with ISP included or 59.99 per month for their two way system. Undoubtedly the system would be down/sluggish at least 2-3 times per month. Their tech support is located in some third world country where they will make fun of you and speak very poor English. With the consumer edition, your bandwith will be non-existent once you download 169 megs within a 8 hour period. The software is loaded with bugs.

If after reading all of this you are willing to choose this instead of the generally more reliable cable, then check out ebay as I currently have my DRS system listed on their.

[jrjcd]

if you want to use sat internet, give me your address so i can send you a hammer that you can exclusively use to whack your right foot with... :rolling: :grin: :thats:

[bkanneg]

I suggest you see if there are any fixed wireless ISPs in your area. I live in the country and there is no cable or DSL available. I connect to the internet through a wireless ISP. I had to put an antenna on my roof in order to connect, but it is great. I get up to a 1.3 mbps connection and probably average about 900 kbps.

[abospaum]

Sometimes there are other local choices that you may not be so instantly aware of.

Neither the cable or phone companies in our area offer broadband. A local satellite installation company though that did have a good high speed connection was offering a new service.

I admit I don't know exactly how it works. You need to have line of sight of his radio tower (100ft tall) and then you can get high speed internet through them.

Its a decent deal. I can't say how well it works because I don't have line of sight to him. One of my co-workers said that his connection is as fast as our LAN at work.

[montge]

Thanks for the input.

The wireless ISP is looking tempting, as I live on top of a hill, and probably could service a few hundred homes in the area, however only problem would likely be that there are a lot of trees in the area.

Off topic kind of: Anyone know of any good online sources that could help me out with a site survey?

thanks,

evan

[Mike Richardson]

Don't automatically assume cable internet will be horridly expensive for Dishers. We pay $42 for Cable modem, no cable TV at all. We get it from Earthlink Cable (via Time Warner). They don't have a ripoff charge for non-Cable TV people because Earthlink does not sell Cable TV. This is actually one of the nice side effects of the AOL - Time Warner merger as the FCC said Time Warner had to open it's cable lines up.

So, if you are in a Time Warner area, you can get Earthlink Cable and save at least $5 a month if you don't have cable TV. And, the speeds are faster too.

[johnsmith22]

When there is nothing else satellite is better than nothing, but it does suffer from overloading and can slow at peak times. If you can get Cable or DSL definately go that route.

I use mach10internet.net one way which is reasonably consistent at 380-390 downloads but it has a very aggresive Reasonable Use Policy that if you fall foul to it, it takes you days to recover your download speed. As long as you only surf you won't hit the limits but if you regularly download big files it is not for you.

It does seem that Direcway has a more liberal use policy and reading other forums people do seem to be getting higher download speeds. The critisisim is always that upload is no better than dialup so perhaps one way service is just as good and far less hassle as you do not have the addtional problem of transmitting from the dish.

[Jacob S]

If upload is no better then whats the benefits of using upload by satellite vs a phone line to upload? I thought the upload was a bit better on the satellite vs. the phone and satellite combination. Just how much better is satellite internet vs. dial up?

[Mike123abc]

The only advantage of using phone for the uplink is that you avoid a 44,000+ trip to the satellite and back. Those round trips add significant lag to the connection. Since most home users download far more than they upload, a phone for upload will cut the delay about in half.

[harsh]

If upload is no better then whats the benefits of using upload by satellite vs a phone line to upload? I thought the upload was a bit better on the satellite vs. the phone and satellite combination. Just how much better is satellite internet vs. dial up?

Did you mean to ask "Just how bad is satellite Internet"?

For hardcore uploading and downloading of larger individual files, satellite wins handily. For smaller files and web browsing of complicated web pages, Satellite internet may seem (or actually be) slower than dialup.

With the advent of dozens of cookies with each web page (receipts and queries of existing cookies) and custom content schemes, the satellite Internet experience has become a marginal one at best.

The lag also precludes many VPN telecommuting efforts. There is a reason that Microsoft bailed on its plan to cover the Earth in satellite Internet service and it is related largely to the combination of FrontPage (w/Extinctions) and Internet Exploder.

Having the land line uplink makes the experience much more tolerable by reducing the response time from some websites by 40% or more and may mitigate some timeout problems with VPN.

It is best to keep things terrestrial if at all possible. If you can live with relatively frustrating lags, satellite is certainly available, but its application is decidedly limited and the price to come to the dance is as high as any.

Your mileage may vary.

[zztzed]

The lag also precludes many VPN telecommuting efforts. There is a reason that Microsoft bailed on its plan to cover the Earth in satellite Internet service and it is related largely to the combination of FrontPage (w/Extinctions) and Internet Exploder.You're probably thinking of Teledesic; they're not actually owned by Microsoft. Bill Gates is an investor (along with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the Abu Dhabi Investment Company and Boeing), but it's a personal investment, made with his own money, and not directly connected to MS.

In any case, the reason Teledesic ditched their plan was due to a lack of money, not any technological reasons that I know of, although I don't actually know that they've dropped their plans; their website (http://www.teledesic.com/) still talks of launching service in 2005, but there's a press release (http://www.teledesic.com/newsroom/articles/10-01-2002.html) from them from September 2002 which talks about suspending their contract with their satellite manufacturer and cutting back staff while they "evaluate possible alternative approaches to [their] business".

In any case, Teledesic would have used (or will use, if you're optimistic) Ka-band satellites in medium-earth orbit, 10000-15000km over the surface, which would mitigate a lot of the problems (latency, at least) inherent in current satellite Internet offerings.

[harsh]

You're probably thinking of Teledesic; they're not actually owned by Microsoft. Bill Gates is an investor (along with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the Abu Dhabi Investment Company and Boeing), but it's a personal investment, made with his own money, and not directly connected to MS.

A fact of which they feel compelled to constantly remind people. You are indeed correct that I made a rather stupid mistake of associating something Bill Gates is involved in with Microsoft. My memory isn't what it used to be.

In any case, Teledesic would have used (or will use, if you're optimistic) Ka-band satellites in medium-earth orbit, 10000-15000km over the surface, which would mitigate a lot of the problems (latency, at least) inherent in current satellite Internet offerings.

Slow response is certainly better than painfully slow response but it appears that the Teledesic business model may be shooting towards some market other than private citizenry with the investments from Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (unless they are fishing to get some satellite launch and maintenance business back from the Russians.).

[zztzed]

Slow response is certainly better than painfully slow response but it appears that the Teledesic business model may be shooting towards some market other than private citizenry with the investments from Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (unless they are fishing to get some satellite launch and maintenance business back from the Russians.).
I got that impression too. I seem to recall a while back Teledesic was being hailed as a solution for those who want broadband but aren't served by existing cable/DSL infrastructure, though. I guess perhaps they're aiming for a different market now.

Incidentally, if my math is right, round-trip times to a satellite in medium-earth orbit (network overhead notwithstanding) would be about 130ms, which would and be a lot more usable for VPN work (or even gaming!) than current satellite's 450ms+.

[harsh]

Incidentally, if my math is right, round-trip times to a satellite in medium-earth orbit (network overhead notwithstanding) would be about 130ms, which would and be a lot more usable for VPN work (or even gaming!) than current satellite's 450ms+.

The original target for Teledesic was LEO, not MEO. That may have changed. The World may never know.

Physics and reality seem to have a very large gap to close. In my experience with Starband, it isn't uncommon to see "lags" on the order of 750-1000ms. I thought it might be a poor backbone connection, but it seems to happen with the Starband POP server too. Those numbers are much higher than should be attributed to overhead.