I don't doubt at all what you are saying. We never tested a truly high-end solution such as the one you described, because the cost would have been prohibitive for our application. I'm sure we only evaluated shared solutions. I guess my mistake was believing the CIR claims. At the really low-end, I didn't expect much, since they don't offer ANY CIR. But when they claimed 64k, silly me, I believed it.
Bruce Komito High Sierra Networks, Inc. www.servers-r-us.com (775) 236-5815 On Wed, 11 May 2005, Chad Wicker wrote: > Well there are several problems in your description of Satellite > services. For one you are grouping several differing technilogies > together as one. What it seemed like you were testing was a shared > bandwidth solution typically used by providers to reduce cost. It isn't > uncommon to experience sever delays and packet loss on these types of > systems. Alot of these shared providers "claim" 64k cir then > oversubscribe over that. Lies, yes, theift yes, and they get away with > it... What you would want to ask for is a SCPC (Single Carrier Per > Channel) circuit and you should have much better results, cost? a lot > more than these shared solutions. You may want to look into the > maritime providers/teleports in the area for this type of service. > Delay for a decent circuit should not be over 600 ms and it should be > steady. Proof is in the pudding, in a SCPC circuit with a v.35 > interface you can run an extended BERT test on it without error. and > that's Sync data... > > I speak confidently on this as we are a provider of VSAT services in > the oilfield industry. We are bombarded with these "low cost" > competition and have to defend ourselves daily. Alot of providers sell > crap at a decent price. We don't and won't. It hurts our market > penetration but we tend to keep customers for a good long time. I can > answer a lot of questions on this subject if anyone needs. It's a lot > like point to point microwave, they experienced their "bandwidth > sharing" days and they quickly died on the vine. The driving force > behind shared solutions is that satellite bandwidth is expensive. > > Chad C. Wicker > Systems Engineer > Petrocom > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/11/2005 1:06:52 PM >>> > We looked at this earlier this year and, after evaluating several > companies, could not get it to work well enough. The problem didn't > seem > to be latency, but rather lost packets in the upstream direction. Most > of > the time, we couldn't even get the phone to register, but even when we > could, there was such a large amount of breakup (in the up direction) > that > it was nearly unusable. We tried low-end, consumer type services and > they > didn't work at all. Even the high-end services that claim to offer > guaranteed bandwidth apparently do not live up to their claims. We > tried > running G.729, which should only need about 32-40k over a link that > claimed to guarantee 64k, and the best we got was broken sound. > > Bruce Komito > High Sierra Networks, Inc. > www.servers-r-us.com > (775) 236-5815 > > > On Wed, 11 May 2005, Yiannis Costopoulos wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I am investigating the deployment of VoIP/* in Eastern European > areas where > > there is no PSTN infrastructure. As you can understand DSL/Cable > connections > > are a dream. The only option is satellite. > > > > Does anyone know of any satellite providers that have low > enough/acceptable > > delays for VoIP? > > > > Thanks, > > Yiannis. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > This message has been categorized as "Legitimate" by Bayesian > Analyzer. > > If you do not agree, please click on the link below to train the > Analyzer. > > > http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5Cc819e577de1140fbaa62d0a53c83de86&C=2 > > > > > -- > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message has been inspected by DynaComm i:mail > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > This message has been categorized as "Indeterminate" by Bayesian Analyzer. > Please click on this link if this message is a Spam > http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5C5b4b9ad2019e496995ded0f9813f6c7a&C=2 > > Or on this link if this message is a legitimate mail > http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5C5b4b9ad2019e496995ded0f9813f6c7a&C=1 > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message has been inspected by DynaComm i:mail > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
