On Monday 18 April 2005 01:30 am, Tom wrote:
> Aron Smith wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 April 2005 08:15 pm, Tom wrote:
> >>M.Schild wrote:
> >>>>However for downloading large files it was miles
> >>>>faster as once you get started the latency beomes irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>That is really what interests me. I havenÃÅt been able to upgrade my Mdk
> >>>10 because my present connection is so unreliable. It disconnects all
> >>> the time....and my phone line drowns when it rains. wouldnÃÅt do in
> >>> Scotland
> >>>
> >>>:-) Fortunately, it doesnÃÅt rain often here
> >>>
> >>>Maryse
> >>
> >> Mary, before this thread gets too far gone .... I researched
> >>gettin a satellite connection several years ago. I also had a friend
> >>at the time (Carolinas, USA) that got one. His involved about $700
> >>worth of equipment, and a separate dial up(land line) connection for
> >>the uplink. It was also very fee expensive.
> >>
> >> I can't believe a jurisdiction/gov'mt that provides free
> >>service would require such an expenditure. I really think Google or
> >>contacting your local provider would get you better info than you're
> >>gettin here.
> >>
> >> As to rain, yes, satellite will be subject to interruption as
> >>t-storms pass over obscuring the path to the satellite. Are you
> >>sure they're not planning wifi service? Seems that would make more
> >>sense.
> >
> > The 30 cm oblong dish sounds like what my neighbor has
> > Sprint used to offer this wireless he still has it It's about as fast as
> > the average DSL line
>
> First of all I'll apologize if I inordinately offended Maryse
> by contraction the name. It wasn't intentional, usually I address
> people with the exact name they use to post. Mea Culpa.
>
> Second, I'm disappointed that this thread went off on a tangent.
> The question Maryse asked was very good. IE, how viable is satellite
> net ? I'm curious as all get out.
>
> An no Aron, satellite is no comparison to DSL, an there is no
> such thing as "average" DSL unless you succumb to B$ cable
> advertisements on TV. Cable is fast, but variable bandwidth rates.
> You are on a 'party line'. More online, the slower you go. DSL is
> steady (a private line), but you pay more for faster bandwidth
> rates. (256k to 8Mb). High end 'residential' service is mostly
> 1.5Mb aDSL which on average is faster than cable. 2Mb service an
> above requires dedicated lines an is mostly reserved for businesses.
> An it's true DSL, not asynchronous DSL. A business with 6Mb DSL
> gets that bandwidth, up an down
>
> It would seem to me, an I've wondered as much for some time,
> that satellite would be the best way to expand service to the most
> people. Specially in rural areas or mobile, on the move. While my
> brushes with it made it seem expensive, I can hardly understand why
> it would be so. Sat. TV isn't, heck they give the equipment away for
> free.
>
> BTW, Corpus Christi has wifi (not to be confused with satellite,
> no 'dish' needed), an from what I can tell, the bandwidth is hardly
> better than dialup. Just a few days ago I asked a neighbor to go to
> dslreports.com/stest an he got 10KB/s. That's only a little better
> than twice dialup speed. An we're only 100 yds or less from the
> node (antenna).
>
> Anyhow, I hope Maryse reports back, or others with actual
> experience about satellite Net. An if it's two way, or just a down
> link requiring a separate uplink
No Tom you misunderstood I was speaking of a Microwave service that used to be
offered in the valley it no longer is. As long as you keep the account they
keep providing the service.
He is getting 1.5Mb down and 256K up about average for a basic static
DSL
connection. This service is still used over in Portola valley everyone has a
small dish and the relay is on a mountaintop
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
____________________________________________________
