On Monday 18 Apr 2005 06:30, 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
Tom As I said before I had experience of using an aramiska satellite link for some months. This provided both the uplink and downlink by satellite. A base station was provided in our village and the signal was distributed to different households using a wireless network. The whole thing was very expensive but it was funded by the government through a local enterprise company as we could not otherwise get broadband at the time. Our telco is now rolling out broadband to rural areas and so the government funding for maintenance has stopped. Some people are still using the satellite but my wireless link, which is about 3 miles over water has stopped working and I am now about to move onto ADSL via copper wires. The actual performance of the satellite link varied ,not least due to the number of people on our local network at the time, but I could typically get download speeds in the range of 250-350k on what was meant to be a 512k link. Although this sounds quite good the actual perceived performance for "normal" web browsing was not noticeably different from dial-up due to the satellite link latency, however downloads of large files was about five times quicker than dial-up. There is no way we would have been able to afford satellite if we had to pay for it ourselves. HTH Pete Ardnamurchan Scotland
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
