Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Satellite Internet - Input Needed
Self | 12-09-08 | Steve Hansen

Posted on 12/09/2008 12:19:05 PM PST by NewHampshireDuo

Mrs NHD and I are in the process of moving to a rural area in coastal Maine. The biggest problem that I am having is getting high speed internet access. No cable, no DSL. A few weeks ago I had a local provider install a 900 MHz link. When it works, it works well. So far it seems to work very intermittantly. Unfortunately we are in a mediocre to bad zone relative to the three nearest repeaters. As a backup in case this can't get resolved I have been looking at satellite internet.

My options seem to be Hughes and a newer service called WildBlue. From what I can gather Hughes has gotten worse and worse over the past few years. WildBlue has what appears to be relatively good pricing (but not cheap). In checking out reviews on the web, the input on satellite is not good but I doubt if the on line self-initiated reviews are representative or just represent the rantings of people who for one reason or another are ticked off.

WildBlue's sales rep (quite responsive based on emails) says that their customer satisfaction is 94% but that's probably not reliable either.

My needs are fairly basic - no gaming, limited video (some You Tube). I do maintain a website so I need to upload/download files that aren't practical with dialup, not to mention antivirus updates, etc. that tend to be big but not huge. I use a VPN connection on occasion.

Any objective inputs on satellite services out there that will help me?


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: hughesnet; wildblue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
What I really want to avoid is paying money for the setup and finding out after a month or so that the service sucks and I'm locked into a 24 month plan that would cost a few hundred dollars to get out of.
1 posted on 12/09/2008 12:19:06 PM PST by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Have you thought about Verizon Wireless Internet?


2 posted on 12/09/2008 12:22:06 PM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

“What I really want to avoid is paying money for the setup and finding out after a month or so that the service sucks and I’m locked into a 24 month plan that would cost a few hundred dollars to get out of.”

Can you not express exactly that to the rep?


3 posted on 12/09/2008 12:23:22 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (Our government is an edifice of artifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Wireless IE Verizon or Alltel


4 posted on 12/09/2008 12:23:27 PM PST by devistate one four (H I V Homophobia Is Vindicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

If Hughes net is like my directv, forget having a signal on a rainy day. If you live in the boonies, it’s still better than nothing tho.


5 posted on 12/09/2008 12:23:44 PM PST by o_zarkman44 (Since when is paying more, but getting less, considered Patriotic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Interesting. I’m moving to the booneys of Kentucky and I have been wondering about this as well. I just assumed I would go Sattelite. I didn’t realize it would be expensive.


6 posted on 12/09/2008 12:25:36 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
A friend has WildBlue and I helped install it.

WIldBlue is the best of the satellite options, with the least latency. However, a great latency may be 700 milliseconds to a website for the next exchange of communication. With DSL or cable, a good latency might be 40-70 milliseconds.

Satellite would make interactive voice, video, or gaming, quite annoying. However, other web activities won't seem too bad.

The throughput on WildBlue was almost 1.5 MB/sec, which is as much as twice the speed of low-end-DSL. I was very impressed.

But I do a lot of Skype Voice-over-IP stuff, so I'd have a fit with satellite, as it wouldn't be practical with my usage.

You might look into WiMax installs in your area, as that access would be great. Otherwise, Sprint is supposed to have unlimited internet for a reasonable price, which might be 2 Mb/sec burst, with an average of 400-60 Kb/sec. Verizon limits it to 5 GB for the month, so they wouldn't be worth looking into. Sprint would have a latency of up to 130 milliseconds with a PCMCIA modem, which is still very doable with voice and video.

I hope this helps.

7 posted on 12/09/2008 12:26:33 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Obama is bringing in every crook and bumbler he can to assure consistency in his message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Well, this was easy: http://www.wildbluesatellite.net/

My problem solved...worst case scenario anyway...


8 posted on 12/09/2008 12:28:17 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Verizon limits it to 5 GB for the month

That limitation is pretty common with satellite, from what I've read.

Be sure to read the restrictions and limits of any provider before signing up.


9 posted on 12/09/2008 12:31:41 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

I suspect you won’t be happy with 2-way sat internet. I had a friend on it for years and he could never get much more than 10k/sec up and up to about 40k down. If it rained or snowed, he was offline.

Is there any method you can improve your current provider? Perhaps put your antennae on a pole or say a 40 foot tower?
You’ll probably have better results in the end.


10 posted on 12/09/2008 12:31:56 PM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

By the way, VPN would be exceeding slow on such a high-latency connection, with most incarnations of it.

The problem with high latency comes from the need to get frequent acknowledgment packets. Much of the behavior with websites needs very little constant confirmation. Secure connections generally need constant confirmation.


11 posted on 12/09/2008 12:34:09 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Obama is bringing in every crook and bumbler he can to assure consistency in his message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I also live in a rural area with no cable or DSL. My neighbor, who is a real estate agent, needs high-speed internet to do some of her work from home. She has a local wireless service. I tried out the service on her computer one evening, and the Drudgereport did not load that much faster than my outdated dial-up.


12 posted on 12/09/2008 12:36:34 PM PST by dsat4life (Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty . . . who was, who is, and is to come!! Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Your no gaming saves you, as satellite latency kills it. Mostly the same for VPN.

Satellite is fine for watching video where you need bandwidth but don’t care about latency. FTP is slow over satellite for multiple files (the up to one second latency hits for each file), so zip into one file, upload/download, then unzip on the destination machine. SSH is hit or miss, ask the provider whether they have certain optimizations that can help SSH performance, demand a demo if they claim it works well.


13 posted on 12/09/2008 12:37:41 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
I had DirecPC for a while because it was the only thing available to me for broadband. After a couple of years I switched to Starband which is Dish's version of satellite broadband because it was a bit cheaper. The two services were pretty much the same. The download speed was good but the upload speed was very slow. There is also a lot of latency in the connection so its not as snappy as DSL or Cable.
The connection was good unless it was very cloudy and stormy. They recommend (and sell) a dialup plan for bad weather backup. You don't have to use their dialup service but they recommend you have one. I never needed it.
This is definitely not a gaming setup because of the latency.

Both services cost a small fortune for equipment and installation.

The worst thing for me was that the IP address you get on both services is not publicly routable so you can't run any type of service that is publicly accessible (ie a web server or email server).

Your mileage may vary, all this was several years ago.

The day the phone company called and told me DSL was available, I switched and bought out of my satellite contract. The price difference was worth it and the service is better. I've never looked back.
14 posted on 12/09/2008 12:39:07 PM PST by a_screen_name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

My sat experience taught me to just get a dedicated POTS line and run at 56K ... yes, it was ‘that’ bad.


15 posted on 12/09/2008 12:39:07 PM PST by elpinta (Insured by Walther, Glock, Smith & Wesson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

One other possible option: microwave. This require line-of-sight, and here in the Midwest, it is usually the top of silos where you orient the receiver toward.

Their latency, as I recall from a former client, was about a third of satellite.


16 posted on 12/09/2008 12:39:26 PM PST by ConservativeMind (Obama is bringing in every crook and bumbler he can to assure consistency in his message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Or you can wait on Obamessiah’s promise of broadband access free for everyone :)


17 posted on 12/09/2008 12:39:37 PM PST by FORTRUTHONLY (Easy as 3.14159265358979323846...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
How about a 900MHz Yagi antenna? That would be enough to help you pull in that signal... you said it usually works well... this might improve it to almost all the time.


18 posted on 12/09/2008 12:41:37 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

>> I had a local provider install a 900 MHz link. When it works, it works well. So far it seems to work very intermittantly <<

How high is your antenna? Put it on top of a 75’ Rohn tower and you might be OK!

(Unless there’s high hill between you and the nearest repeater station.)


19 posted on 12/09/2008 12:42:57 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
You could also look at a "Wok-Fi" type solution.

What is Wok-Fi?

20 posted on 12/09/2008 12:45:03 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson