[FreedomCalls]

The only down side to sat based broadband is something that can’t really be fixed.. Latency.

90% of the users of this satellite won't care about latency. Would you rather have a little latency with a broadband satellite connection or continue to dial-up to AOL at 56k with very little latency?

[mikey_hates_everything]

When you get above T1 speeds, it’s no longer a “little” latency on two-way geo-synchronous satellite links. And T1 is barely considered broadband today. The faster you go, the worse it gets, unless it’s totally one-way. You have to rely heavily on WAN accelerators and hope your users aren’t doing encryption—because you can’t compress encryption. Wide area broadband should be done with stationary platforms (blimps) at 10-15 miles altitude or low-earth orbit satellites at 150-200 miles, but LEOs are expensive and complicated (Iridium).

[Dr. Sivana]

Would you rather have a little latency with a broadband satellite connection or continue to dial-up to AOL at 56k with very little latency?

Well, if we could change that "dial-up AOL" (which is NOT low latency except for stuff they cache) to 64K Frame relay, 128K ISDN or fractional T-1, the answer is that it depends. If you are streaming HD videos, the highspeed satellite is MUCH better. But if you are gaming, processing many small transactions with a database or web site, or even simple VOIP, the low latency is the better way to go.

[cableguymn]

Depends.. For large files or web surfing the latency is no big deal.

For online gaming/voip latency will kill it.

It depends on it’s intended use. It won’t be long and as long as you have cell signal you’ll have land based broadband and sat based broadband will only be used in areas where cell towers have not reached.