Satellite broadband prices compared

[JerryMungo]

No in the case of the 5000 site installation, it's was the best compromise, given that the network spanned more than 90 countries including off shore locations -- and of course to simplify the network, maintenance and SLAs by not trying to accommodate too many types of technologies -- however without acceleration technologies we would not have achieved a level of acceptability with the end users.

Right, so for example, pemba, zanzibar, blah blah can't get anything but satellite. No alternative. Satellite it is then!

Hence I strongly believe that the offers should package acceleration technologies and should openly state what the share ratios are I.e. network bandwidth allotment for x customers; very similar to the peering links for ADSL, except that Satellite is of course more costly.
The case of the farmer is for me a fallback scenario i.e. if nothing else exists or nothing is reliable, then sure satellite is a good option -- but without acceleration technologies get ready for a crappy experience.

Crappier than say....? Everything is relative! 15 years experience - surely you recall the days of dial up in cities? Those farmers don't even have that luxury, even today!

 

[Necuno]

Satellite broadband prices compared

Would have been excellent if there was also a table with how it compares against mobile and dsl.

 

[JerryMungo]

Would have been excellent if there was also a table with how it compares against mobile and dsl.

I think that's just it - it isn't going to compare favourably on all fronts (except where GPRS is the only available alternative). What would be more useful for some IMO is a table of how it compares to ' '.

 

[Necuno]

I think that's just it - it isn't going to compare favourably on all fronts. What would be more useful for some IMO is a table of how it compares to ' '.

Whether or not it's about penetration possibility and reality, hypothetically if place had mobile, dsl and satellite... that's what I want to see.

Satellite still paints the picture (pretty much same as dsl) that only select few, those who are more well off than others will be able to have it. Punting broad band for all and 100% penetration then is fail, because actual rural people can't afford connection costs at R500+ p/m.

 

[[)roi(]]

Right, so for example, pemba, zanzibar, blah blah can't get anything but satellite. No alternative. Satellite it is then!

Crappier than say....? Everything is relative! 15 years experience - surely you recall the days of dial up in cities? Those farmers don't even have that luxury, even today!

Getting back to the article, the comparisons are missing too much information to make an informed decision.

Note: If the ratios are pushed too far the service could be completely unusable, acceleration technologies reduce TCP and HTML chatter including bumping up local cache (local proxy), which when coupled with high latencies and high contention ratios make for a very poor end user experience -- yes in some cases even worse than async comms.

Are you a farmer or do you work for one of the companies listed in this article I.e. don't understand why you are strongly challenging any negative sentiments about this technology?

/edit If these service offerings are sincere then the missing, yet vital service config data should be openly stated in the proposals.

 

[JerryMungo]

Satellite still paints the picture (pretty much same as dsl) that only select few, those who are more well off than others will be able to have it. Punting broad band for all and 100% penetration then is fail, because actual rural people can't afford connection costs at R500+ p/m.

Being able to afford it is one thing, paying more for a lower grade of service is just doff IMO. The equasion is simple - can you get reliable 3G / ADSL? If yes, don't pay more for satellite, if no, consider whether you can afford satellite or not. Those who need it and can't afford it won't have anything. Actual rural people... that's a very general demographic - mostly farmers - the rest don't have computers. Farmers today can hardly afford to not have internet - those who don't suffer and I think this is affordable to alot of farmers - heck, the average joe pays more for their cellphone in the city.

 

[Tommygun]

This is last resort connectivity without doubt. With many (most) businesses Internet connectivity is essential and in this large country of ours there are large tracts of area with no copper and no signal. Satellite then is the ONLY solution. It works for large mining houses and many other commercial interests for whom a few thousand dollars a month is peanuts.
What I find interesting is that satellite connectivity still commands such a premium price/GB as it has always been the poor cousin of wired connections. I suspect the cost is kept artificially high as its what the market will bear when it comes to needing essential services. Most people seem to be most negative about the latency issue. Latency is not too evil as long as its constant latency ie 600ms +/- 100ms. Its when its all over the place. Contention ratios are an issue as always with any connectivity solution.

 

[[)roi(]]

This is last resort connectivity without doubt. With many (most) businesses Internet connectivity is essential and in this large country of ours there are large tracts of area with no copper and no signal. Satellite then is the ONLY solution. It works for large mining houses and many other commercial interests for whom a few thousand dollars a month is peanuts.
What I find interesting is that satellite connectivity still commands such a premium price/GB as it has always been the poor cousin of wired connections. I suspect the cost is kept artificially high as its what the market will bear when it comes to needing essential services. Most people seem to be most negative about the latency issue. Latency is not too evil as long as its constant latency ie 600ms +/- 100ms. Its when its all over the place. Contention ratios are an issue as always with any connectivity solution.

Latency is is not too much of a problem for transactional or broadcast services -- however for anything interactive it sucks I.e. related specifically with the way TCP is designed, in addition for Internet the way HTML is designed. For example consider a web page with 90 elements; latency issue = 90 x 600ms x 2 (request / response) and that doesn't even consider TCP packet size, retransmits, and DNS lookups

 

[JerryMungo]

Are you a farmer or do you work for one of the companies listed in this article I.e. don't understand why you are strongly challenging any negative sentiments about this technology?

Neither, I'm a potential customer. I'm building a beach house that can't get ADSL or 3G. This is a fantastic option for me. I've managed a telkom spacestream installation in the area and was impressed with it though I expect lower qos from this product but still expect it to give me what I want while at the beach.

 

[JerryMungo]

What I find interesting is that satellite connectivity still commands such a premium price/GB as it has always been the poor cousin of wired connections. I suspect the cost is kept artificially high as its what the market will bear when it comes to needing essential services.

I wonder about that - is it really the case considering the overall cost of system and the numbers using it. It surely can't be more artificially inflated than Vodacom and Telkom's products. I'd love to compare subscriber numbers.

 

[Tommygun]

Latency is is not too much of a problem for transactional or broadcast services -- however for anything interactive it sucks I.e. related specifically with the way TCP is designed, in addition for Internet the way HTML is designed. For example consider a web page with 90 elements; latency issue = 90 x 600ms x 2 (request / response) and that doesn't even consider TCP packet size, retransmits, and DNS lookups

Its still not too bad, think the majority of BW in this country between about 1999-2005 was satellite. BTW is the Telkom offering K band C band or something else?

 

[cookiemonster]

I still think it's a very viable option, when you don't have any other options.

 

[mass09]

Unless you're stuck in the middle of nowhere, this is not a good deal.

My issues with this offer :
The Cap.
The Speed.
The Price.

 

[[)roi(]]

Its still not too bad, think the majority of BW in this country between about 1999-2005 was satellite. BTW is the Telkom offering K band C band or something else?

With a great big proxy sure then the latency is less of an issue I.e acceleration is vital for a good experience... Btw C band latencies were not 600ms, closer to 1sec

 

[[)roi(]]

Neither, I'm a potential customer. I'm building a beach house that can't get ADSL or 3G. This is a fantastic option for me. I've managed a telkom spacestream installation in the area and was impressed with it though I expect lower qos from this product but still expect it to give me what I want while at the beach.

In that case I suggest you find out the missing data as it ultimately will affect your satisfaction with the service, also check if acceleration technologies are available e.g. Riverbed Steelhead, Juniper, ...

 

[JerryMungo]

In that case I suggest you find out the missing data as it ultimately will affect your satisfaction with the service, also check if acceleration technologies are available e.g. Riverbed Steelhead, Juniper, ...

Thanks for the tip - what about good old squid, adblock +, web based gmail, wsus updater for desktops, etc? Steelhead seems a little extreme for my needs.

 

[[)roi(]]

Thanks for the tip - what about good old squid, adblock +, web based gmail, wsus updater for desktops, etc? Steelhead seems a little extreme for my needs.

The problem with squid is that it only helps you from the second similar request, and it offers no benefit for dynamic web pages -- btw most web sites today are dynamic re their use of CMS.

Acceleration solutions consist of a central server situated before the uplink, and a client side after the downlink (before your network or computer) -- the central server for example completes the entire back and forward request / response process and then packages the full web page in a compressed package for single broadcast to the client -- transmit packet sizes are adjusted to minimize TCP chatter, similarly local satellite routers are setup to cache DNS request / responses. The client decompress the responses and voila you have your web page in the most efficient way -- however it gets even more clever than that with local caching I.e. the server and client compare what's in the cache and what has changed on the web site and only the differences are transmitted to client -- for static or dynamic common results the resulting speed is equivalent if not faster than most other technologies.

 

[TallShaw]

Nobody in here had experience with satellite installations yet? Good grief people! 3Gb @ 512k @ R261 per month is NOT BAD AT ALL!

When you are STUCK in the bush or beach with no Telkom or voda/cellc/mtn in sight, you can stay connected for less than R300 per month, how cool is that!?

If you take the installation into account it's R886 a month, at least for the first year. No thanks.

 

[grok]

Slightly off topic but still related.

If rural connection is so bad why is Telkom not forced to abide by their mandate?
After all, that's the reason why they were (and still is) allowed to be a monopoly.

 

[Allin]

After paying a small fortune to rent a modem for use in the Kalahari I hope this might result in cheaper rentals!