A faster modem than 56K

[John John]

PS. You can uplink without another form but that requires that bigger,
more expensive hardware be installed and the costs go up considerably.
That is usually only used by commercial users, the monthly access fees
for these commercial packages around here usually start at about
$200/month plus hardware costs. Most home owners around here simply pay
the cheaper $20-30/month for telephone internet and about $80 for the
satellite portion of the package.

John

John John wrote:

> One problem with satellite internet is that you still need another form
> of internet access anyway. You can't uplink to the satellite, when you
> surf and click on links, search, send email and what not the
> instructions that you send have to get to or be relayed to a server so
> that your requests can be processed. Once received by the processing
> server the requests can be sent to a large, powerful uplink station that
> will send the instructions to the satellite to pass the requested
> information back to you, you can't communicate directly with the
> satellite. It can be an expensive part of satellite internet, how you
> communicate with servers to process your requests and how much that part
> of the package costs depends on what sort of deal the satellite ISP has
> with other carriers or what other technology it has invested in to
> supply the uplink from sparsely populated areas. This second form of
> internet access may be completely transparent and unknown to the user
> but it is needed and it is there in one form or another. That is also
> why getting very large files from satellite internet is very fast, mouse
> clicks travel very quickly to the relay servers, but trying to upload or
> send very large files to others can be very slow, depending on what
> technology is used to contact the land based servers.
>
> John
>
> Lil' Dave wrote:
>
>> Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population
>> threshold before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is
>> from satellite here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current
>> satellite internet packages and their prices.
>>

 

[Rick Chauvin]

John

Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet?
http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]
I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps is
not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster
than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download however
is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat
respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about the
best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of physical
reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is
most cases will blow that away..

My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps)
which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only
game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and
haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much bandwidth
capability considering, although it would be better than what I have now..

Rick

 

[John John]

No, I'm in Canada, I don't think they operate here. The last time I
looked into satellite internet was about 2 years ago and at that time
for a "reasonably" priced home package the only thing available was the
Bell Expressvue satellite for the download link and telco ground lines
for the uplink, the monthly package was in the $80-100/month range.
Another TV satellite company (Star Choice) told me they were considering
offering high speed internet but I don't think that they followed
through and ever offered the service, today I'm not sure which satellite
service is available here. I know that commercial operations (like my
GM dealer) have it and they have told me that it is pretty pricey, but
other than that there aren't many home installations because of the high
cost.

John

Rick Chauvin wrote:

> John
>
> Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet?
> http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]
> I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps is
> not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster
> than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download however
> is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat
> respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about the
> best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of physical
> reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is
> most cases will blow that away..
>
> My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps)
> which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only
> game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and
> haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much bandwidth
> capability considering, although it would be better than what I have now..
>
> Rick
>
>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I was gonna say, it sounds like the equipment you're referring to is
obsolete. HughesNet does not require any other connection than the satellite
modem itself. Yes, you can get HughesNet in Canada. See
http://www.hughesnet.com. At left you'll notice a "To HughesNet outside
us/Canada/Puerto Rico," and yes, that means that the main offering includes
those countries.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uaIpfPGfIHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> No, I'm in Canada, I don't think they operate here. The last time I
> looked into satellite internet was about 2 years ago and at that time for
> a "reasonably" priced home package the only thing available was the Bell
> Expressvue satellite for the download link and telco ground lines for the
> uplink, the monthly package was in the $80-100/month range. Another TV
> satellite company (Star Choice) told me they were considering offering
> high speed internet but I don't think that they followed through and ever
> offered the service, today I'm not sure which satellite service is
> available here. I know that commercial operations (like my GM dealer)
> have it and they have told me that it is pretty pricey, but other than
> that there aren't many home installations because of the high cost.
>
> John
>
> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>
>> John
>>
>> Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet?
>> http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]
>> I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps
>> is
>> not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster
>> than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download
>> however
>> is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat
>> respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about
>> the
>> best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of
>> physical
>> reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is
>> most cases will blow that away..
>>
>> My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps)
>> which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only
>> game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and
>> haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much
>> bandwidth
>> capability considering, although it would be better than what I have
>> now..
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:48:54 -0500, "Don Phillipson"
<e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com...
>
>> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . .
>> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or
>> something like that.
>
>The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage
>now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all
>Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet
>(whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g.
>New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now
>promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere
>(whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.)

With my eyes getting bad from old age, I cant even set my 17inch
monitor with a resolution over 600X800, and you want me to look at a 2
inch screen on a phone....... No thanks. I also hate to even think
what the cost would be if I stayed online for several hours a day,
which I normally do in winter weather.

 

[Terry Terry]

On Feb 21, 4:14 am, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I think they reached the limits already (dialup over the tele lines).
> I'm on dialup too. And some of the tele lines can't even hande 56K.
>
> letter...@invalid.com wrote:
> > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
> > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
> > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
> > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
> > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
> > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
> > that.

There was a question in this group about faster dial up. Thankfully I
live in an area where broadband is available. My sister doesn't.

At one time I was considering trying Satellite Internet. The thing
that stopped me was you have to buy the equipment and sign a year
contract to be able to try it.

The Satellite companies should offer a trial.

I would think the company could provide a Satellite dish on a stand
and a coax running along the ground to a window or a small hole
drilled into the house long enough to allow customers to try the
service before signing a contract.

Another thing that stopped me at the time was that the satellite
service still required a phone line for the transmit part. One of the
main advantages of broadband is that if also frees up your phone
line. I think that is no longer an issue.