Do not fund satellite broadband or puny 768k/200k service

Revise

Flag

Vote Up

106

Vote Down

For the past six years my wife and I have lived in a rural area and worked out of our home. We've survived (barely) with satellite broadband, and are now paying $100 a month for service from HughesNet. It claims to be about 1.5m down / 300k up, but often fails to perform to that spec. There are times when we have to drive almost 30 minutes to a coffee shop where we can get a WiFi connection when the satellite connection is inadequate. I would say two things about deploying broadband to unserved and underserved areas through the national broadband plan.

1. Due to its latency, a satellite connection is not true broadband and should not receive funding. Some applications like telephony and VPNs don't work at all (so much for telecommuting), and others like video streaming work so-so at best and often provide a degraded picture in this supposed age of HD TV. Moreover, HughesNet imposes a ridiculously low traffic limit on its users, although it refuses to disclose exactly what it is.

2. The notion that 768k down / 200k up should be considered as acceptable broadband speed as we move into the second decade of the 21st century is ludicrous. It would be a colossal waste of government money to fund projects which deliver such a low level of service. I already get that speed from Hughes and it's totally inadequate as a broadband standard moving forward. In an area where broadband is available from cable or telcos, no vendor could sell a 768/200 service to anyone. At a bare minimum, any federally-funded project should require 5m/1m, and even that is pathetic compared to the service offerings now widely available, and even more so in light of the new higher-speed services now being rolled out by cable.

The FCC needs to look forward. Satellite broadband and 768/200 service should be relegated to exhibits on old technology in the Smithsonian.

Idea # 13Deployment, broadband satellite

Comments

steve 1 month ago

Satellite service, whether current or next-generation, has and can be deployed without any government subsidies. Where government funding makes sense is to put a wired/wireless infrastructure in place on the ground in those areas where it does not make economic sense without such support. The satellite industry, which has an inherently inferior Internet product, wants to use government money to stay in the game.

kmm 1 month ago

I totally AGREE. Satellite will never have enough spectrum to broadly cover the US with at datarates that are suitable for many applications. Tie that in with rain fades and other propagation factors, not to mention the huge cost premium they charge, I find satellite as a non-viable means to provide broadband in the US.

cwmetz 1 month ago

For lack of being able to access broadband I have had to utilize satellite "broadband." Speeds are unacceptable but all that I can get in my semi-rural area. Additionally, data limit caps are unrealistic as they (at Hughesnet) preclude any effective utilization of video or multimedia other than general surfing, news or email.

xnixman 1 month ago

So, move.

Really, some areas have different benefits to living in them. If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere then there are benefits and downsides to that decision.

Who said you were entitled to broadband? You already got a new car, wasn't that enough?

I don't have a mountain or an ocean close by, do you hear me crying?

martha 1 month ago

There are alternatives to satellite that don't have to be $100 a month. They might not be more than 768/200, but for some folks who used to have dial-up if we could concentrate on getting them even 768/200 at a reasonable price they would have broadband. Wireless Broadband (not mobile, WiFi) is much cheaper to deploy than Satellite and the FCC should be concentrating on this rather than Satellite. It can also produce speeds much higher, if the FCC will help middle-mile/backhaul connections, so pricing can be brought down for ISPs as well.

jstaker481 1 month ago

Although I do not have satelite, I am in a similar situation. I live in an underserved rural area. I currently have qwest DSL (1Mb/400kb), only speed provided in my area, this is also inadequate for working from home especially when my children are online. The kicker of it is that Mediacom (local cable provider) has Fiber cables running parallel to my property but will not provide access to me and my neighbors. I have contacted the state telecommunications board, of course they say they will look into it but nothing ever happens. The minimum consideration for Broadband connectivity should be at the very least 10mb. Making the minimum 768kb alows the cable and local telco providers to slide by and not be proactive in providing faster speeds for the digital age. If you don't set the minimum broadband speed at or above the current average speeds, which are very low, you will not encourage innovation.

broadband 1 month ago

Mandating 768K will price many potential users out of the market in areas where bandwidth is expensive. In many rural areas, a T1 line -- 1540K of wholesale bandwidth -- can cost $450 or more per month. This means that 768K of bandwidth will cost about $225 per month... at wholesale, not at retail! By the time the ISP adds in expenses to pay for the "last mile," the bandwidth will be unaffordable.

It would be not only unwise but harmful to do that.

There should be no speed mandates unless there are also cost controls at the wholesale level.

digitalweaver 1 month ago

I also live in a semi-rural area, and my only option for broadband is satellite, which I have through HughesNet. You have to be very careful as to the amount of bandwidth you use, otherwise you will get completely SHUT DOWN for 24hrs. They say that they "reduce" your speed, but that's NOT true. The internet is so slow that you can't get anything done, which is not good when you work from home like I do. The satellite companies rip their customers off. I'm paying way more for this service than it's worth, but these companies can afford to price gouge because people like me have few other options available. I have regular dialup, which doesn't work for me since I NEED an always-on connection. I have a backup connection (wireless through Verizon), and it sucks just as bad as the satellite does. I'm spending a ton of money each month and not getting a darn thing for it but a headache.

It's ridiculous that my home is now in an area where public water is an option, but cable or dsl internet is not.

Jeff 1 month ago

The term "Broadband" needs to be defined ... its used as loosely as "3g" in the wireless biz. (I've worked for AT&T/T-MO for last 9yrs) We had "broadband" (cable) for 8 years but are getting by on point2point "wifi" (1m/256k) -- So I can relate to the immense difference in speeds mentioned with Satelite.

With cable you take for granted being able to download games, play games live, watch you favorite tv shows online and even work from you home.

Limited to a 1mb/256kb connection for a year has given me a whole new appreciation for cable. The biggest problem in the remote area (and with sat) is the insane lag and ping times. On cable I'd average ~15ms ping delays ... but now its often 300-1200 based on the weather and such. Probably even worse on sat right? Which means you'll time out constantly -- no vpn to work from home or online games.

But its not limited by the technology -- its cost incentive completely. There is cable and fibre available 1/2 mile away but its not worth their $$$ to put a cable in to my area to only serve 30-40 families. Everyone out here is on an avg of 5 acres per house -- which is like 1000x less profit for effort than the city.

When I moved out here - I even offered to pay the $14k to have fibre lines ran out to my house - but they we're interested. Even when I pointed out that I could guarantee 20+ customers in the process, all at $65/month ... thats nearly $14k a year alone.

Its their short sightedness that'll cost them soon though -- I can already use my wireless phone to get a slow but stable connection using std gsm/edge rates. 3G has doubled that speed (but not yet available here) and HSPA is coming out soon (4g) which is "Broadband" speed ... ~768/384 speeds.

Cost is what drives it all ... I was talking with my wifi guy as he tuned my attenae and was shocked when he said I've got a 32mb connection to the tower itself. So its only a matter of how much bandwith they can route up to the tower vs the cost. Which seems to cap at about 1.5mb when nobody else is online.

gordon 11 days ago

Apples & oranges. Your current service is consumer grade: no minimum speed, and latency that averages higher than voip can tolerate. Business grade (not just for business, but you pay for what you get) provides minimum speeds greater than 1mb down, and latency less than 700ms. Broadband stimulus plans should include a mix of consumer grade and business grade, and make both available to all consumers. Also, not every house/org needs a dish. If you backhaul a WiMAX tower with a high capacity business-grade satellite link, a whole un/underserved community has access to high bandwidth, low latency connectivity.

Post New Comment

Activity Chart

Controversy Meter

Categories