Satellite internet can't be compared to DSL or Cable (or even BPL)
broadband. The bandwidth is too low. I have a 1.5Mbps (downlink) DSL
line that costs only $26.95/mo. I could get a 3Mbps (downlink) line
for $29.95/mo. Cable can get you up to about 4 or 5Mbps (albeit,
shared with other users). I've yet to see a satellite downlink giving
you more than 512Kbps. We're talking an order of magnitude lower.
DSL and Cable will continue to push bandwidth and satellite will be
stuck. It's not a viable solution.
A much more viable solution will be 3G cellular, WiMax, or ad-hoc WiFi
networks. 3G cellular equipment exists today that can give you up to
3.8Mbps (albeit shared with other users and dependent on cell site
proximity) and it will soon go to 7.6Mbps. WiMax is coming too.
There is almost no end to the number of BPL alternatives. Too bad the
FCC and PUC regulators can't see it.
On 4/23/05, j4976@juno.com <j4976@juno.com> wrote:
> What I don't ever hear mentioned is that those 5% who do not have cable
> or a phone line suitable for DSL can get high speed internet service via
> satelite. Its very common and affordable outside the US, but here, no
> one wants to talk about it. There's just no reason for BPL in its
> current format.
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|