I need a service provider for my setup here in Afghanistan.  Anyone have any suggestions? My setup is the IDirect 3100 satellite router, 1.2 meter dish that
works with the Bentley Walker Setup. The information on the Block
upconverter and LNB is as follows:

BUC:  P/N   VCD-022275-0000
        Rev-01
        S/N   C60278341
        DC Input +15V to +24V
        RF Input +10 dbm max

LNB:   ViaSat
        P/N CL0005555-01
        Model#  NJR2754H
        NF   1.0 db
        S/N  5X147153
        Supply Voltage  +15 to +24VDC
        +/- 1.5 MHz
        12.25 GHz to 12.75 GHz
        LO 11.30 GHz

I am located at FOB Lightning in Afghanistan.  The GPS coordinates are
N 33"35.0260 and E 069"16.0079.  Altitude is 2368 meters.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Please mail me on skyzone@rocketmail.com


Off course I will offer you,

Sir,

Are you looking for a provider to supply you with service?

Regards

Bob

Hi this is BW we have a hot spot on W6 and Sesat over Afghanistan. If you want we can offer you a free or subsidised upgrade to X3 which is DVBS2 with more Quota.  Contact us if you are interested.  

anthony@bentleywalker.com

Yes we are looking for service activation with our current setup.  I do not wish to use a service with FAP or quotas.  There are a few providers I am considering now that don't have such policies.  

Shared is always going to have speed limitations, if you want no FAP then we offer CIR/CBR at $4500 per megabit , I don't think anyone can beat that for pure 1=1 dedicated in fact I am sure of it, what you will find is there are a LOT of cheats who will promise you NO FAP but what will happen is your system will run slower than ours at peak times, ask them for a Grade of Service and a Guarantee SLA, there is a posting under Middle East section on FAP and virtually all providers acknowledge they can't run a shared platform without FAP (good idea if you read it ) so if major players like Hughes, Viasat, Satlynx, Skylogic and BW use it theres a good reason !

There are network operators out there that run without FAP, provide SLA and deliver pretty good level of service. The whole point here for the operator is to buy enough satellite bandwidth to make everyone happy. Or, rephrasing, make sure everybody pays for what they expect to get. FAP is only one of the ways to achieve this and is definitely not a must have.

That is, if a network operator exercises good control over how their satellite bandwidth is used (i.e. is not allowing to connect a 1000 PCs Cyber Cafe on a 512/128 link oversubscribed 50 to 1), they can do very well without the FAP. This requires the operator to work with each customer individually and determine their business needs, applications and protocols being used, amounts of VoIP and videoconferencing traffic, etc, and make a best guess on the anticipated burstable and streaming traffic levels. Based on that, the network operator then recommends a particular minimum level of service they would allow the user to sign up for to make sure they will not abuse the shared bandwidth pool. This is called 'pre-qualification' here in BusinessCom and works really well for many years already.

What FAP basically does is enables network operators to skip that step and let the customer choose the service level themselves. If somebody will buy a package too small, they'll be hitting FAP and will get automatically throttled down, usually to a near-dialup speed. Having a FAP robot on guard allows network operators to service more inquiries per day as they don't have to deal with each customer individually. When we're speaking about Small Office or DTH level service this works well. When it comes to Enterprise level customers or customers that do not know their traffic levels in advance, FAP may easily become a double edged sword because it stimulates to upgrade service package every time somebody hits the FAP limits. Having traffic levels assessed in advance helps to get a better understanding what the ultimate service package may look like.

To sum it up, FAP and no-FAP services are basically different ways to run service. If network operator spends time with each customer individually and requires all the customers to buy a particular minimum level of service depending on their needs then they can do well without FAP. If operator allows customers to choose their own package, then FAP is pretty much is a requirement to make things work well.

Maxim Usatov wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 1:56pm:

There are network operators out there that run without FAP, provide SLA and deliver pretty good level of service. The whole point here for the operator is to buy enough satellite bandwidth to make everyone happy. Or, rephrasing, make sure everybody pays for what they expect to get. FAP is only one of the ways to achieve this and is definitely not a must have. That is, if a network operator exercises good control over how their satellite bandwidth is used (i.e. is not allowing to connect a 1000 PCs Cyber Cafe on a 512/128 link oversubscribed 50 to 1), they can do very well without the FAP. This requires the operator to work with each customer individually and determine their business needs, applications and protocols being used, amounts of VoIP and videoconferencing traffic, etc, and make a best guess on the anticipated burstable and streaming traffic levels. Based on that, the network operator then recommends a particular minimum level of service they would allow the user to sign up for to make sure they will not abuse the shared bandwidth pool. This is called 'pre-qualification' here in BusinessCom and works really well for many years already. What FAP basically does is enables network operators to skip that step and let the customer choose the service level themselves. If somebody will buy a package too small, they'll be hitting FAP and will get automatically throttled down, usually to a near-dialup speed. Having a FAP robot on guard allows network operators to service more inquiries per day as they don't have to deal with each customer individually. When we're speaking about Small Office or DTH level service this works well. When it comes to Enterprise level customers or customers that do not know their traffic levels in advance, FAP may easily become a double edged sword because it stimulates to upgrade service package every time somebody hits the FAP limits. Having traffic levels assessed in advance helps to get a better understanding what the ultimate service package may look like. To sum it up, FAP and no-FAP services are basically different ways to run service. If network operator spends time with each customer individually and requires all the customers to buy a particular minimum level of service depending on their needs then they can do well without FAP. If operator allows customers to choose their own package, then FAP is pretty much is a requirement to make things work well.

You must live in a different world :) :) How do you think you can run a company with thousands of users on a profitable level if you have to talk/monitor every user "individually" ? Satellite users never use a lot (at least that is what they say) but finally ..... the reality is very different in most of the cases. I think FAP is a very good way to give everybody a product they pay for. Q : How can you control a user (e.g. cyber cafe) not to connect more than XX computers on a satellite system ?

Eric it would be good to get your opinion on maxims posting of NO FAP control,. personally I can not see how you can run a Network llike that and I have heard of operators applying CIR randomly to keep customers quiet for a day or so amd then removing it later anyhow this idea of monitoring usage and tweaking manually seems to me to be completley unworkable , your opinion would be good ?

Europa-satellite and Anthony, gentlemen, we're speaking about different businesses here. Above I said that when you're into small office/DTH business FAP is probably the best way to go as you can't afford to hire 500 salesmen to educate every customer out of 10,000 that they can not put a 1,000 PCs network on a $100/month package. Not all network operators are like that though. Your initial post on the FAP assumed all network operators are equal which is wrong.

There are network operators out there that are based on individual customer approach. Think Ferrari compared to Volkswagen. Both are cars, both have their own niches. Ferrari has much less customers on board with them yet they listen to any of your requirements. You want it painted yellow checkerboard with blue leather interior - you got it. Volkswagen delivers options A, B and C. Pick any or go to a different vendor. Sometimes that's what is required. It's really wrong to converge it to cars, however it gives an idea.

I note that FAP means different things to different people. It is certainly implemented in widely different ways.

My opinion:

Where there is a total satellite capacity shared by multiple customers and those customers are paying different tariffs then there must be some traffic flow control in place so customers get their share proportional to payment.

If you monitor the traffic flow from each site you can stop a particular site hogging the capacity out of proportion to their payment.  For example: minimum tariff site with excessive number of PCs connected, virus activity, large scale uploading or downloading, prolonged video, VoIP or file sharing.  If a customer has a need for large quantity data flows it is right that they should pay to be on a higher tariff.

How you monitor the traffic flow is up to the network operator.  A variety of manual, semi-automatic and automatic methods are in use now.

There is no magic solution.  If a service comprises 10 Mbit/s download then every site will receive individual data packets at 10 Mbit/s, but with many sites receiving there must be some traffic management to make sure everyone gets what they pay for. This will be evident by limitations of average download speeds over various periods of time.
An example, based on Skylogic Tooway Bronze tariff:
Averaged over last second 250 kbytes (i.e. "up to 2 Mbit/s" sales pitch)
Averaged over last hour 53 Mbytes
Averaged over last 4 hours 100 Mbytes
Averaged over last day 300 Mbytes
Averaged over last week  800 Mbytes
Averaged over last 4 weeks 2000 Mbytes (long term average 6 kbit/s)

Note that 10kbit/s costs about $70 per month to provide.
Note that for internet access type applications the amount of Mbytes transferred is far less than the theoretical maximum since people don't transfer data smoothly over 24 hours.

Some ideas to think about:

Would anyone in Africa be interested in a satellite internet access service that was available only from 9am - 11:59pm ?  During the night it would be changed to downloading newspaper printing files, cinema files and TV program files.

If your PC had a tiny pop-up showing the current price per Mbyte or congestion graph would you wait till it was cheaper or less congested ?  

Would ( could? ) you delay emails with attachments for sending at night ?

Would you configure your PCs to do Software and Anti-Virus updates at night - staggered in time if multiple PCs on your LAN ?

Best regards, Eric.

Dear Sir,
We can provide the service with the current equipments, we have already provided connections to FOB in Farah and Heraat.

Just confirm the Model of BUC: NJT5097F

Abduul, contact me with a price list for service shared and dedicated.  We need to get this link up ASAP.  Thanks for your response.  

Also I would like to say that jacking this thread to argue about FAP is ridiculous.  What I have noticed from companies and individuals I have spoken with is rhetoric and an inability to answer even the most simpliest questions.  This link is for soldiers in the field and I am just trying to make sure they have affordable internet so they can stay in touch with family back home.  Now please either help or stay off this post.  Thank you.

You say "I do not wish to use a service with FAP or quotas. "

Above, you have been offered "if you want no FAP then we offer CIR/CBR at $4500 per megabit".

If you can compromise on your "no FAP or quotas" requirement you can choose a shared system where your monthly cost will go down dramatically, but so will the possible traffic quantity throughput which will be limited by congestion from the other sites on your network.

The discussion regarding fair access (your share of the traffic relative to what you pay) in shared systems was intended to be helpful to you.  I am anxious not to raise your expectations above what can be expected.

Best regards, Eric.