The best satellite internet?

Hey everyone

I just moved out to the country and I'm trying to figure out which satellite internet service provider I should choose. Right now it's pretty much between SkyWay, Wild Blue, and DirecWay. Anybody know which I should choose, or if there's a better service I'm overlooking ? Right now I'm using the internet at work, but I've got to get hooked up at home - I'm too much of a Youtube junkie!!!!

Thanks

-Jared

Greg makes an excellent point.  Many people just don't understand what "streaming" implies. 

When you surf the web, your PC transmitter sends a short burst of data with the requested web site address.  Then it goes idle.  Your PC receives a few seconds of download, then it goes idle.  Because there is so much idle time, many PCs can share the same bandwidth and get a good service.  It's like having a hose with a sprayer handle on the end.  If you repeatedly press the sprayer for a second you get a strong burst of water each time.

When you run voice or video, it's like pulling the handle on the sprayer and leaving it on.  The water pressure in the hose drops and you get a steady flow instead of many strong bursts. 

Streaming traffic like voice and video are not what broadband was originally designed for.  In some places where you have cable broadband or DSL connected to fiber optic lines that go right to the Internet backbone, it's like your water hose being connected to a fire hydrant.  There's plenty of pressure so you can support streaming applications like voice and video and still get good surfing. 

Satellite isn't capable of delivering that level of service economically on a broadband service, given the costs it takes to develop, manufacture, launch and maintain a satellite.  Fiber is good for many, many years and they keep figuring out how to get more bandwidth out of it, but satellites costing millions of dollars have to be replaced after 10 - 15 years, and while they continue to squeeze more bandwidth out of them, it isn't on the same scale as what they can do with fiber.  After all fiber doesn't need a bigger dish to get a higher speed.  The costs are such that satellite bandwidth is going to cost much more than terrestrial services fed by high capacity fiber. 

When talking about larger sites such as Cyber Cafes with many PCs, there are a variety of bandwidth management devices on the market from vendors such as Packeteer, Sitara, Allot, Microtik and many others that can be used to control the streaming traffic and make sure a few PCs don't use up all the bandwidth.  Usually voice and video are transmitted and received using UDP or generic TCP protocols, and by controlling or limiting those protocols you can maintain good browsing service.  However some sites like YouTube and MySpace are using HTTP to transport video and that becomes a challenge.  You can't block or limit HTTP without affecting browsing for everyone because browsing is based on HTTP.  Using HTTP for voice and video keeps things simple, but it kills broadband service when bandwidth is limited or very expensive as in the case of satellite.

A big problem experienced by many sites is video uploads and/or webcam service. The upload is the "hard part" in the satellite biz.  When you saturate that upload, browsing drops to a crawl because you can't transmit your web requests, even if plenty of bandwidth is available on the download.  Your web request might get transmitted from your PC again and again before it finally gets out.  So what looks like a lousy download service is actually a saturated upload keeping your web requests from being transmitted.  After all you can't receive the web page until the site gets the request. 

Webcams transmit streaming voice and video.  They are a huge problem.  I get people who want to support 10 concurrent webcams on a 512 x 256 shared service.  A typical Yahoo, MSN or Skype webcam will try to use 80 - 120 Kbps in both directions.  Because they have compression built in on the video side, they can get by with less bandwidth if you don't move around a lot and have to refresh all the pixels.  They will generally get fair performance with about 40 Kbps of steady stream traffic.  Webcams don't like to give up bandwidth once they get it, so they kill browsing.  People just don't understand how much bandwidth they require and blame the satellite service when a couple webcams have sucked the bandwidth dry. 

As Greg said, the downloaders are going to be mad, but if they understand what's really happening, perhaps they will be more realistic and understanding of the limitations.  I find that it's often easier to educate people who have never had broadband before, than it is to re-educate people who have experienced high-speed broadband cable or DSL. 

Pat

It was nailed on the head.

I am currently using satellite internet.

P2P is practically non existent.

Time lag in response is high

Straight file downloads have not even got close to the advertised package download speeds.  My case I am supposed to receive up to a max of 512.  I get around 200.

For the cost I am going back to dial up and wait for something better.

Hughes and Wildblue use different approaches to satellite internet, which also involves different hardware. There are strengths and weakness to both, but in the end probably come out about equal. From a dependability standpoint though, Wildblue seems to be having quality control issues with the electronics component of the outdoor unit (high replacement rate for TRIAs).

That issue notwithstanding, that leaves service and appearance. Do you want a white 39x29" dish, or a black 26" dish? Do you want tech support from India (Hughes) or from America (Wildblue)? Do you plan to do a few very large downloads per month (get Wildblue) or spread smaller downloads out on a more regular basis (get Hughes). Do you live in an area that experiences regular heavy rain? (get Hughes)? Is your rain lighter and less frequent (get Wildblue)?

We consumer grade satellite internet users generally have a love-hate relationship with our providers. We love not having to rely on dialup, but hate having to deal with some of the quirks of satellite connections that you won't see on terrestrial broadband alternatives. But this love hate business comes in varying shades. In your case, you need to weigh the features of both providers - then select the one which best suits your specific needs (or may upset you the least in the future).

//greg//

My guess is that it is not a speed issue but rather a latency issue.  There should have been no need to upgrade to a higher service level plan.

let's go to the issue of speed first.  with the modem directly connected to your PC or laptop and no router sitting between them go to a site where the tests are not java based test but actual upload and download FTP tests.  For the download test select the shuttle and text test.  with the Ultimate plan you should be seeing anywhere from 700 to 1100Kbps down.
Next select the upload test and select the sample picture A by right clicking and saving it to your desktop.
now browse to that file and upload it back to them.  You should be seeing anywhere from 150 to 270Kbps depending on time of day.

On the camera, in order to mitigate latency somewhat select a refresh rate that is at least 1 second.  be aware that you will quickly eat up your allowable bandwidth by stream from that camera.  If at all possible, plan your heaviest use of the network between the hours of 1AM and 7AM EST.  During that period the entire Starband network is FAP free and you can download and up load to your hearts content without it counting against your allowable totals.  Right now, on the higher priced plan you are allowed 3.5GB in a 7 day rolling average.  On Dec 17th you will be able to upgrade for free to a plan that will give you 5GB in a 7 day rolling average and increase your download speeds to 1500Kbps.  the plan will cost $99 per month with a 24 month commitment.

let us know how the tests go and the camera functions with a lower refresh rate.

I am in the middle of moving to Central America but still living in Los Angeles.
I just got my Hughesnet set-up but still have my DSL internet.

To be honest: Hughesnet is not anything like DSL -- the time to connect is much longer-- but I do not want to move down to Belize and have to wait a month for tel. and internet.

So I got the Hughesnet account about a month ago and was set up with the 99 Satellite Satellite G16/G4R-20K.
This was horrable and I switched to Satmex 5 (which will be working fine in Central America).

My account --a business account for $99/month-- was not working for Satmex 5 as this sat only works for personal accounts with lower speed.

So I switched to Satmex 6 and I do get excellent speeds and so far -- after a few days-- my Hughesnet seems to work fine also and especially with Skype and Vonage; yes there is a delay/latency and sometimes an eco, it will remind you on long distance calls 10-15 years ago.
I am also taking my Dishnetwork account to Central America; see my postings at DBSForums.com in the Latin America sections.

ww