vkaryl - 11:09 pm on Jul 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hmm. Just never heard it called that before....

So JD and IanKelley, you're saying that regardless my dialup is ABYSMALLY slow, I won't notice that satband is faster? Even though I already notice the difference with my friend's satband sytem? (As I said earlier, the difference between 5 HOURS on dialup and TEN MINUTES on her satband for a 40 meg dl.) Do you mean that I will wind up paying relatively more but not getting a performance boost to equal the difference in cost?

The online game thing wouldn't affect me. Not my sort of fun - I only do single-player machine-resident games.... and I don't do IM/chat (HORRORS!) or 'netphone (ditto!). I need some sort of broadband because things like uploads and downloads are part of my BUSINESS of building websites.

Since I will never in my lifetime see cable modem, dsl etc. here (and even had I the money for a T1, the antique phone lines here won't allow for it I am RELIABLY informed by LanSource, the premier installer of same in this part of the state), satband seems like a relatively logical move.

Again, I have to point out that my modem NEVER EVER connects faster than 26.4, and that a 40 meg download takes me 5 hours - assuming my connection doesn't get dropped in that period of time. I have a really hard time believing that satband could be WORSE than that. Then again if it becomes available to me I'll just subscribe to it, and if it IS worse, you'll hear about it here I have no doubt.

[Aside: danieljean, I have been quite happily using FF for some months now. Tabbed browsing helps some....]