Satellite internet connection

What speed to choose?

[lammert]

I am in the process of moving to a location where internet via the telephone company is almost impossible. I have already faced periods of one month without telephone (and internet) and therefore I have decided to buy myself a satellite sender/receiver for two-way internet connection.

There is a variety of options. upload speed between 64 and 128 kbps, download between 64 and 2048 kbps and channel sharing with 1 to 20 subscribers.

Before, I have always lived in an area with reasonable internet connections. First dial-up, then ISDN and DSL, so I have no experience with the performance of satellite internet access. As members of this board are from all over the world, there must be some who can tell me from their own experience.

What I plan to do with the connection:

• 1 PC at first, maximum 5 in a small LAN
  
• Reading Webmasterworld :)
  
• Ordinary surfing
  
• Uploading new contents to my websites when necessary
  
• No heavy stuff like on-line gaming etc.
  
• My current bandwidth usage: between 0.5 and 1.5 GB per month
  

Note: I already decided where to buy the hardware so I do not need any recommendations of companies.

[txbakers]

buy the fastest. you won't regret it

[lammert]

buy the fastest. you won't regret it

I know I will like the speed, but fast solutions in the region I am talking about cost $10,000++ each month. My wife might complain ;) I am looking for a balance between costs and satisfaction.

[rocknbil]

10K? (Jaw drops)

I am a satellite user, I'm only 1/2 mile from DSL, T-1, Cable TV, and the rest of the known universe. We have "supposedly" a 256 download and a 64K upload. According to our provider, the FCC won't ALLOW a faster upload.

Even at that, I have to convince my wife monthly that the $59 is worth it. But 10K? Where are they sending you to, the MOON?

A word of warning too, perhaps you have some other type of system, but they **say** it's 256, at peak times it's lucky to be 128-175, and there is a three second latency for any request. Upload is barely better than dialup.

It's still not that bad, it's definately better than dialup but not impressive. Just enough to be useful.

I want to hear where they are charging 10K/month for satellite, I believe I've found a new career direction.

[freeflight2]

rocknbill: did you ever try to use telnet / ssh on such a satellite connection? is it useable?

[lammert]

But 10K? Where are they sending you to, the MOON?

10k is for the fastest possible connection, 2 mbit and no other users on the same channel. This was in response to txbakers suggestion to use the fastest connection possible. I am not considering this seriously ;)

It's a remote location in the former Sovjet Union, so satellite density and competition is somewhat less than in the US and other overcrowded parts of this planet. This affects the price. But price is not my main consideration, the lower speed connections are affordable.

You mentioned a latency of 3 seconds and others also warned me about the latency. Not a real problem with normal surfing I guess, but interactive SSH or telnet sessions will be close to impossible. As a webmaster I use a shell connection with my hosting company almost daily to check log files etc.

Your experience with 64 x 256 seems reasonable. I have lived years with 64 kbps ISDN and although I am now a DSL addict, it is much better than the 19k2 using the ancient telephone system--if it is available at all.

[rocknbil]

but interactive SSH or telnet sessions will be close to impossible.

Well . . . close but not quite. If your servers are configured to allow SSH from your satellite location (our admins allow only our-IP's to SSH for most servers) you CAN SSH in and type wait, type wait. It's a little painful but works, and it teaches you to be VERY careful while typing!

I can't imagine an internet service costing 10K a month. For that price it should be a transporter device! :-)