Now back to stupid 56K, but will be back to cable in a few days.
The speed will make your head dizzy.
When you can work it into your budget folks it is a must do. Like sliced bread it is. For me about the same cost per month as second phone line and provider fees.
I read an interesing article in Money magazine about a community out in a rural area who created their own DSL connection. One guy led the way with the idea and took action to do it. The equipment was surprisingly small and when it was averaged out among all the people who tapped into it, the cost was affordable.
Apparently their biggest hurdle was getting approval or cooperation from the phone company.
You are not alone. Most people in this country are still on dial up. The whole broadband thing just didn't catch on like investors and now defunct dot coms thought would happen.
We are lucky in this Tampa Bay area. We have choice of Cable or DSL. I use both and they are both nice. Cost is $50. per month for each.
Living out in the country, I can't get cable or DSL. So I looked into Directway Satelite Broadband as an add-on to my satelite TV system.
Yikes ! It runs $99 per month PLUS the $39 I am already paying for Direct TV.
Looks like I will remain on dialup for a while longer.
Plus, there's that pesky speed-of-light lag with satellite networking. You take an unavoidable 300-millisecond hit on every packet because of the travel time to and from the satellite. That's before it even reaches DirecTV's ISP.
OK, Let's say the satelite is 22,300 miles in orbit in the Clarke Belt. At 186,000 miles per second, that is approx 120 ms one way.
Now I am assuming that the satelite is used only as a relay or a switch. So a request for a packet would have to travel from the client system to the satellite, then from the satelite to the ISP, taking approximately 120 ms on each leg for a total of 240 ms. Add in a 60 ms switching time at the satellite itself and you have the 300 ms. That is just to get the packet request to Direct TV's Command Center.
Next, then the request goes out on the Internet through multiple routers and switches and reaches finally reaches it's target, taking another 50 ms or so to get there and back to Direct TV's Command Center where it is relayed up to the satelite and back down to the client system in another 300 ms.
This gives a total time from packet request to receving the packet of about 650 ms or so. Of course this is in a perfect world assuming unlimited bandwith and no conjestion. I would be interested in seeing what the real world time would be on an actual system.
For example, on my dialup with ATT, when I ping a site in Singapore, I get a round trip time of about 350 ms, actually not to shabby for dialup.
OF course the advantage with the satellite is with the speed of the data transmission when it streaming - Like loading graphics and streaming audion/video or downloading large files. I would also like to know what speeds I can expect here - in the real world.
Zix, do you know someone who has this and can provide some real world figures ? Direct TV is elusive.
What's up with dial up modems these days. I have kinda lost touch. But I saw one at a store last week and it said V 92 or something like that. Have they come out with something in dial up that has bumped up the speed a little?
Overall, I think dial up has greatly improved compared to say 4 or 5 years ago hasn't it? Hasn't the internet iteslf become more efficient as well, what with more modern equipment and so forth or the opposite due to its growth?
Goey: If memory serves, the DirecTV throughput is supposed to be 400kbps. Decent, but with DSL and cable breaking the 1Mbps level, it's only an option for those who can't get hi-speed any other way.
That site in Singapore that you ping won't get much faster off the dialup, since ping packets are so tiny, the modem doesn't bottleneck them a lot. So add the 350 to your 600ms overhead, and now we're talking about nearly a full-second lag under ideal conditions.
This is why live interviews on the "Today Show" and others seem so odd. Katie asks a question, and it takes a full second for the person to respond due to the satellite link.
Ordinarily, that would be tolerable, but you also have to think about the programs that handshake continuously with the host computer, too. If the host gets feedback from the destination to determine when to send the next packet of data, the lag may be a dealbreaker.
This is extremely apparent in online games like Quake/Half-Life/Unreal. People with fast connections used to be referred to as LPBs, or low-ping bastards. When the average lag is 200ms, and your connection allows you a ping of 50ms to the server, you can send 4 commands for every single command the other players do, i.e., you can hop out from behind a corner, shoot a guy, then duck back before he ever sees you. If some guy has a 1000ms lag, well...they had a nickname too. Giblets.
If you don't do much interactive stuff like games or online audio/video chatting, it probably won't bother you too much.
igotout: V.92 is slightly faster because it uses a new compression protocol, V.44, instead of the decade-old V.42bis protocol.
The big selling points are faster negotiation/connect times (the modem connect static+ping noise before the connection is established) and MOH, or Modem-on-hold which is basically non-interrupting call waiting while on modem. V.92 also supports upstream PCM now, so uploads can go at the faster speeds that you used to only get on download.
The catch is that your phone line has to be in tip-top shape, and your ISP's modem bank must support V.92, which not all do.
All I know, the service for cable internet is outstanding. The same day I had problems, the cable guy came right out within 20 minutes to fix it.
He said something about how the internet juice flowing through the hose that hooks into my computer was backing up like a plugged sewer line, and so he drove right out to the whatchamacalut and turned the spigot just so, poured in some electronic drain cleaner and the next thing I knew internet juice was flowing like it had ate some Ex Lax.
I know my computer terminology isn't exactly the best, but trust me, cable internet rocks.
Recommended Posts
ChattyKathy
Do I ever second that one.
Now back to stupid 56K, but will be back to cable in a few days.
The speed will make your head dizzy.
When you can work it into your budget folks it is a must do. Like sliced bread it is. For me about the same cost per month as second phone line and provider fees.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Well,
Living out in the country, I can't get cable or DSL. So I looked into Directway Satelite Broadband as an add-on to my satelite TV system.
Yikes ! It runs $99 per month PLUS the $39 I am already paying for Direct TV.
Looks like I will remain on dialup for a while longer.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Goey,
That sucks. And I am beginning to wonder if my problems tie to the fact everyone outside of Chicago lives in the country in Illinois. hahahahaha
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Chattsy -
You didn't know that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Steve,
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
What can I say, sometimes I am a slow learner.
You continue to lighten up my heart there Steve.
Hey it is trying to snow here, sure that will aid in my staying connected via phone lines now. LMAO.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I read an interesing article in Money magazine about a community out in a rural area who created their own DSL connection. One guy led the way with the idea and took action to do it. The equipment was surprisingly small and when it was averaged out among all the people who tapped into it, the cost was affordable.
Apparently their biggest hurdle was getting approval or cooperation from the phone company.
You are not alone. Most people in this country are still on dial up. The whole broadband thing just didn't catch on like investors and now defunct dot coms thought would happen.
We are lucky in this Tampa Bay area. We have choice of Cable or DSL. I use both and they are both nice. Cost is $50. per month for each.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Plus, there's that pesky speed-of-light lag with satellite networking. You take an unavoidable 300-millisecond hit on every packet because of the travel time to and from the satellite. That's before it even reaches DirecTV's ISP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
OK, Let's say the satelite is 22,300 miles in orbit in the Clarke Belt. At 186,000 miles per second, that is approx 120 ms one way.
Now I am assuming that the satelite is used only as a relay or a switch. So a request for a packet would have to travel from the client system to the satellite, then from the satelite to the ISP, taking approximately 120 ms on each leg for a total of 240 ms. Add in a 60 ms switching time at the satellite itself and you have the 300 ms. That is just to get the packet request to Direct TV's Command Center.
Next, then the request goes out on the Internet through multiple routers and switches and reaches finally reaches it's target, taking another 50 ms or so to get there and back to Direct TV's Command Center where it is relayed up to the satelite and back down to the client system in another 300 ms.
This gives a total time from packet request to receving the packet of about 650 ms or so. Of course this is in a perfect world assuming unlimited bandwith and no conjestion. I would be interested in seeing what the real world time would be on an actual system.
For example, on my dialup with ATT, when I ping a site in Singapore, I get a round trip time of about 350 ms, actually not to shabby for dialup.
OF course the advantage with the satellite is with the speed of the data transmission when it streaming - Like loading graphics and streaming audion/video or downloading large files. I would also like to know what speeds I can expect here - in the real world.
Zix, do you know someone who has this and can provide some real world figures ? Direct TV is elusive.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
What's up with dial up modems these days. I have kinda lost touch. But I saw one at a store last week and it said V 92 or something like that. Have they come out with something in dial up that has bumped up the speed a little?
Overall, I think dial up has greatly improved compared to say 4 or 5 years ago hasn't it? Hasn't the internet iteslf become more efficient as well, what with more modern equipment and so forth or the opposite due to its growth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: If memory serves, the DirecTV throughput is supposed to be 400kbps. Decent, but with DSL and cable breaking the 1Mbps level, it's only an option for those who can't get hi-speed any other way.
That site in Singapore that you ping won't get much faster off the dialup, since ping packets are so tiny, the modem doesn't bottleneck them a lot. So add the 350 to your 600ms overhead, and now we're talking about nearly a full-second lag under ideal conditions.
This is why live interviews on the "Today Show" and others seem so odd. Katie asks a question, and it takes a full second for the person to respond due to the satellite link.
Ordinarily, that would be tolerable, but you also have to think about the programs that handshake continuously with the host computer, too. If the host gets feedback from the destination to determine when to send the next packet of data, the lag may be a dealbreaker.
This is extremely apparent in online games like Quake/Half-Life/Unreal. People with fast connections used to be referred to as LPBs, or low-ping bastards. When the average lag is 200ms, and your connection allows you a ping of 50ms to the server, you can send 4 commands for every single command the other players do, i.e., you can hop out from behind a corner, shoot a guy, then duck back before he ever sees you. If some guy has a 1000ms lag, well...they had a nickname too. Giblets.
If you don't do much interactive stuff like games or online audio/video chatting, it probably won't bother you too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
igotout: V.92 is slightly faster because it uses a new compression protocol, V.44, instead of the decade-old V.42bis protocol.
The big selling points are faster negotiation/connect times (the modem connect static+ping noise before the connection is established) and MOH, or Modem-on-hold which is basically non-interrupting call waiting while on modem. V.92 also supports upstream PCM now, so uploads can go at the faster speeds that you used to only get on download.
The catch is that your phone line has to be in tip-top shape, and your ISP's modem bank must support V.92, which not all do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
All I know, the service for cable internet is outstanding. The same day I had problems, the cable guy came right out within 20 minutes to fix it.
He said something about how the internet juice flowing through the hose that hooks into my computer was backing up like a plugged sewer line, and so he drove right out to the whatchamacalut and turned the spigot just so, poured in some electronic drain cleaner and the next thing I knew internet juice was flowing like it had ate some Ex Lax.
I know my computer terminology isn't exactly the best, but trust me, cable internet rocks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.