Satellite vs. Wireless Broadband

jwt

Yep the install costs are woeful.
But to put in perspective I have been waiting for over a year for Kinnegad to get wireless.

In that time I have spent close to 2000 Euro on internet costs plus 12 months of ISDN line rent.


Digiweb can install it for roughly 1100 euro and 100 euro a month.

I would have spent less in one year with Sat than I have waiting for the GBS scheme.

That said where sat isp's are coming up with their equipment costs beats me.

John

Mark@mediasat

Firstly on prices, the cost of equipment to sat ISP's is huge, we don't have a huge markup. If any once can find two-way satellite equipment that comes in at a resonable price tell me because I have looked for alternate suppliers and not been able to find any.

using Low orbit satellites be omes tricky as the satellites are moving accross the sky. this makes uploading difficust as the VSAT on the cround has to be pointed fairly accurately to hit even a low orbit satellite. i you blast out a signal hoping to hit a few satellites then that means more complicated control on the satellite hub side to kill two signals. Low orbit transponder space is also more expensive than Geostatinary satellitetransponser space

The reason Geostatinary satelites are used is they are always in the same spot relative to the earth

Sky link does combine both of these features, i.e. low orbit and geostationaryness, or is it geostationicity. It's height would also remove line of sight issues for most users. what I would wonder is hom many users are required in each cell to make it cost effective and does rural ireland have a great enough populatin density.

As a single geostationary satellite covers all of europe populatin density isn't an issue. the cost of providing broadband to a customer on valentia via satellite is the same as providing broadband to a customer in dublin via satellite

bminish

Mark@mediasat wrote:

Low orbit transponder space is also more expensive than Geostatinary satellitetransponser space

I am not aware of any available LEO transponder space although there are various store and forward services available on LEO's as well as some low bandwidth / telephone products
Orbicomm
I have actually used Iridium the voice quality is crap (2400 bps Codec ) but it's petty low latency and it really does work in the arse end of nowhere

Sky link does combine both of these features, i.e. low orbit and geostationaryness, or is it geostationicity. It's height would also remove line of sight issues for most users. what I would wonder is hom many users are required in each cell to make it cost effective and does rural ireland have a great enough populatin density.

It's not in orbit at all. It's simply at about 3,000m (I,e 3Km) above ground

As a single geostationary satellite covers all of europe populatin density isn't an issue. the cost of providing broadband to a customer on valentia via satellite is the same as providing broadband to a customer in dublin via satellite

But it's NOT actually correct to call it broadband since it can't offer bandwidth combined with reasonable latency. Satellite Internet is an option of last resort.

.Brendan

Axl

Mark@mediasat wrote:

WiMax won't be launched. ( and just so everyone knows I work for Mediasatellite a satellite broadband ISP) I've been keeping an eye on Wi-Max and it doesn't have an IEEE standard yet or even a spectrum allocation. 2007 is the predicted rollout of standardised WI-Max.

you might get someone to roll out non standard Wi-Max but that's going to be costly and risky for a provider so I can't see it happening. People complain about mobile phone masts and that is a proven IEEE standard. I know I wouldn't allow a Wi-Max mast near me if I could stop it.

As for line rental, a phone line is for transferring voice traffic over a cable line,no way can you justify any sort of data requirements for line rental. To ensure data of a minimum quality you need to get a line for data and that's a leased line and there mega expensive.Untill there is a seperate voice and data network data's always going to play second fiddle voice.

oh and on bandwidth shaping, be caefull about that. We use it on our products and it is a great tool. it makes sure that the average user has the connection that they pay for and that the people who are heavy users get throttled. though the average home user downloads about 250Mb a month(seriously) so there will be as many people complaining about traffic shaping as any other method of control.

What would I lke to see in 2005 though, way more people getting satellite broadband so the costs can come down and but more importantly I can get a raise

Quick question - seeing as you are so open to discuss. On what do you base your theory that WiMax will be dangerous (versus anything else that is available now)?

<Edited to add> On what theory on knowledge do you base the entry cost of WiMax - even the pre release WiMax that seems to be filtering into the market at the moment?

<Edit again> No spectrum allocation? Where do you get that info?

bminish

Axl wrote:

<Edit again> No spectrum allocation? Where do you get that info?

In Ireland currently the following ranges are available for WIMAX

5.8 Ghz (Licence free)
3.5 Ghz (Licenced )

.Brendan

Axl

bminish wrote:

In Ireland currently the following ranges are available for WIMAX

5.8 Ghz (Licence free)
3.5 Ghz (Licenced )

.Brendan

Exactly. So where does the information that is so one sided in his post come from? I think its a bit of pissing in the wind to be honest.

cgarvey

Gentle plea to not let the thread descend into personal insults!

damien

bminish wrote:

But it's NOT actually correct to call it broadband since it can't offer bandwidth combined with reasonable latency. Satellite Internet is an option of last resort.

Right, so we have to educate people and the press and have them call it Satellite Internet and not "Satellite Broadband". No problem.

Mark@mediasat

from dictionary.com
Broadband:
"A class of communication channel capable of
supporting a wide range of frequencies, typically from audio
up to video frequencies. A broadband channel can carry
multiple signals by dividing the total capacity into multiple,
independent bandwidth channels, where each channel operates
only on a specific range of frequencies.

The term has come to be used for any kind of Internet
connection with a download speed of more than 56 kbps,
usually some kind of Digital Subscriber Line, e.g. ADSL."

Satellite broadband is indeed that, i.e. it operates over a broad band of frequencies.

High latency broadband yes,( the latency may cause issues with certain applications) but broadband nonetheless.

The problem with latency on satellite networks is often due to machine time in the IDU. i.e on a ping taking 1500 ms from a satellite IDU, 600 traveling two and from the satellite, say 200 ms on various servers getting to the destination of the ping( and that is very high) leaving 700 ms of machine time. get rid of that and things improve significantly, ( Machine time on the IDU can be up to 2 seconds)

Brendan I know SkyLinc system isn't in orbit but teathered, i meant by low orbit to convey that they are at a low altitude apologies for my confusing use of the english language.

As for Low orbit satellite transponder space, I don't know of any availible either, you proposed low orbit satellite not me. and any rescourse that is scarce is expensive. As far as Iknow there is work ongoing into using low orbit satellites for broadband but the complexity of the control systems needed is making the system unfeasibly expensive.

as for where I get my info, most of it comes from the internet, some may be false and I have stood corrected on some of my points, i.e the progression of the development of Wi-Max and the spectrum allocation.

My concerns about safety exist through research done by me as part of my masters degree, I did say that my main concern abot safety levels in WI-Max was the lack of research done into it, so when the research comes out I will read that and make up my mind. If anone knows of a link to research done onthose frequencies proposed for Wi-Max please post it so I can read it.

oscarBravo

Mark@mediasat wrote:

using Low orbit satellites be omes tricky as the satellites are moving accross the sky. this makes uploading difficust as the VSAT on the cround has to be pointed fairly accurately to hit even a low orbit satellite. i you blast out a signal hoping to hit a few satellites then that means more complicated control on the satellite hub side to kill two signals.

Why would it be any more complicated than (say) GSM, where a handset is in communication with up to six cells at any given time? The mobility concept is broadly similar, except that the "cells" are moving relative to the subscriber, rather than vice-versa.

Brendan, how does your (low-bandwidth) experience with Iridium tie in with this - I'd imagine you had voice calls longer than the time it takes an LEO to traverse from horizon to horizon?

jbkenn

Mark@mediasat wrote:

from dictionary.com
Broadband:
"A class of communication channel capable of
supporting a wide range of frequencies, typically from audio
up to video frequencies. A broadband channel can carry
multiple signals by dividing the total capacity into multiple,
independent bandwidth channels, where each channel operates
only on a specific range of frequencies.

The term has come to be used for any kind of Internet
connection with a download speed of more than 56 kbps,
usually some kind of Digital Subscriber Line, e.g. ADSL."

Satellite broadband is indeed that, i.e. it operates over a broad band of frequencies.

High latency broadband yes,( the latency may cause issues with certain applications) but broadband nonetheless.

Mark
Bit of advice, when in a hole stop digging.

Satellite "Broadband" as a solution to the broadband deficit in Ireland runs counter to the aims of IOFFL. It gives the lie to "Broadband Availability" and allows agencies to make spurious claims about broadband coverage in Ireland.
Satellite Broadband is a Third world solution to a First world problem
for the reasons stated by yourself below

The problem with latency on satellite networks is often due to machine time in the IDU. i.e on a ping taking 1500 ms from a satellite IDU, 600 traveling two and from the satellite, say 200 ms on various servers getting to the destination of the ping( and that is very high) leaving 700 ms of machine time. get rid of that and things improve significantly, ( Machine time on the IDU can be up to 2 seconds)

as for where I get my info, most of it comes from the internet, some may be false and I have stood corrected on some of my points, i.e the progression of the development of Wi-Max and the spectrum allocation.

A large number of people posting here, do so from practical experience.

My concerns about safety exist through research done by me as part of my masters degree, I did say that my main concern abot safety levels in WI-Max was the lack of research done into it, so when the research comes out I will read that and make up my mind. If anone knows of a link to research done onthose frequencies proposed for Wi-Max please post it so I can read it.

FUD

jbkenn

damien

Using Dictonary.com for a definition of Broadband is like using a cooking book to define Thermodynamics.

damien

damien.m wrote:

Broadband: "high speed, always on, Internet connection" is the general definition. If you want to use a standard since you slagged off WiMax's lack of one (which I'll get to in a minute) the ITU definition for BB is 2MB/s up and down. FCC says 200k/s up and down.


one way satellite

high speed in one direction - no check
always on - no - no check
Internet connection - check

1 out of 3 does not make it broadband. Even using the most liberal definition.

Going in circles now. Mark, do you know what the Information Society Commission's defintion of Broadband is, or what the Oireachtas Report on Broadband defined broadband as ? I'd take their properly researched definition over something like Dictionary.com any day.

Capt'n Midnight

( I've been on systems called Satellite ADSL and rarely got to ASDL speeds until the wee hours )

Might as well insist that the media change the terminology from one-way satellite to dial-up satellite or Satellite ISDN to highlight the associated additional costs of line rental and call charges and expected responsiveness.

Also should point out that if you want always on satellite then a license is usually required for the uplink.
Radiation from a satellite uplink is both higher frequency and higher power than any wifi / Wi-Max system, so is more damaging on both counts, and dishes do have side lobes so while the bulk is heading away at 22 degrees to horizontal there is still a fair bit coming off the sides.

Praetorian

Mark, did your much talked about masters degree help you in being wrong about every single thing you posted here, or do you have a natural talent for pushing totally incorrect facts. So far everything you posted has been proven by many to be untrue, yet still like a stubborn donkey you stick to your guns but seem to be finding weaker and weaker facts to try and hold your position.

Mark@mediasat

From Google
Definitions of BROADBAND on the Web:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&q=define:BROADBAND
Ther is about 30 of them.
I couldn't find wither of the ones recommended by Damian so if he could post them or a lnk to them I would appreciate it.

Not one mentions latency, and to do so would be fundamentally incorrect.
Copper wire is a method of delivering broadband, which has a low latency. Satellite is a method of delivering broadband that has a high latency.

As for my masters I only brought it up to highlight that I have read a lot of research on the effect of radiation on human tissue. I have even stated that I am probably being over cautious. It was not my intent to try to put myself forward as having superior knowledge in telecomms.

Satellite uplink transmitters are either 1w or 2w transmitters and much less power is radiated in directions other than the pointed directions. I don’t know the power for a Wi-Max base station or the direction gain of that antenna.

Going in circles I agree. The reason is because my central points are being ignored and small comments I have made have been grasped on.

To sum up.
Copper wire, cable and wireless broadband are great if you can get them.
Satellite Broadband offers a broadband access method that allows many users conduct the work they wish to do online at broadband speeds.

customers can avail of satellite technology immediately. Yes it is expensive relative to DSL but in many cases offers a saving over the cost of being connected via ISDN( in some cases multiple ISDN lines) or a leased line.

The latency associated with many satellite systems is due to the TDMA being used. This results in an additional 600-1500 ms delay.( and yes I agree whoever came up with using TDMA over satellite should be taken out and well questioned at least). Removing this latency, and there are systems out there which do this results in ping times between 600-700ms, very consistently, which does allow many of the applications which have issues with the latency most noticeably IPSEC VPN to be used over satellite.

I have never proposed that wireless shouldn't be used for broadband far from it, however I am sceptical about the timeline I have often seen mentioned.( that is the point I was trying to make at the start). I would be very surprised to see wireless broadband rolled out in rural areas before the end of the year.

I believe that all technologies must be used to allow everyone avail of broadband. I understand why IOFFL is anti-satellite broadband.

If IOFFL accepts satellite broadband as being broadband then they have to concede that everyone in the country can get broadband which would in diminish the appeal of IOFFL to the national media. A headline saying 70% of the country unable to get broadband is much sexier than 70% of the country can only get high latency broadband.

Satellite "Broadband" as a solution to the broadband deficit in Ireland runs counter to the aims of IOFFL. It gives the lie to "Broadband Availability" and allows agencies to make spurious claims about broadband coverage in Ireland.

And I agree that to say well we're not rolling out broadband because everyone can get satellite broadband would be a disgraceful stance for either the government or any large Telco’s to take. And I do think it is important that IOFFL does keep pushing for an improved copper and wireless network. However I do think that there will always be customers unable to get broadband by any other means.

I don't think that IOFFL needs to bash satellite to push this message, and saying well satellite while not as good as wireless or cable or copper wire broadband does offer viable alternative to consumers which is far superior to dial-up and ISDN, though it's costs may be prohibitive to many users and some customers may experience difficulty with certain applications.

And from rereading my posts I haven’t pushed any incorrect facts about satellite. I made a post about how WI-Max hasn't been standardised which has been corrected again and again despite my stating to have been corrected and thanking those who corrected me.

I have been both personally and professionally insulted,since joining this forum I was even called a donkey and unfortunatelly I resemble a donkey in no manner . Yes I may have posted incorrect comments, I’m sure I'm not the first or last to do this and some posters have simply corrected these. Others have accused me of either deliberate misinformation for commercial gain, or of complete incompetence, neither of which are appreciated. If anyone wants me to edit any of my posts with correct information, I will do so.

bminish

oscarBravo wrote:

Why would it be any more complicated than (say) GSM, where a handset is in communication with up to six cells at any given time? The mobility concept is broadly similar, except that the "cells" are moving relative to the subscriber, rather than vice-versa.

Brendan, how does your (low-bandwidth) experience with Iridium tie in with this - I'd imagine you had voice calls longer than the time it takes an LEO to traverse from horizon to horizon?

Yes, the handovers work fine, unless you have a very restricted view of the sky. Iridium prices are not conducive to long calls however it was actually cheaper than roaming on the mobile in North America which says something about the rip off roaming charges the GSM operators are getting away with

.Brendan

bminish

Mark@mediasat wrote:

From Google
Definitions of BROADBAND on the Web:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&q=define:BROADBAND
Ther is about 30 of them.
I couldn't find wither of the ones recommended by Damian so if he could post them or a lnk to them I would appreciate it.

Not one mentions latency, and to do so would be fundamentally incorrect.
Copper wire is a method of delivering broadband, which has a low latency. Satellite is a method of delivering broadband that has a high latency.

But for most uses the latency is the primary limitation of the service.
it's NOT broadband.

Satellite uplink transmitters are either 1w or 2w transmitters and much less power is radiated in directions other than the pointed directions. I don’t know the power for a Wi-Max base station or the direction gain of that antenna.

Typical 3.5 or 5.8 Ghz Wimax type base station kit is 100mW combined with antennas with no more than around 17 dBi gain (60 degree sector), EIRP less than 37dBm
CPE kit is at a similar EIRP
these are taken from the current specsheets provided by a pre-wimax vendor. this vendor has assured me that they will provide a software upgrade path to full wimax when the standard is ratified

Typical VSAT terminal 2w (33dBm) combined with 37 dBi antenna gain, 70dBm EIRP, some sidelobes will be as little as 25 db down

The latency associated with many satellite systems is due to the TDMA being used. This results in an additional 600-1500 ms delay.( and yes I agree whoever came up with using TDMA over satellite should be taken out and well questioned at least).

TDMA is used becase that's all the transponders can cope with, the transponders were designed for TV and point to point links, Point to multipoint is a hack. Another issue here is the very high levels of contention that the VSAT operators are using to help keep costs down

Removing this latency, and there are systems out there which do this results in ping times between 600-700ms, very consistently, which does allow many of the applications which have issues with the latency most noticeably IPSEC VPN to be used over satellite.

the system I was on could manage pings between 800 and 1000 msec most of the time, it was still crap. I hate to think what mediasat's 2 second ping time product is like to use.

I would be very surprised to see wireless broadband rolled out in rural areas before the end of the year.

Why do you think that then?

I don't think that IOFFL needs to bash satellite to push this message, and saying well satellite while not as good as wireless or cable or copper wire broadband does offer viable alternative to consumers which is far superior to dial-up and ISDN, though it's costs may be prohibitive to many users and some customers may experience difficulty with certain applications.

For most users satellite is an inferior choice to ISDN combined with a flat rate package. In Ireland satellite is sold under the false pretence that it is a good broadband solution. People are being conned into thinking it is their only option and that it's actually pretty good (which it isn't.)

.Brendan

damien

Mark@mediasat wrote:

If IOFFL accepts satellite broadband as being broadband then they have to concede that everyone in the country can get broadband which would in diminish the appeal of IOFFL to the national media. A headline saying 70% of the country unable to get broadband is much sexier than 70% of the country can only get high latency broadband.

Hilarious! IrelandOffline's hidden agenda comes to light ! Sexy headlines and afraid of diminishing our appeal ? We're a consumer lobbying group who have and will continue to fact-check the crap that is spewed by some telcos and marketers. We've taken on the FUD from eircom and others and shown the press and the Government what the real facts are, so much so that eircom actually had to address the broadband mess in Ireland at their AGM.

IrelandOffline isn't about sexy headlines Mark, it's about setting the record straight in a telecoms environment where for years the players could say what they wanted and it went unchecked.

I don't think that IOFFL needs to bash satellite to push this message,

Nothing wrong with satellite, what is wrong is people that peddle it and call it something it isn't, promise it's something it isn't and suggest that it's competing products are potential health risks. IrelandOffline will certainly tackle that kind of drivel and will not let it go without comment.

We've met with Noel Dempsey and told him straight out that Satellite broadband is an oxymoron. Higher speed net access on satellite is not functional and we will not be silent on such a fallacy. There is no way we'll allow consumers to sign up for a system without knowing the real facts on it. As Unamuno said, "At times, to be silent is to lie."

Mark@mediasat

I'm not going into a pantoesque it's broadband oh yes it is oh no it's not.
but I have never found a definition of broadband which mentions latency.

Typical 3.5 or 5.8 Ghz Wimax type base station kit is 100mW combined with antennas with no more than around 17 dBi gain (60 degree sector), EIRP less than 37dBm

True but a major difference is that satellite point up away from people, as opposed to wimax which points down. but thanks for the figures.However my point still stands pre-ratification of WI-Max I'd feel better if similar figures were used post ratifacatin but we won't know until ratification.

TDMA is used becase that's all the transponders can cope with

again a very good point. grrrr, but using a TDMA scheme which introduces as much latency into the equation as the transport time is questionable.

the system I was on could manage pings between 800 and 1000 msec most of the time, it was still crap. I hate to think what mediasat's 2 second ping time product is like to use.

I'd quess it's the same system, would a ping to google normally respond with ping times of 850 to 1150 is but about 1 in 10 pings give a 2-3 second ping. That's the ping you'd expect with the hardware used most comonnally in europe and ireland. and one of the two systems used by mediasat

The other and more expensive system uses a superior method of TDMA giving a lower and more consistant ping time

Why do you think that then?

From what I have seen wireless has so far been installed in urban areas where the population density allows for higher profitablility. I don't see a that wireless broadband providers are in a position to make large profits from wireless in rural areas.

For most users satellite is an inferior choice to ISDN combined with a flat rate package. In Ireland satellite is sold under the false pretence that it is a good broadband solution. People are being conned into thinking it is their only option and that it's actually pretty good (which it isn't.)

not in my experience but I'm biased so don't listen to me.

Damian I didn't mean to imply that IOFFLis about headlines I even said

I do think it is important that IOFFL does keep pushing for an improved copper and wireless network

and yes it has achieved a lot, and greatly improved the way in which telecos at least communicate with the public.

Nothing wrong with satellite .

My point exactly

that it's competing products are potential health risks

the health risk thing has been made much bigger than I ever meant to be. my origional point which has been somewhat lost both by me( I love a good "discussion") and others, was to highlight that I wouldn't be entirely happy if a mast was put up within 100m of me( i used 100m before and said more than that would be fine) however as parodied in the recent guinness advert irish love complaining and I can see people complaining about masts going up near them or their sheep or something.

There is no way we'll allow consumers to sign up for a system without knowing the real facts on it. As Unamuno said, "At times, to be silent is to lie."

I agree entirely, from a commercial point of view there is no pont in selling something to a customer that they won't be happy with. it leads to bad word of mouth.

bminish

Mark@mediasat wrote:

True but a major difference is that satellite point up away from people, as opposed to wimax which points down. but thanks for the figures.However my point still stands pre-ratification of WI-Max I'd feel better if similar figures were used post ratifacatin but we won't know until ratification.

They WILL be using that sort of EIRP post ratification. It's outside, well above head height into an antenna that has a beamwidth of 60 degrees or less

What about sidelobes from the VSAT setup?

Since you seem so unhappy about microwave exposure you cannot simply ignore the VSAT Sidelobes in your argument since in many cases the exposure levels will be higher than a Wimax or Wi-Fi setup

You haven't offered ANY facts whatsoever to justify your fear of microwaves

I am sitting in my home office today making VoIP calls over my wireless broadband connection, these calls are low latency and full normal telephony audio quality. The users at the other end don't know I am not on a normal land line. Try that with VSAT! Better again how about 2 VSAT users calling each other.


.Brendan

Mark@mediasat

I am sitting in my home office today making VoIP calls over my wireless broadband connection, these calls are low latency and full normal telephony audio quality. The users at the other end don't know I am not on a normal land line. Try that with VSAT! Better again how about 2 VSAT users calling each other.

I have done, it was fine. I even used skype to go out over a VSAT in the office and back in over the same VSAT and had no problems. (But then again that's probably just me lying to trick everyone into going out and buying satellite broadband)


As I've said before, i didn't mean to make such a big deal about microwave exposure.As stated before my issue was the lack of clarity, thank you for the figures. I'll look over them tonight, well actually I wont,I'm going to aero kick I might do it thursday or friday if I get time

bminish

Mark@mediasat wrote:

I have done, it was fine. I even used skype to go out over a VSAT in the office and back in over the same VSAT and had no problems. (But then again that's probably just me lying to trick everyone into going out and buying satellite broadband)

I have no idea how how a phone call with that kind of latency could possibly be described as 'fine'

.Brendan

Capt'n Midnight

Mark@mediasat wrote:

If IOFFL accepts satellite broadband as being broadband then they have to concede that everyone in the country can get broadband which would in diminish the appeal of IOFFL to the national media. A headline saying 70% of the country unable to get broadband is much sexier than 70% of the country can only get high latency broadband.

IIRC one of IOFFL remits was affordable internet.
Back in the 1950's you could get fast data links in Greenland if you were prepared to pay for them..
In the States you can rent copper for maybe €20 per month and plug in your own DSL modems and ramp it up as far as it will go, great for DIY ISP's. Even is this country you used to be able to get private wire for about €900 per year, again if both ends were on the same exchange you could try for DSL. In the UK and Germany and Scandanavia ISDN has been available to most consumers for yonks.

Point being is that Satellite only looks affordable here because of the high costs of fixed lines, but since you have to pay line rental too the benefits fall off rapidly. And it could only appeal to someone who can't get 28.8Kb Also Satellite is a fixed resource, if you double the consumers without doubling the bandwidth, you will loose customers, if you double the bandwidth you may have to wait until the next launch...

Sat coverage as broadband - only if you agree that most of Ireland has slighty better broadband availability than a point in the North Atlantic 500 Miles from the nearest land..

eircomtribunal

damien.m wrote:

We've met with Noel Dempsey and told him straight out that Satellite broadband is an oxymoron.

Have to defend Mark here (and that as a former "victim" of MediaSat) and commend him on taking his stance on the forum.

The underlying aggression of some here should not be directed at Mark.

I had to use Sat Internet, because it was still less expensive than using "always-on" ISDN, precisely because ComReg did not introduce always-on FRIACO, as demanded by the DCMNR in its directive and is still falsely praised for regulating for ridiculously overpriced pre-paid Internet hours by the media, the DCMNR and Ioffl!

How many FRIACO packages do you need to get always-on dial-up? What are the costs of that per month? How easy/difficult is it to do?

Dermot Ahern was a sucker for promoting Satellite "Broadband", Noel Dempsey and the DCMNR are the same. They constantly drivel on about it. It is prominently in that DCMNR broadband site. The school bb programme promotes the same nonsense.
Just have a look at Isoldes piece in the Times from the other thread and see how she prominently lists satellite for broadband coverage: "Achieving full [bb]coverage will mean a reliance on a mixture of technologies, including fixed line, cable, satellite, wireless or mobile telephony."
Here are the protagonists that deserve our aggression.


P.

jwt

eircomtribunal wrote:

Have to defend Mark here (and that as a former "victim" of MediaSat) and commend him on taking his stance on the forum.

The underlying aggression of some here should not be directed at Mark.

Fair go to Mark for defending his point of view , the aggression is mainly more aimed at his points rather than him bar for one or two instances

I had to use Sat Internet, because it was still less expensive than using "always-on" ISDN, precisely because ComReg did not introduce always-on FRIACO, as demanded by the DCMNR in its directive and is still falsely praised for regulating for ridiculously overpriced pre-paid Internet hours by the media, the DCMNR and Ioffl!

Not strictly accurate that comment Peter , IOFFL praised FRIACO as a vast improvement over the previous situation, i.e. nothing and quite rightly took credit for even this small step .

Dermot Ahern was a sucker for promoting Satellite "Broadband", Noel Dempsey and the DCMNR are the same. They constantly drivel on about it. It is prominently in that DCMNR broadband site. The school bb programme promotes the same nonsense.
Just have a look at Isoldes piece in the Times from the other thread and see how she prominently lists satellite for broadband coverage: "Achieving full [bb]coverage will mean a reliance on a mixture of technologies, including fixed line, cable, satellite, wireless or mobile telephony."
Here are the protagonists that deserve our aggression.


P.

Have already sat in front of minister Dempsey and explicitly expressed our views on Sat , why we think its unsuitable as a general purpose BB solution and further went on to say that we would strongly resist any move towards promoting Sat as a generic BB solution.

Bar for hitting him over the head with a Sat dish I don't think IOFFL could have made it any clearer.
EDIT: We did agree the point that Sat BB should be viewed as BB of last resort.

ComReg are aware of Sat technology and its inherent disadvantages, epecially in a business enviroment. They know it, we know they know it etc etc.

No other country in Europe accepts Sat as acceptable BB so Comreg and the DCMNR can't either. Or they'll get hammered in the press and they both know it in their heart of hearts.

Getting Sat accepted as a viable BB technology would suit a lot of people, but try selling that to a large multinational and see how far you get :eek:

John

Axl

Please explain how you feel that WiMax will be harmful. Its limited by the same power restrictions as any other 3.5GHz systems.

Do you use a mobile phone?
Do you realise that you are putting the same amount of power against the side of your head that is permissable in Ireland in 3.5GHz from a tower and CPE which you would not normally get close to in the case of FWA.

You have points in some respect, I think the problem is that you have discredited yourself severely with some of the guesses and other rubbish that has been said - no one will take you seriously.

jbkenn

You were right Mark, Satellite is "Broadband"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2266156&posted=1#post2266156

jbkenn

jwt

See my reply on the other thread............


John

damien

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0111/mediasat.html