From: "Al Heath" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Importance: Normal
Sensitivity: 
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: Satellite Internet Access
To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:06:11 -0500
Message-ID: <OFE3C95712.A0D06681-ON862572A5.00520608@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; 
	Boundary="0__=09BBF836DFC180988f9e8a93df938690918c09BBF836DFC18098"
Content-Disposition: inline

--0__=09BBF836DFC180988f9e8a93df938690918c09BBF836DFC18098
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable



On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:41:39 -0500, Sam Lewis wrote:

>>This subject comes up from time to time.
>>
>>I am using Starband right now.... I don't want to spend
>>the money on new Satellite setup just to end up in a worse position i=
f I
>>can help it.
>>
>>If anyone has information or opinions I would like to hear them.
>>Sam

>I see commercials on local TV all the time for HughesNet
>[http://www.hughesnet.com].  I have no idea if it is good, bad or
>indifferent.
>Carl

When visiting my sister's house, I use her Hughes Net satellite connect=
ion
as other than dialup, that is her only choice for connectivity.  One th=
ing
to consider is the latency on satellite connections.  From what I recal=
l,
pings to yahoo.com were in the 2000 msec range versus the 10 to 15 msec=

range I get here at home with my cable connection.  But, once the satel=
lite
filled the pipe with a block of data, it came down about like a low end=
 DSL
connection.  What really impacted me was telnet sessions to remote host=
s
... due to the latency between keystrokes.   As you typed ahead, the ec=
hos
would burst back in bunches as packet contents were accumulated.  But w=
eb
surfing and email was fairly acceptable.

Al H=

--0__=09BBF836DFC180988f9e8a93df938690918c09BBF836DFC18098
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body>
<p><tt>On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:41:39 -0500, Sam Lewis wrote:<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>&gt;&gt;This subject comes up from time to time.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;I am using Starband right now.</tt><tt>... I don't want to spen=
d<br>
&gt;&gt;the money on new Satellite setup just to end up in a worse posi=
tion if I<br>
&gt;&gt;can help it.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;If anyone has information or opinions I would like to hear them=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;Sam<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>&gt;I see commercials on local TV all the time for HughesNet<br>
&gt;[<a href=3D"http://www.hughesnet.com">http://www.hughesnet.com</a>]=
. &nbsp;I have no idea if it is good, bad or<br>
&gt;indifferent. &nbsp;</tt><br>
<tt>&gt;Carl<br>
</tt><br>
When visiting my sister's house, I use her Hughes Net satellite connect=
ion as other than dialup, that is her only choice for connectivity.  On=
e thing to consider is the latency on satellite connections.  From what=
 I recall, pings to yahoo.com were in the 2000 msec range versus the 10=
 to 15 msec range I get here at home with my cable connection.  But, on=
ce the satellite filled the pipe with a block of data, it came down abo=
ut like a low end DSL connection.  What really impacted me was telnet s=
essions to remote hosts ... due to the latency between keystrokes.   As=
 you typed ahead, the echos would burst back in bunches as packet conte=
nts were accumulated.  But web surfing and email was fairly acceptable.=
<br>
<br>
Al H</body></html>=

--0__=09BBF836DFC180988f9e8a93df938690918c09BBF836DFC18098--