Anyone with QSat?

pat13wx

D1stant wrote: »

Satelite Broadband is an oxymoron

I'd like to see Ireland do something like this

http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2010/12/vodafone-germany-intros-lte-service-and-pricing/

In Germany the Goverment gave VF cheap LTE spectrum under the condition that they service rural areas with it. 7/21/50Mb services all over Germany

If only!

Any chance Vodafone would set up the same service here?

D1stant

pat13wx wrote: »

If only!

Any chance Vodafone would set up the same service here?

I think any of the operators would jump at it if the terms for spectrum were attractive enough

But LTE will happen anyway, and probably before the Q-Sat 2 year rip off contract is up!

pat13wx

D1stant wrote: »

I think any of the operators would jump at it if the terms for spectrum were attractive enough

But LTE will happen anyway, and probably before the Q-Sat 2 year rip off contract is up!

Something to look forward to, then. Thanks for that.

Dr. Nick

GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!

watty

LTE will make no difference.

Also if LTE is faster and more cap (only possible if MMDS is closed and a single RAN) then it will cost x2 to x4 existing 3G/HSPA.

LTE will hardly affect anything. Also no-one is in a hurry to deploy. Look at the profits they are not making from data now. The profits are all on voice and SMS. LTE does nothing really for that.

In Germany LTE is MORE EXPENSIVE than Broadband or 3G/HSPA. It's sold there as an "on the go" Mobile complement for Business users that already have Broadband at home and office. It's not able to support replacement of Fixed Broadband.

tails_naf

watty wrote: »

LTE will make no difference.

Also if LTE is faster and more cap (only possible if MMDS is closed and a single RAN) then it will cost x2 to x4 existing 3G/HSPA.

LTE will hardly affect anything. Also no-one is in a hurry to deploy. Look at the profits they are not making from data now. The profits are all on voice and SMS. LTE does nothing really for that.

In Germany LTE is MORE EXPENSIVE than Broadband or 3G/HSPA. It's sold there as an "on the go" Mobile complement for Business users that already have Broadband at home and office. It's not able to support replacement of Fixed Broadband.

It's clear that the theoretical speeds of LTE are well beyond 3G/HSPA - but is the range and/or ability to handle the contention any better that what we have now? If so, I can imagine a lot of people wanting it - even if it still is NOT broadband, I would take it.

Any improvement is welcome!

watty

No, the speeds at the same signal level and channel width are actually almost the same.

The oft quoted 100Mbps is for a 20MHz channel and perfect signal with only one user connected. The peak 21Mbps of HDSPA+ is on a 5MHz channel and with only one user connected.

With 10 users connected downloading simultaneously the LTE system is about x2 more efficient than 3G (i.e. in a 5Mhz channel you might get 0.5Mbps instead of 0.25Mbps during busy periods).

The "42Mbps" HSPA+ is in fact one user with perfect signal using all of two 5MHz channels.

The higher speeds are all only available either in WiFi sized cells or close to the mast. At average size cells the speed for only one user connect is on average about 0.6Mbps per MHz of spectrum on both systems.
http://www.radioway.info/comparewireless/img2.html

Note on those diagrams 21Mbps is a small blob 1/8th area in centre of 14.4Mbps. Inverse Square law. The higher speeds only work at shorter distance as better Signal to Noise is needed.

LTE can be in 5MHz or 20MHz channels. If Ofcom and Comreg get their way of "Competition" and maximising revenue then there may only be 5MHz channels.
LTE in 5MHz channel http://www.radioway.info/comparewireless/img10.html

Also because users are not evenly spread and small numbers of simultaneous transfer (i.e. YouTube) per mast sector is possible if you split the spectrum to 3 or 4 operators instead of one wholesale operator (RAN), then the distribution curve of people with very fast speeds (one user in 5MHz) or very slow speeds (20 users in 5MHz) is spread wider instead of narrower peak around the "Average".

There is no more range, except on 800MHz "TV Digital dividend". But more range means bigger cells in Rural areas (pointless in a town as you need LESS range) and simply means less dead spots and fewer masts. It won't mean better performance.

See also http://www.techtir.ie/comms

The reasons for LTE are:

• One back end infrastructure, IP only. Voice is carried as IP data. 3G shares the air interface capacity with separate protocols for voice and data.
• Easier to have one single Wholesale network with all channels (RAN)
• Different channel sizes, not just 5MHz
• OFDM rather than CDMA on downlink improves capacity when congested
• Less problems with Cell Breathing
• Everything can be on IPV6

The "speed" thing is only x4 and only if you have x4 amount of spectrum. In same size channel with only one user there is no real difference.

tails_naf

Excellent post, thanks Watty.

If improvement in terms of spectrum usage efficiency is not really changing, then I guess it means the technology is probably running close to some theoretical limit. If this is true the only way to go is to offer more spectrum, to cover larger chinks per user (or more users per cell) more users - is this correct?

I guess the holy grail for us rural users is not just around the corner so.

The cell breathing thing is interesting. I know at night time, my connection is much faster than in the day time. I assume this is either cell breathing, or else the limit on data bandwidth that the cell tower as back to its main data pipe is at capacity. I wonder is there a way to tell - i.e. if I could measure the SNR on the link at different times of the day, could I estimate if cell breathing was the cause? And in this case, would a directional antenna be the solution?

andy99

I have the Digiweb Sat BB for the past 2 years and while pricey it has never broken down. They are now using a neater 40cm approx dish installed at €280. You get 4gig Traffic at about 4000kbs Down and 500kbs upload. This costs €20 a month for first 3 months and €40 after that. I am about 40kms from Dublin and nothing else works!!

Sponge Bob

Far as I can see the total capacity of Astra 2 Connect is 350mbits ....for the WHOLE OF EUROPE. This estimate based on 10 x 33mhz transponders on Astra 3b and none on Astra 3a. Someone do tell me if I missed anything.

A small rural exchange frequently has 1000mbits of backhaul....three times the entire capacity of Astra2Connect.

Many mobile phone masts, sometimes even ones in rural areas, have the same thruput backhaul capacity as all of Astra2 Connect. With LTE and maybe 6 sectors instead of the usual 3 a mobile phone mast will be able to deliver more usable thruput than Astra2 Connect ever can.

watty

Well a phone mast maybe 1/3rd back haul and 1/50th average throughput. But one Fixed wireless site easily beats Astra2Connect, for ALL of Europe.

If anything you maybe over estimate the Astra2Connect capacity a lot.

It's full anyway. Astra has signed contracts with Gilat for Ka terminals for the next generation Ka Band which might be available 2013.

But Eutelsat is now touting Ka band more for Digital Cinema and Regional TV. Satellite is BEST at broadcasting, rubbish for two way data.

LTE won't be broadband and even Ka band services can't compete with it for capacity or price.

One FTTC cabinet for one street can have x3 to x15 the capacity of ALL satellite services to Ireland combined!

watty

Well a phone mast maybe 1/3rd back haul and 1/50th average throughput. But one Fixed wireless site easily beats Astra2Connect, for ALL of Europe, on AVERAGE throughput!

If anything you maybe over estimate the Astra2Connect capacity a lot.

It's full anyway. Astra has signed contracts with Gilat for Ka terminals for the next generation Ka Band which might be available 2013.

But Eutelsat is now touting Ka band more for Digital Cinema and Regional TV. Satellite is BEST at broadcasting, rubbish for two way data.

LTE won't be broadband and even Ka band services can't compete with it for capacity or price.

One FTTC cabinet for one street can have x3 to x15 the capacity of ALL satellite services to Ireland combined!

dianehyde

DonJose wrote: »

Terrible comparison, a person who could receive UPC would never look at this service. Satellite broadband is for many a last chance option for receiving broadband.

Yes it is a last ditch attempt for some people - myself included.
Previously the satellite installation and monthly costs were very high, I cannot get digiweb, wimax, eircom, UPC or any other conventional broadband. I have a dongle which cuts out every 7 minutes or so, we are surrounded by trees so i have applied for qsat and heres hoping...

pat13wx

dianehyde wrote: »

Yes it is a last ditch attempt for some people - myself included.
Previously the satellite installation and monthly costs were very high, I cannot get digiweb, wimax, eircom, UPC or any other conventional broadband. I have a dongle which cuts out every 7 minutes or so, we are surrounded by trees so i have applied for qsat and heres hoping...

I hope it is successful for you. Let us know how it all works out.

Evil_little_me

For all the people who have applied for Qsat, have you gotten a call back yet? I'm still waiting.

We'll call you tomorrow was moved back to last weekend or last Monday which has now turned into this weekend or Monday coming...

Sigh.

watty

You'd be better with a long time established and experienced operator.

pat13wx

watty wrote: »

You'd be better with a long time established and experienced operator.

Couldn't agree more.

There have been instances of what amounted to be fly-by-night Satellite or Wireless type BB who have taken the money and ran, so if one has no alternative, then a long-time, reputable operator is the best way to go. Having said that, if in time to come the likes of Q-Sat proves to be a reliable service, then their customers will be happy and only have good, positive stuff to report on forums such as this one. Time will tell.

watty

But they have Zero infrastructure and no satellite gear. They are only the equivalent of the guy in the Shopping centre "selling" Sky packages.

They are not an ISP either.

pat13wx

watty wrote: »

But they have Zero infrastructure and no satellite gear. They are only the equivalent of the guy in the Shopping centre "selling" Sky packages.

They are not an ISP either.

I hear you. The current service is of course very limited, but it may become better as time goes on.

You mentioned Sky. I wonder could Sky at some point provide BB here in Ireland. I mean via their Satellite service?

watty

No, because Satellite doesn't do Broadband. It does horrendous latency Internet very expensively.

Sky may resell eircom here.

In the UK they have their own DSL based ISP (about 1/3rd of exchanges) and re-sell BT for the rest.

Geostationary Satellite will never be "better as time goes on". You can't solve the problem of the distance above the equator of 36,000km.

The solution is for the Government to take action. Then only about 100 people will be looking for Satellite instead of 5,000.

Corrupt 3rd world Governments are doing this better.


Sky in fact own no satellite infrastructure/Services. They rent Broadcast space from Satellite operators.

Qsat don't even rent any Satellite Infrastructure. They are simply a sales agent that organizes local terminal installation for the real opertators.

pat13wx

watty wrote: »

No, because Satellite doesn't do Broadband. It does horrendous latency Internet very expensively.

Sky may resell eircom here.

In the UK they have their own DSL based ISP (about 1/3rd of exchanges) and re-sell BT for the rest.

Geostationary Satellite will never be "better as time goes on". You can't solve the problem of the distance above the equator of 36,000km.

The solution is for the Government to take action. Then only about 100 people will be looking for Satellite instead of 5,000.

Corrupt 3rd world Governments are doing this better.


Sky in fact own no satellite infrastructure/Services. They rent Broadcast space from Satellite operators.

Qsat don't even rent any Satellite Infrastructure. They are simply a sales agent that organizes local terminal installation for the real opertators.

Thanks for that, I am learning more about this of late and see now there really are major differences between actual broadband and what is available via Satellite. The problem for many here in Ireland is they can only go with what's available to them and I think this is where Satellite provides some sort of alternative.

As things stand I am still with Eircom, they - in fairness - have not charged me any extra for vastly going over my monthly allowance...I really pushed it this week and the bill just arrived and not a mention of the extra usage. They might be slow, no, they are slow, but at least they're reliable and other than speed issues I have never really had any problems connecting to the net.

Evil_little_me

I got an email this morning containing the application form for the service.

The total initial cost is €168.95. That includes the installation fee (€99), the price of the 'Gold' package (€59.95) and the additional option of the unlimited nightime bandwidth (€10).

pat13wx

Evil_little_me wrote: »

I got an email this morning containing the application form for the service.

The total initial cost is €168.95. That includes the installation fee (€99), the price of the 'Gold' package (€59.95) and the additional option of the unlimited nightime bandwidth (€10).

Good luck with it. Please let us know what you think once it's all set up.

T42

Evil_little_me wrote: »

I got an email this morning containing the application form for the service.

The total initial cost is €168.95. That includes the installation fee (€99), the price of the 'Gold' package (€59.95) and the additional option of the unlimited nightime bandwidth (€10).

What speeds did you got for that price, what is your normal daily allowance.
Very interested to know how the allowance will work out.
How long before they install.

T42

watty wrote: »

But they have Zero infrastructure and no satellite gear. They are only the equivalent of the guy in the Shopping centre "selling" Sky packages.

They are not an ISP either.

Would you test a satellite broadband system if was provided to you and give an honest report on your findings.

Hal Emmerich

T42 wrote: »

Would you test a satellite broadband system if was provided to you and give an honest report on your findings.

Where does Watty work?

bealtine

T42 wrote: »

Would you test a satellite broadband system if was provided to you and give an honest report on your findings.

Testing won't change the facts no matter how you think it might.

pat13wx

bealtine wrote: »

Testing won't change the facts no matter how you think it might.

Perhaps. But then again it might provide the opportunity to demonstrate Satellite BB isn't as bad as some believe.

pat13wx

T42 wrote: »

Would you test a satellite broadband system if was provided to you and give an honest report on your findings.

If Watty isn't available to test the product, then I'd be happy to do so and report accordingly.

T42

pat13wx wrote: »

Perhaps. But then again it might provide the opportunity to demonstrate Satellite BB isn't as bad as some believe.

This would be my point also and until you know the facts then it's difficult to know whether the service has improved. If you buy this months What Satellite they do a full analysis of the Tooway KA-Sat Broadband Service and they rate it fairly highly, giving it an 86% mark, plus the speeds are very genuine compared to what most of the ISP out there are showing as their headline speeds.