2-Way Affordable Satallite Access this Year.

mechanima

That is a reliable insider claim from SkyTV.

What is more it is intended to be competitive and will presumeably be linked to UK provisions and Satellite TV in terms of pricing.

This in information only, I have no intention of sticking around to be flamed.

Mechanima

Shamo

Apart from the pings that wouldn't be too bad. A lot of people already have sky digital including me and if we could use the same dish for sky digital and satellite connection, that would reduce the costs a lot.

Is that possible or would you need a new dish?

Arboration

But I wonder, would a certain company be slipping brown envelopes under the table towards the Gov' not allowing sky to do such things ?

chernobyl

2-Way Affordable Satallite Access this Year.

No such thing.
Sky just dont have the birds to support a service aimed at a mass of home users.

2 way is for SME's and up.

longword

Originally posted by chernobyl

Sky just dont have the birds to support a service aimed at a mass of home users.

2 way is for SME's and up.

I dunno. Each bird is good for a gigabit or two downstream, not sure about the upstream, and they do have rather a large number of satellites up there. PIng times are always going to be the major killer for geo sats though. Equivalent of each packet traveling around the world half a dozen times.

chernobyl

A gigabit....well whooo!
A $2 Billion bird with 30 X 40mb/sec Transponders, good for about 4000 ppl..thats not good business at all.

America is the only place such a service can survive because building and launching Satellites only costs a fraction and you know you will have the demand straight away.

longword

Originally posted by chernobyl
A gigabit....well whooo!
A $2 Billion bird

Man, you're shopping for your birds in the wrong part of town
Including insurance and launch costs it should be in the low hundreds of millions, not close to the billion mark. The EU's entire Galileo GPS alternative project, with dozens of satellites, is only costing $3bn.

America is the only place such a service can survive because building and launching Satellites only costs a fraction

Ummm. Europe has a better track record with the Aridane 4 launch vehicle and cheaper launch costs from ESA's Kouru facility.

chernobyl

Well i actually intended "€" but regardless you are looking @ the billions of Dollars in order to provide enough bandwidth up there.

Satellites are a poor means to provide internet, in every sense of the word.

Show me the stats where the "EU" builds satellites cheaper than the Americans and the figures that show Vsat hardare is cheaper here than in America...please...

bottom line, i can see sky offering some form on Internet Content directly to the STB via Multicast but not a bi-directional system.

mayhem#

Originally posted by Shamo
Apart from the pings that wouldn't be too bad. A lot of people already have sky digital including me and if we could use the same dish for sky digital and satellite connection, that would reduce the costs a lot.

Is that possible or would you need a new dish?

You would probably need a different (bigger) dish or a different LMB seeing that you will be broadcasting.
You will also need a radio licence (150Euro p/a) because of this...

mayhem#

Originally posted by chernobyl

2 way is for SME's and up.

No it's not...

chernobyl

€150 per month is within the home users budget in Ireland [but thats only because we are being raped for internet access here, give it a year and Educom wont have too many calls from home users actually thats they was it is right now...lots of calls from "jim" in mayo mayhem#, looking for 24/7 access?) but the overheads to get into the game would be an instant turn off for any home user.

Also Educom have the worst "heres our service" presentation ever!

There are so many costs and then some more and they are almost afraid to say:

"this is what it will cost you x"

instead they have this:

"theres a cost x, for this"
"theres another cost y for this"

blah blah...talk about trying to turn a customer away.

dahamsta

I got a call from Educom recently[1], which was perfectly acceptable to me, since I had asked for information some time ago. The call was rather worrying though, because the "salesman" sounded about fourteen years of age[2], and quite obviously didn't really know what he was talking about. I mean, he knew the facts, but as soon as I asked him about something that wasn't on the website - which I knew already - he just clammed up, wasn't able to answer. It was a decidely unprofessional affair. Even if I had been interested in the service - or, to be more accurate, could afford it - I don't think I'd want to deal with a company with staff like that.

Please note that I'm not slamming Educom, they could be a perfectly professional company for all I know. I'm just relaying my experience.

adam

[1] Or at least someone purporting to be from Educom, he said carefully.
[2] Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it reminded me of some dodgy "hosting" company stories I've heard.

mayhem#

Originally posted by chernobyl
€150 per month is within the home users budget in Ireland [but thats only because we are being raped for internet access here, give it a year and Educom wont have too many calls from home users actually thats they was it is right now...lots of calls from "jim" in mayo mayhem#, looking for 24/7 access?) but the overheads to get into the game would be an instant turn off for any home user.
SNIP....

OK, fair enough, it's not cheap, but however it is the best value package for broadband available in this country at the moment.
Even with Eircom apparently making a move on with DSL I do not see DSL becomming available for people like myself who do not live in any of the larger urban centres. And believe me there are a lot of people in that situation. I have seen the "quality" of Eircom's DSL offering in Ennis and I can't say that I'm impressed.
Also while Educom might not be the best at the old customer service game, that's why they work with resellers. Contact any of them (including myself) and you will get all the information that you need...

mayhem#

Originally posted by dahamsta
I got a call from Educom recently[1], which was perfectly acceptable to me, since I had asked for information some time ago. The call was rather worrying though, because the "salesman" sounded about fourteen years of age[2], and quite obviously didn't really know what he was talking about. I mean, he knew the facts, but as soon as I asked him about something that wasn't on the website - which I knew already - he just clammed up, wasn't able to answer. It was a decidely unprofessional affair. Even if I had been interested in the service - or, to be more accurate, could afford it - I don't think I'd want to deal with a company with staff like that.

Please note that I'm not slamming Educom, they could be a perfectly professional company for all I know. I'm just relaying my experience.

adam

[1] Or at least someone purporting to be from Educom, he said carefully.
[2] Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it reminded me of some dodgy "hosting" company stories I've heard.

See my last post...

longword

Originally posted by chernobyl
Well i actually intended "€" but regardless you are looking @ the billions of Dollars in order to provide enough bandwidth up there.

I've never had cause to buy myself a satellite. Maybe someone will get me one for Christmas. But I do know that you can buy one polarization of a transponder on a satellite, good for about 40Mbit, for around €200-300k. RTE owns one on an Intelsat.

You suggest that a gigabit would serve only 4,000 users. That's way off the mark. A respectable contention ratio is regarded as about 20:1, giving you more like 80,000 users. I agree it could never be cost-competitive with terrestrial solutions around urban areas, but it can be handy mopping up the rest.

Show me the stats where the "EU" builds satellites cheaper than the Americans and the figures that show Vsat hardare is cheaper here than in America...please...

Who cares where the satellite is made, or where it's launched? You buy the hardware wherever seems handiest.

Felix Randel

Does anybody see it as foolish going from one monoploy to another monopoly?

chernobyl

Does anybody else think your OT post should be deleted whilst this OT thread should be in Net/Comms?

Bandwidth for 2 way:256/256

Push Bandwidth: 30TP's @ 40mb/sec = 1.2GB
Reception Bandwidth: 1.2GB

1200/.256 = 4688 users whould coud get 256K access and considering that in England NTL will soon have many thousands with access to 1mb/sec for £50, who would want this service and most importantly who would be silly enough to make such a financially suicidal manovure?

Felix Randel

How is my post OT, im talking about sky, most of your post on the other hand seem to be talking about fairy tales.

Either which way this probably shouldnt be here.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Does anybody see it as foolish going from one monoploy to another monopoly?

I'm not sure I understand this. Surely more satelite options would provide more competition and lessen monopoly power. The other companies would still exist to compete with it.

Felix Randel

Sky in this country has a virtual monoply when it comes to digital TV, There are allready signs of them abusing this monoply. Would it really be that great a thing to have them in a postion were they have a monoploy on rural broadband as well?

longword

Originally posted by chernobyl

1200/.256 = 4688 users whould coud get 256K access

Every single service provider, all the way from dialup PSTN modems up to even high speed leased lines, depends on the assumption that not all users will be using their full line capacity at all times. They take advantage of this by providing less bandwidth than is required to service all users at full speed. A good ratio for a residential service seems to be around 20:1. That means they share each megabit of access speed with 20 users and tell each subscriber they're getting a megabit of access. Ratios of 40:1 and higher are not unheard of. Before you ask, even though DSL is a point-to-point unshared link between you and the exchange, it is shared beyond that. So take your 4688 users, multiply that by 20, and you get a number you can work with.

considering that in England NTL will soon have many thousands with access to 1mb/sec for £50, who would want this service

Satellite is for those beyond the reach of ADSL and cable networks. Not the prime market, but an important one nonetheless. Note that cable is inrinsically a shared medium. NTL will use a single 40Mbit channel to serve hundreds of 1Mbit customers.

Felix Randel

40mbits will service exactly 1000 users on eircoms adsl.

SkepticOne

I think that if Sky were to come in and start offering satelite Internet, they would be competing in the general Internet access market not just the rural broadband market. This general market desperately needs genuine competition and Sky would be another player.

Instead of paying for metered PSTN and (where available) ISDN you would have the option of relatively cheap satelite for basic Internet access.

It is true that they would be the first on the scene for satelite access and therefore would have first-mover advantage but this might be what is needed to stimulate the market.

mayhem#

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I
It is true that they would be the first on the scene for satelite access

No they're not: http://www.educom.ie

dahamsta

Mayhem#, when you're pointing people to your own site to prove a point, you should make it clear that it's your /commercial/ site. Two words: soliciting, transparency.

adam

chernobyl

longword i found you post so funny as this logic has been the downfall of many many many *infinity* internet via satellite providers.


Actually longword, any bi-directional provider would work on the assumtion that each user would in theory use 100% of their bandwidth whenever they use the service.

longword

Originally posted by chernobyl
Actually longword, any bi-directional provider would work on the assumtion that each user would in theory use 100% of their bandwidth whenever they use the service.

I'm not in the mood to try educating someone who's clearly not listening, so I'll just back away from this one and leave a few URLs in my wake...

http://business.ntl.com/en/help/faq/faq_business_essentials.jhtml#ratio

http://www.broadband-help.com/glossary.asp

http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1125775

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t293-s2104242,00.html

Google would be than happy to furnish you with many more.

mayhem#

Originally posted by dahamsta
Mayhem#, when you're pointing people to your own site to prove a point, you should make it clear that it's your /commercial/ site. Two words: soliciting, transparency.
adam

Better now?

chernobyl

Im always in the mood longword, so this is an open invitation to anyone reading to tell longword of their own recent Satellite ISP experiences where the good ol 40/1 ratio did not work out too well.

Satellite ISP's are vastly different to Fixed line providers, there is no *fix* when the bandwidth runs dry, its "were finished" time.

Dustaz

calm down folks.

The only reason i didnt move this was that i think we need at least one satellite thread every once in a while to keep people up to date on the realitys of it as it applies to those seeking IOFFLs goals.

If it becomes a beardy showdown (and its getting there ) its going to nets/comms

chernobyl

[dahamsta trade mark] <img>black pot</img>[/dahamsta trade mark]

Well Mr.iMAC MOD, your almost as beardy as those Unix lovars....

Theres no animosity here, just an opinion difference.

Dustaz

no, im not beardy, i have a goatee...thats style mate....

jd

Originally posted by chernobyl
longword i found you post so funny as this logic has been the downfall of many many many *infinity* internet via satellite providers.


Actually longword, any bi-directional provider would work on the assumtion that each user would in theory use 100% of their bandwidth whenever they use the service.

No they don't.
And they don't work on ratios either.
What they (should) do is provide the capacity-one it gets to 70-80% get more.
The ratio stuff is marketroid bull****..

chernobyl

*Ratio*
80% users = 20% Bandwidth and vice versa.

It makes much more sense to exclusively sell bi-directional systems to SMEs as you know when bandwidth demands will be highest and you can easily develop user trends from it as "their" use will be consistent but providing a system to a home user without a leash is temtation enough for a warez dood.

longword

I promised myself I wouldn't post on this topic again, but I did a bit of research into the economics behind this and thought I should share with the community. I arrived at a figure of about $2000 per year per customer as an easily attainable price for a satellite service.

Have a browse around http://www.europestar.com/. It's a very poorly designed site - not as bad as the totally broken www.ntl.ie, but worse than the atrocious www.3com.com. Have a look at the Our Satellites->Overview page. They give a price of $450M for two 30-transponder sats with a groundstation. That would put a single transponder around the $7M mark. I figure a minimum 10 year useful lifespan for the satellite. Future technology can make better use of the available RF bandwidth so depreciation over that period shouldn't be much of an issue. Most of the satellite ISPs enforce long term contracts too - three years is common. I'm a bit hazy on satellite technology, so I don't know if a single transponder can cover two polarizations or just one - I've assumed the pessimistic latter.

Start out at about 40Mbit/sec per transponder, with one reserved for upstream, one for down, and offer users a 256k symmetric service with a very generous 10:1 or 20:1 contention ratio. You pay $14M up front for the two transponders (Eurostar and several others are in the business of selling these things as a commodity). With margins for yourself & Eurostar, service provision costs, and some allowance for undersubscription I think it's fair to treble that for a reasonable cost estimate so you'll need to make (14*3)/10 = $4M a year per pair of transponders. On that facility you can reasonably expect to fit (40000*10)/256 = just over 1,500 users - double that if you stick to a DSL/Cable style 20:1 ratio. The cost to each user per year would be $1300 to $2600 - between $110 and $220 per month depending on the contention ratio. As the service acquires more users, you buy or lease more transponders to maintain your low contention ratio.

I know I've made a lot of rough guesstimates, but are there any glaring holes in my numbers? The end result seems to be roughly in line with the satellite internet services offered to date. Looks financially viable to me.

PS. Those satellites were made by the French company Alcatel and launched on the European Ariane 4 from Kourou. My estimate of bandwidth per transponder is also a bit low - it seems QPSK on a 36MHz transponder gets you 60Mbit/sec. Digital TV will tend to use a more robust signal at nearer 40Mbit/sec since even very low rates of corrupt packets can result in completely destroyed pictures on a TV. I think the DVB spec demands a phenomenally high performance, something like 1 damaged bit per hour at most.

chernobyl

Packet Filtering is more a Digibox problem (or lack of it) rather than a DVB problem.

The max of any TP for Digital purposes that we are discusing is just over 38mb/sec.

$2000 per year....hmmm
Now when have Sky ever shown an interest in offering such products directly to business becuase that is not a home user price tag?

My point was that if (1)Sky were to offer this service that it would be (2) to an exisitng customer base and so (3) a single satellite would be required in order to provide this service, BS ratios aside, 28.2 is already feeling the bandwidth squeeze as any Sky customer can testify.

28.2/5 as a luxourious car park is almost full, there is @ most 2 spaces left but in reality you will only see 1 more satellite go up there when it is needed.

Sky are not interested in taking any more massive financial hits, Sky are now making a profit and i am sure they wont risk it any further, infact they are already considering cut backs in their programming offerings.

bottom line, there will not be any 2way IVS service from Sky but i do think that they would start some form of "content provision" with the exisitng platform.