Satellite Internet

[riptides]

And I am going to ask you again, are you offering broadband access to your neighbors?

Or, since someone put a tower on your property, are they doing it?

I am curious as to the partnership this has created for you.
Surely you did not incur the costs yourself?

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

PM me if you must.

 

[getut]

I'm sorry Mike, I didn't see you ask the first time.

Short cryptic explanation, No, No, yes there is a partnership of sorts, and no... it is hard to get it free twice.

Full Story: I paid for the tower myself out of pocket. Since my job is network support and network security, I have to be able to support work. So work pays the monthly bill for me. For the monthly fee that my work is paying, that is usually only a dynamic IP address. Because I put up the tower myself, and there is the possibility that they may feed others in my neighborhood off of it, they upgrade me to a full static IP address for the same price (still free to me no matter how you look at it). Normal price for their residential wireless (dynamic IP address is $49.95/month). Business class wireless with static IP address starts at $99.99/month.

I have my own web server (I only run my home webmail account with the webserver though), email server, ftp server etc in my network closet right at my house that runs off of that static IP address. Not including full control of the servers at work. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[gsganzer]

Getut,
I talked with the Partnershipwireless guy. He thinks I'll have a better shot at the end of the month when they commission the new tower. I told him I'll wait until then before I have them come out for a survey. I don't have any problem putting up a tower to maybe 50' - 60' or so. I'm not sure I want anything any taller than that. I'll talk to them about doing a transmit to my neighbors when he comes out. A 60' tower would cover everyone in my neighborhood.

 

[riptides]

Getut- Thanks!

I am in a bad spot. Literally. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif I am moving not more than 10 miles from my current high-speed cable connect. I am at an end-point for an ISP. My speeds are on the range of outrageous. That means as fast as fast can be for cable.
But, since I am moving, well, ahh, welcome to the third-world location. Actually the third world has BETTER connectivity options than my new place.
I have phoned my congressman, my local ISP's, my local "phone" company, and *anyone* that will listen. We have a DSL CO not more than 10 miles away, cable inside of ten miles, Wi-Fi 20 miles, power-lines 1 mile, grrrr! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
So I go from cable to 300baud. Yep, I need to rewire the copper, it IS that bad.
Anyhow, satellite looks like no option, since I do VPN. And if I can do a tower, well, I'd need to recoup my costs. I have enough trouble with real-work, so I'd hate to become an ISP.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Westonium]

I've not read the whole thread but I sure hope that you didn't go with Direcway.

I would make doubly and triply sure that there isn't any WiFi broadband providers in your area. If you are a sometimes user, then you might even consider some of the new wireless broadband stuff that Verizon has recently released.

If you had to build a simple tower to see another tower just to get WiFi over Direcway - I'd do it.

Remember hearing the delays of Mission Control talking to astronauts? That is what it is like using Direcway. The request goes out for the web page but goes a very long way round-trip. Once the download actually starts, it is fairly quick BUT any SENDING things will only be at 56K. Yep that's right, the new bi-directional satellite system only does 56K up.

I broke my contract with Direcway just to get WiFi sooner. It took me forever to find the company that actually had coverage in my area.

There are 900Mhz systems that are fairly forgiving about line-of-sight as well as 2.4 Ghz systems. WiMax is coming out very soon.

My flat out bottom-line with Direcway is: Don't do it.

 

[Westonium]

Try this:
http://www.bluewirelessdata.com/

or

http://www.partnershipwireless.com/

IF they can't cover you under any circumstances, lean on them to tell you who can but be friendly about it. The techs know where everyone's tower is. If you have a neighbor that can see a tower, but you can't - work out an arrangement with the neighbor. You can go in halvsies on a higher speed plan and use off-the-shelf wireless to get from neighbors house to yours.

 

[Moon]

Getut, since your in the networking business, I'm replying to you, but anyone that's in the know feel free to answer.

I saw that congress gave the okay last year to power companies to provide broadband service over the power lines. Any idea when this might happen? Just about everyone is served by a power company. It sound intriguing, but will it happen anytime soon?

Thanks,
Moon

 

[riptides]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( It sound intriguing, but will it happen anytime soon? )</font>

Doubt it. Their are some really big political players being introduced into making this not happen. The FCC is involved because of interference with certain radio frequency operations. Or so someone has stated.

In addition to the politics, technology WiFi, WiMaX, and newer
fiber technologies are making revolutionary speed changes. The telco's already understand their business, so they are the ones to watch, IMHO.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[getut]

There are also some good studies going on using BPL to get in the general vicinity and then using the 802.11b for the "last mile" connections... all from the power company.

There are quite a few areas in the US where it is available as part of a study group performed by the electrical company, but there is no where that it is fully "live" yet. Live as in "not subject to being turned off is the business viability study doesn't pan out".

 

[fishman]

getut,

I'm in the process of negotiating for the local wireless provider to put in a tower on my land. It requires line of sight, so it must be similar to what you are talking about. The owner of the company has indicated he will put in the tower (8'x8' footprint with no wires, 100' tall, solar power source) and in exchange for a 5 year lease allowing him to provide internet access to a 3 to 9 mile radius, he will provide me with free internet and an as yet undetermined monthly payment. This will be a "repeater" tower, picking up the signal from a distant tower and rebroadcasting it. Since I really don't know too much about this system, I am a little hesitant. Can you (or anybody else) comment on this situation. I hope I'm not hijacking the thread but I thought this might be relevant if others could use the same approach. It sounds pretty good at the surface, but . . . /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[getut]

It is most likely 802.11b. The technology is very stable, so they won't be there "bugging" you often. The towers are no big deal, they are all very properly grounded and may even provide the slight benefit as a lightning attractor to keep it away from anything else nearby.

100' with no guy wires seems a little much to me, but if they are going with an 8' x 8' pad, then it might be OK. I would personally jump on the deal (obviously since I have already jumped on a similar deal).

Other than the tower itself and any qualms you may have with the way it looks, there really isn't any downside to having it there.

 

[fishman]

Thanks for the reply, getut. The height I mention is the maximum he is permitted for, so it might be less. However, where I'm at, the extra height would make a big difference in how many subscribers he can pull in. He mentioned that most are on a 900 mhz channel, but that for my area he would likely bump it up to something over 2 ghz (I don't remember what) in order to get improved penetration through the trees. He sounds like he knows what he's doing and I'm probably going to go for it, but I'm a little cautious by nature.

 

[carrerascott]

Late to the party, but my thoughts on Direcway:

I have used Direcway for a few years now.

Bottom line is: If there was an alternative, I would dump Direcway in a heartbeat.

Surfing is "OK" -- streaming videos and the like are pretty decent, about 1/2 the speed of DSL downloading. However sites that are Secure or that have data going back and forth are pretty bad -- almost modem speed. The lag of outbound data really slows secure sites down, and sites that send lots of little bits of data back and forth.

Uploading is slow -- if you are lucky you will get a couple times modem speed on outbound data -- so don't expect to send big files out quickly -- not gonna happen.

As for reliability, its not bad lately, they had some outages that lasted all day a few months ago, and it does go out in heavy rains just like DirecTV.

But it is better than a phone line . . .

 

[fishman]

Since this was brought back to the top . . .

Getut, I see that you have a static IP address. What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of that compared to a dynamic IP address?

 

[getut]

No disadvantages other than it usually comes at an extra cost.

The advantages are usually not important to the average residential user. A static IP address allows you to run servers, register a domain and basically do anything any other full fledged internet site does.

It is possible with dynamic IP by using dynamic IP tracking services, but not as reliable as static IP addressing.

 

[fishman]

Thanks Getut. It sounds like something I don't need to worry about.

 

[riptides]

With static IP you always know where you really are!
That is a quick easy way to define it.

-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif