I am in a rural IL (central between springfield and decatur) outside
the range of standard broadband service (dsl, cable, etc). The two
alternative internet service technologies that I am familiar with are
satellite and cell phone. I would appreciate any comparison on the two
technologies (speed, coverage, cost), and any suggestions on service
providers. Thanks for any help on this,
kevin.pavin@gmail.com wrote:
> I am in a rural IL (central between springfield and decatur) outside
> the range of standard broadband service (dsl, cable, etc). The two
> alternative internet service technologies that I am familiar with are
> satellite and cell phone. I would appreciate any comparison on the two
> technologies (speed, coverage, cost), and any suggestions on service
> providers. Thanks for any help on this,
The speeds range from sparkling, better than DSL, to fast dialup.
I'm in the moderate dialup range where I live, but Cingular works well for
me, and I can take it with me almost wherever I go, which isn't possible
with a normal satellite setup.
Around Decatur, I don't see the highest speed services deployed by either
of those Cellular providers. Do you have cellular voice coverage?
Satellite is more expensive to install by quite a bit, a little more
expensive monthly, might be faster or slower, depending on your location
for cellular, but would probably be available in areas where there is no
cellular coverage at all.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
>I am in a rural IL (central between springfield and decatur) outside
>the range of standard broadband service (dsl, cable, etc). The two
>alternative internet service technologies that I am familiar with are
>satellite and cell phone. I would appreciate any comparison on the two
>technologies (speed, coverage, cost), and any suggestions on service
>providers. Thanks for any help on this,
Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best with respect to
speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed transfer amounts. Verizon probably
has the best coverage in rural areas, but you'll have to check with each carrier
for your location. Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location
service is not one of them.
Satellite service works when there's nothing else available, but latency means
you won't be running games or VOIP applications over it and they also can limit
transfer amounts of data or throttle your service. It's also pricey.
There is a third choice: You may be surprised at the number of Wireless ISPs
that cover rural areas. All you need is line of sight to their tower, which is
typically on a water tower or grain elevator. WISP service is typically much
more economical than the other two and performance-wise, can be as good as wired
service.
> Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best with
> respect to speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed transfer
> amounts.
I suggest that your comments are out of date.
Cingular:
"Theoretical peak downlink speed of 3.6Mbps and uplink speed of 384Kbps
Avg Download speed of 400 - 700 Kbps on BroadbandConnect Network
Avg Upload speed of 100 - 120 Kbps on BroadbandConnect Network "
Unlimited data plans would be $60 per month, maybe cheaper.
A 20MB per month plan is $39.99.
> Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location service is
> not one of them.
In urban areas, the newer cellular services can exceed some DSL.
In rural areas, the dialup is not always good. At home, I have a 21600
dialup, 30-40K cellular, and 6M cable.
At my previous location, there was no DSL, no cable, dialup was 24000 on a
good day, but EDGE is deployed on Cingular, at about 100k.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Rick Blaine wrote:
> Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best with respect to
> speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed transfer amounts. Verizon probably
> has the best coverage in rural areas, but you'll have to check with each carrier
> for your location. Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location
> service is not one of them.
Actually at worst, cellular is at least twice as fast as dialup. Unlimited
data plans are around $60 a month. While not the best substitute for fixed
location, many companies will use it as a back up.
> There is a third choice: You may be surprised at the number of Wireless ISPs
> that cover rural areas.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:47:58 GMT, decaturtxcowboy
<nope_none_@nowayspam.com> wrote:
>Rick Blaine wrote:
>> Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best with respect to
>> speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed transfer amounts. Verizon probably
>> has the best coverage in rural areas, but you'll have to check with each carrier
>> for your location. Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location
>> service is not one of them.
>
>Actually at worst, cellular is at least twice as fast as dialup. Unlimited
>data plans are around $60 a month. While not the best substitute for fixed
>location, many companies will use it as a back up.
>
>> There is a third choice: You may be surprised at the number of Wireless ISPs
>> that cover rural areas.
>
>http://www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/IL.html shows several WISPs in the
>trans Springfield - Decatur area area.
verizon has 3 data networks. the slowest (quick-2-net) is capped at
14.4 kbps; mama bear is called 'National Access' (1xRTT) and has a
theoretical limit of 140 kbps but real world speeds are between 80-120
kbps. the papa bear is EVDO with speeds ranging from 300-600 kbps.
with both 1xRTT and EVDO users may experience occasional higher data
bursts. dialing an ISP on your cell caps your data speed at 14.,4
kbps.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:52:36 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
> There is a third choice: You may be surprised at the number of Wireless ISPs
> that cover rural areas. All you need is line of sight to their tower, which is
> typically on a water tower or grain elevator. WISP service is typically much
> more economical than the other two and performance-wise, can be as good as wired
> service.
I have service from a local WISP and it works great now that I got onto
their 900 MHz system. I was on 700 MHz and it is apparently getting
interference from distant TV stations which just killed it at various
times. Like every other service provider, do your homework, but I'm quite
satisfied now again.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."
<kevin.pavin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166554961.257128.8010@f1g2000cwa.googlegroup s.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I am in a rural IL (central between springfield and decatur) outside
> the range of standard broadband service (dsl, cable, etc). The two
> alternative internet service technologies that I am familiar with are
> satellite and cell phone. I would appreciate any comparison on the two
> technologies (speed, coverage, cost), and any suggestions on service
> providers. Thanks for any help on this,
See if there is a wireless internet service provider (wisp), if not go with
the satellite service, as cellular would be about the same as a dial up
line.
<dold@08.usenet.us.com> wrote in message news:em9hh8$97l$1@blue.rahul.net...
> Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com> wrote:
>
> > Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best with
> > respect to speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed transfer
> > amounts.
>
> I suggest that your comments are out of date.
Not for data over cellular.
>
> Cingular:
> "Theoretical peak downlink speed of 3.6Mbps and uplink speed of 384Kbps
That is fixed broadband, which may not be available in rural areas.
> > Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location service is
> > not one of them.
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:12ohd97kt7vgq76@corp.supernews.com:
>
> <dold@08.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:em9hh8$97l$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Cellphone data service is barely better than dialup at its best
>> > with respect to speed, is expensive and is limited in allowed
>> > transfer amounts.
>>
>> I suggest that your comments are out of date.
>
> Not for data over cellular.
>>
>> Cingular:
>> "Theoretical peak downlink speed of 3.6Mbps and uplink speed of
>> 384Kbps
>
> That is fixed broadband, which may not be available in rural areas.
>
Well, I just finished a project using EVDO, and saw consistant d/l speeds
of 800-900 kbps and uploads of 250-300 kbps.
I would say that is not just barely faster than dial-up, more like upwards
of 20x.
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:
>Well, I just finished a project using EVDO, and saw consistant d/l speeds
>of 800-900 kbps and uploads of 250-300 kbps.
>
>I would say that is not just barely faster than dial-up, more like upwards
>of 20x.
Fair enough - but where were you located? In a metropolitan area or out in the
middle of a soybean field? And were you subject to any stated or unstated
bandwidth caps? Any restrictions on being a server or server like host?
Sorry - data over a cell network is not a replacement for fixed internet service
for most people.
Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com> wrote in
news:qdiio2lhfvfa7ta1hefjiglk5o6c1t4m5j@4ax.com:
> DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:
>
>>Well, I just finished a project using EVDO, and saw consistant d/l
>>speeds of 800-900 kbps and uploads of 250-300 kbps.
>>
>>I would say that is not just barely faster than dial-up, more like
>>upwards of 20x.
>
> Fair enough - but where were you located? In a metropolitan area or
> out in the middle of a soybean field? And were you subject to any
> stated or unstated bandwidth caps? Any restrictions on being a server
> or server like host?
It was the Sprint service. No bandwidth caps that I am aware of. Actually
it was an EVDO-to-WiFi device, for mass transit use.
While we are lcoated in a metropolitan area, it's a 3rd ring suburb, and
the next town is 'the country'. According to the EVDO coverage maps on the
Sprint website (a year or more old), that map indicates we are right on the
fringe of coverage. Going by that map, I wasn't sure if it was going to
work at all, let alone how well. All of this testing was done in a circa
1920's all brick building, from an interior office, with no external walls.
I could only assume it would have worked better on the street.
>
> Sorry - data over a cell network is not a replacement for fixed
> internet service for most people.
>
I never claimed it was....but if that's the best you can get.......
Dana <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <dold@08.usenet.us.com> wrote in message news:em9hh8$97l$1@blue.rahul.net...
> > I suggest that your comments are out of date.
> Not for data over cellular.
Specifically for data over cellular.
> > Cingular:
> > "Theoretical peak downlink speed of 3.6Mbps and uplink speed of 384Kbps
> That is fixed broadband, which may not be available in rural areas.
Fixed? No, this is cellular. It is only available in certain areas, but
it is those same areas that have some hope of landline high speed access.
Rural is rural, more so for landlines than cellular, as I note from my
experience in Northern California. An area that has no DSL in any nearby
CO, no cable modem service, but does offer EDGE, the 100Kbps+ service from
Cingular.
> > > Cell data has its place, but substituting for fixed location service is
> > > not one of them.
On a case by case basis, given the fixed service available and the cellular
service available, it needs to be considered. This poster has already
looked for a landline alternative.
Cellular might not displace the $12.95 DSL offering from SBC, but it is
available where other services are not.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:41:29 +0100 (CET), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:
>It was the Sprint service. No bandwidth caps that I am aware of. Actually
>it was an EVDO-to-WiFi device, for mass transit use.
Ah, so that's the secret project. That will be handy having buses
running around with open access points. I can improve my vehicle
location system, update my current location, check in if my laptops
get stolen, and send short SMS type messages. Please make sure the
access point authenticates quickly.
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am in a rural IL (central between springfield and decatur) outside
>> the range of standard broadband service (dsl, cable, etc). The two
>> alternative internet service technologies that I am familiar with are
>> satellite and cell phone. I would appreciate any comparison on the
>> two technologies (speed, coverage, cost), and any suggestions on
>> service providers. Thanks for any help on this,
While not the fastest, I was in a rural area in northern idaho, where
verizon only had the 1x data system (about 100Kbps, other carriers didn't
work there at ALL, not considered broadband, but faster than dial-up).. Used
an always on data card with a Kyocera KR1 router to allow multiple computers
to access the single data link (both wirelessly and wired, also a pda)...
Does any specific carrier have cellphone service in your area? If so,
consider a cellular data card and a kyo router
(http://www.kyocera-wireless.com/kr1-router/) PS if you happen to be in an
evdo area, then you can use the higher speed evdo instead of the 1xrtt....
(most cell data cards do both, and go right in the kyo router)...
rural internet service 
Linear Mode
