One site quoted the 59ms delay but the ViaSat website says typically 638ms which is about right. They also mention that latency has little effect on most things except for someone playing a live shoot um up game with others remotely and it would obviously have no effect on streaming a DirecTV signal. Here is a ViaSat discussion on latency. Satellite internet latency: What’s the big deal?
Directv to shift away from Satellite?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 624
- Views 40K
- Status
It would have a major effect on any kind of facetime or VoIP communication
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
From a cost perspective you really can't count the cost of internet itself as an added cost to streaming over Satellite. Going over the cap yes but the vast majority of homes who have access to the internet have the internet already for other things or already stream some in addition to Satellite.
Now beyond that Satellite for me has it all over Cable and over Streaming maybe other than cost. I'm willing to pay more for the extreme reliability and a physical DVR. I have DISH but if I had to make another choice it would be Directv next.
BUT..... technology changes. Ask the 8 track companies, then the cassette companies, then CD companies. Ask many brick and mortar stores and malls.
Wireless is the future I am certain. Wireless can be about as reliable as Satellite with the added potential advantage of being received wherever you happen to be at the time. Wireless of today no, but big changes will be coming and people will be using wireless at home for entertainment as well as on mobile devices. So for now Satellite is safe but At&t is looking to the future. Sometimes you have to make moves now you don't want to make yet to prepare for the future. IF and I say IF At&t has to make a choice between owning content for now and the future or keep a technology that they are already working hard to replace what will they do? That's the question.
Wireless has issues with physics..it cant penetrate buildings and homes very well..too much interference from other electrical devices...there is a reason cable companies use coax instead of wireless to deliver a tv signal...picture quality and internet reliability
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
I've used Skype and Facetime through a ViaSat Exede satellite Internet connection and did not notice any problem, worked about the same as any other Internet connection. Have you actually tried it?
My neighbor opted for Wisper wifi for her internet service. She tells me that it has been very reliable and steady but they max out at 20Mbps. In order for that to be enough for internet and TV service it would have to be much faster.
IMO, these days if you watch a lot of TV I think cable/sat is still the best choices. For those that watch less, streaming in one form or another makes sense.
most wisp use an outdoor antenna, then relay it inside to a router.
i have had one out to do a site survey, but trees between me and the tower blocked the signal, so it was a no go
Yeah, that's what she has on her house. The service is good for her and the company is easier to deal with than the cable company. Cable is cheaper and faster but Mediacom can be a real PITA to deal with. She tried to get cable but they gave her the runaround so she took Wisper instead. A bit over a year ago, Wisper was the only real option in this edge of town subdivision as cable wasn't initially available here.
I'm on cable with all their channels including all Premiums and 100/10 internet for about $165 all in.
MANY years ago, while overseas I made many voice calls to CONUS via satellite. There was noticeable delay, echoes and ringing. Very disruptive to any conversation. But it was the only way to make such calls.
Yes true now. That is going to change as wireless is brought into the home for everyday use and as everything else as progress is made. More towers, repeaters, better receiving devices. See my post of what At&t is doing there will be towers almost everywhere including places they formally had no access or permission to. They are in the process in doing that of doubling speeds in all locations. That's just the start.
I again say, this isn't the time frame I'm sure At&t had in mind to give up Satellite delivery it is too soon. But we at times have to make choices. So again I ask if that choice has to be made will they give up gaining content - content that someone else may gobble up or keep Directv. We don't know the answer but I don't think it's so certain they will keep Directv it's an unknown at least by us. It's still possible they won't have to make the choice now, if not you can be certain they will the next time they want to own content.
Verizon is doing the same thing..at some point available frequencies will become an issue..
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
Could they ever make managed IPTV just like DTV? Would it be good for them to have both unmanaged and managed IPTV? I know some say if you have unmanaged IPTV then why would you need managed IPTV but would managed IPTV be more reliable than unmanaged IPTV? If internet went down you could still watch managed IPTV right? Then just use SatelliteTV in the rural areas?
How is ATT gaining access to locations they previously were denied? Max use of that First Responders business?
This was a brilliant move by At&t for several reasons. Other articles talk about how they prepared for this leaving everyone else in the dust. They got Billions of dollars to put in towers with available use exclusively for first responders. Those new towers will put in thousands of places no towers were allowed before, and/or At&t had no access to before. They will also use those towers for their business I.E. wireless.
Further, they will be climbing not only those new towers but every tower they have and installing the new technology.
"In addition to the $6.5 billion they’re getting to do this, there’s another benefit. AT&T will have to put cell towers in something like 99.9% of locations. They’ll even even put them in places where their permits have been denied before. That means sleepy hamlets like Forest Falls, California will get AT&T service, for the first time ever.
While they’re up there…
Mr. Stephenson went on to say that technicians will need to scale every single cell tower in the nation in order to get FirstNet equipment installed. While they’re up there, every LTE tower will be upgraded to “5G Evolution,” effectively doubling download speeds. If you get 25Mbps now, you’ll get 50. If you get 50, you’ll get 100. I’m talking about the kind of speeds you’re probably getting with your landline internet, just on your phone."
Get ready to double your cell data speeds - if you have AT&T - The Solid Signal Blog
Last edited:
Apparently not, only in their minds.
"Verizon's approach has rankled AT&T and a few others.
In a Jan. 9 meeting of the National Public Safety Telecommunications Counsel teleconference, Kevin McGinnis, a representative of National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials said Verizon's claims it has a unique public/private partnership with FirstNet and the ability to provide oversight were 'unfounded."
AT&T, FirstNet cast doubt on rival's participation -- FCW
and where telephone poles dont exist?
what about the back haul to each antenna? or ate they just extenders? thus increasing latency?
They are also testing on cb radio frequencies...I kid you not
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
- Status
Similar threads
