HughesNet

[ShaneLinder]

In July's issue of the SkyAngel Guide they are still advertising HouesNet.

"Even if you can't get cable Internet or DSL, you ca now enjoy the Internet the way it was meant to be."

Makes one wonder what will happen to all these HughesNet customers when SA stops DBS.

 

[NYRman1975]

Perhaps this is what they will use to try to get some of their customers to go to IPTV who otherwise do not have the access to high speed internet. If HueghesNet is satellite internet, it MAY be fast enough to support the IPTV. Of course, in my humble opinion, it is just slightly cost prohibitive with the fees, but that may be their plan who knows.

I have given up on trying to figure out Skyangel's strategy.

 

[ShaneLinder]

Isn't HughesNet using SA TPs? Not sure how they could but if they are not, they must then be using Echostar's and what is their relationship to SA?

 

[NYRman1975]

Not sure. Is Hughes bouncing off 61.5? I was under the impression they had their own bird. But now that you mention it I guess that wouldn't make much sense because you can get both SA and Hughes. Unless Hughes has an agreement with E* and is either leasing space off them, or SA is going to sell some TP to Hughes as well and is just not saying.

Iceberg, any idea?

 

[lumpkin666]

HughesNet is not SA and not using their transponders. SA is probably just making a few bucks by sending their unique customer base Hughes' direction. I believe they use a few different sats - like SatMex5 and SatMex6, and probably others. I'm betting they don't use any E* sat transponders since HughesNet is the old DirecPC (DTV), but you never know - everything is for sale for a price.

 

[NYRman1975]

Well in that case then, "no harm, no foul" as they say in the business world. Skyangel sends them their satellite business, Hughes picks them up, then pushes Skyangel IPTV giving Skyangel a kickback of sorts. Not the soundest of strategies, but I guess it could work if that is the angle they are taking.

Not that it makes wronging loyal customers right. But apparenlty Skyangel has gone from the ministry aspect to the all business model. To bad they couldn't have just found the happy medium to begin with.

But that is all just pure speculation on my part.

 

[jegrant]

If they continue the HughesNet partnership, I wonder how all the extra data downloads for SA-IPTV will factor into any fair access policies (data caps) that Hughes may have. Or, due to their affiliation, can SA* get their IPTV "exempted" from the cap? (Perhaps though the use of some multicasting to Hughes customers?)

 

[NYRman1975]

If they could do that, they might actually keep a few customers. But I have a feeling that those with other broadband services are going to run into the same problem. Or in my case, I have broadband, but I have the "cheap" internet and the broadband is just plain not fast enough for IPTV.

So if Skyangel can work something out with Hughes, they might save a few customer, but the bulk are still going to jump ship. High speed broadband is just not accessible enough, or affordable enough, for most people. In fact there is an AP news link on the web on Drudge Report that speaks about how the US is lagging behind other countries with broadband accessability.

It is a sad reality for a "wealthy country", but it is true.

I think Skyangel should have went with both and gave a choice for as long as they could. They may have then been abel to realize enough fnding to launch their own bird and maybe even doubled customer base.

 

[Mr Tony]

Hughesnet is toally independent of SA...only thing on 61.5 is DIsh and SA

As noted above, they use a couple satellites (Satmex 5 & 6 and I think G11 too)

 

[bonscott87]

Hughes Net is run by DirecTV. And it's very expensive. Like $500 up front and $70+ a month last I looked into it. And you only get 512K to 768K in "burst", not constant. You aren't guaranteed any bandwidth.

If you have no other broadband available and dialup is your only option *and you have the money* then it can be a good solution. Other then that it's garbage.

I can't see many Sky Angel subs that aren't paying anything now per month all of a sudden drop $70+ per month just for the Internet connection and then a monthly fee for the SA IPTV. Ouch.

 

[N4ST]

Hughes Net is currently $299 for the install and the 512Kbps package is $59.99 a month. Still, pretty steep. Plus the "fair access policy" limits you to ~200MB/Hr. I don't know how much bandwidth an IPTV feed uses, but it may be close to that limit.

 

[NYRman1975]

They can keep it. I will stay with my low-end Road Runner for $24.95/month.

 

[catkoko]

If you are right about the speed of hugesnet, its not even fast enough to run sky Angel IPTV. they say the system requirements are:

What is the minimum speed required to watch the IPTV service?

• The level of Internet service is still to be determined, but the industry recommendation is a throughput connection with more than 1-1.5 Mbps. Viewers unsure of their speed can contact their Internet Service Provider or do a quick speed evaluation test at Speakeasy - Broadband Voice and Data Communications.

What if the Internet connection is briefly interrupted?

• The IPTV service will “buffer” the program for up to 30-60 seconds, allowing for uninterrupted viewing if the viewer’s Internet connection is restored within that time. There may be a slight “catch up” time, but we’ve found this to not overly distract from the viewing experience.

What if the computer and television are not in the same room?

• This is not a problem. The viewer simply needs to have a wireless router that will send the signal from their broadband modem to the IPTV set-top box, which is connected to the TV set.
• A wireless router can be purchased from an Internet Service Provider or local electronics store.

you can read more at:
http://www.skyangel.com/About/Index.asp?Reference=IPTVFAQ

 

[lisalucille]

Yikes, after reading bonscott87's reply yesterday describing the costs of HughesNet, I agree w/ him. Ouch. Not worth it. In, an agreement w/ NYRman1975, I'm wondering what motivates SA, "really."

 

[Wescopc]

I'm wondering what motivates SA, "really."

Money - Business model vs vision - didn't/doesn't work.
Bob