Subscribe
The Rural Mobile and Broadband Alliance (RuMBA) USA released a whitepaper this week concluding that satellite-delivered broadband is more promise than results.
“When measured against the prevailing definition of broadband, satellite technology falls far short of conventional wired and wireless alternatives, mainly due to latency, bandwidth, price, performance and service shortcomings,” the Alliance wrote in a statement.
In other words, everything.
“Given the limitations of satellite Internet service detailed in this report, RuMBA cannot consider satellite a viable solution for rural communities who are increasingly cut off from mainstream America by the lack of access to affordable broadband service,” says Luisa Handem, founder and Managing Director of RuMBA USA.
“There is every indication that America’s reliance on broadband is only going to increase, especially in the areas of business, education, healthcare, government and entertainment, so it is vital that America’s rural communities have all the facts before deciding on broadband access, and delivering those facts is what this paper is about,” says Sascha Meinrath, Director of Open Technology Initiative, New America Foundation.
Among the Key Findings:
- The latency inherent in satellite Internet connections limits their use for standard broadband functions such as Voice over IP (VoIP) and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
- The capacity limits of satellite Internet service rule out broadband functionality taken for granted by Americans living in communities served by cable, fiber optic, and DSL services. These functions include automatic software updates, online backup, streaming video, telecommuting, and website hosting.
- Notwithstanding those limitations satellite Internet service is less affordable than wired Internet service.
While Stephen Cobb, author of a whitepaper on the subject, considers satellite Internet access an amazing technology, it has proved to be a poor substitute for ground-based, wired alternatives, including DSL.
More than 20 million rural Americans live without any access to the Internet, despite the country’s growing reliance on broadband service. Those that do subscribe to satellite service generally report a dismal experience, in part because of a punitive usage limit that dramatically lowers already-slow speeds when exceeded. Weather disturbances and heavy snow can also disrupt satellite signals, and contract terms often carry hefty termination fees if one cancels before the end of the contract.
Other stories of interest:
- EchoStar Buys Hughes Satellite; Acquires Satellite ‘Fraudband’ Service Rural Americans Loathe
- Satellite Fraudband Providers Claim “Fiber-Like” Speeds in the Future; “When Pigs Fly,” Says One Customer
- The Real Reasons for the Philippines’ Internet Overcharging: 2010 Was a Rough Year for Profits
- Incremental Progress: Verizon Makes DSL Available to Nearly 200 Lines in West Virginia
- Frontier Communications CEO Says Broadband Critical to Rural Economy
Thanks a bunch for highlighting the white paper! My goal in writing this report was to create an “argument over” document that politicians and township and county officials could lay on the table and end all this nonsense about satellite being a broadband option for rural communities. I know I’m preaching to the choir on this page, but anything you can do to spread the word will help. IMHO, the last thing rural America needs is the federal government giving another $100 million to satellite companies.
Stephen Cobb
Roseboom, NY
Not only is satellite fraudband a colossal waste of money for its customers, it will never be able to deliver the kind of broadband service Americans are increasingly demanding for multimedia applications, not in this generation or the next.
I am aware some of these providers are making grand promises for the next generation of satellite-delivered Internet, but without the exponential capacity increases necessary to manage demand, customers will still be left with a usage-limited, slow service. Even Africa is moving as fast as they can away from this type of service, in favor of wired/wireless ground-based service.
I see nothing wrong with using satellite for emergency communications (eg. fighting rural wildfires) or while on oil-drilling rigs or perhaps on cruise ships at sea or in-flight air traffic.
But taking $100 million in taxpayer dollars to subsidize these operations is a giant cash flush.
[...] Stop the Cap! [...]
Here in Canada our satellite is fraudband too. They give us 500 MB every day! But when at the camp we had 50 MB left for about 8 hours, we didn’t worry much. Our counter would reset in only a few hours, right?
Well, fraudband made us wait ANOTHER 24 hours! Ouch! What a load of false advertising! If the router says “resets in 8 hours”, don’t surprise us and change that later to “oh, sorry, it’s actually 24 hours.”
Apology not accepted!