Starband Files for Chapter 11

PalmKiller writes "Well it looks like Starband is going into chapter 11. I got the email a few days ago. And just when I got CYGWIN with squid proxy working beautifully. With winproxy I rarely got any thoughput on my clients (20-50KBytes/sec or 160-360Kbits/sec), on squid I finally am getting 80-95KBytes/sec (640-760Kbits/sec continuously) and some faster bursts. Well, I guess I will ride her till she falls over and dies." Looks like Echostar's tactics have been successful. And we just did an article a few weeks ago on Starband's service, where most commenters weren't very happy.

Comments

Ownership Question

[OaITw]

It would be nice if someone could explain or provide links clarifying the relationship between Echostar, Starband, and GILAT SATELLITE NETWORKS. On the the Starband site they say they are not a publically traded company and refer to Echostar and Gilat as partners. The CNET article describes Echostar defection from the Starband and GILAT camp. Anyone got info on the ownership of Starband. What is interesting to me is that it seems that Starband existed as a subsidary of these other companies but the chapter 11 applies only to Starband.

Re:Ownership Question

[schnell]

Gilat is a VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal, e.g. small satellite dish) hardware manufacturer that owned a large chunk of Starband. However, even though they retain a smaller stake in it, they recently wrote off all of their investment in the company, saying they didn't expect to get any of it back.

Echostar is the company behind Dish Network, and they had bought into Starband (majority ownership?) and planned to use it for their own residential satellite Internet service. Recently, though, Echostar decided it wanted to buy ("merge with") satellite biggie Hughes Electronics (operator of DirecTV).

Knowing that Echostar would face some regulatory hurdles over the consolidation, Echostar dropped Starband (claiming something or other was wrong with it) and then complained to the regulatory overseers that rural folks wouldn't be able to get Internet access unless their merger with Hughes was approved. I think I heard that Echostar recently took its reps off Starband's board, since they didn't seem to be too welcome anymore.

At no time, I think, were Gilat and Echostar really "partners" - they just both owned parts of Starband.

So what is left for rural areas?

[SlashChick]

Having grown up in a rural area, and having friends and parents who still live in an area that just got 56K phone lines, this issue is important.

I can remember back in the day when AOL and other ISPs promised 98-99% local number coverage, and we were still in that other 1%. We didn't have local dial-up until 1996, when the local pharmacist (!) and his wife set up a T1 and modem pool out of their garage.

My question is: what is going to happen to these communities? With the FCC pushing toward one DSL provider and one cable provider per town, this is going to merit absolute disaster in a town that Verizon doesn't care about and where there practically isn't a cable company (the cable company went out of business three times in three years; everyone gave up and got satellite.)

I sense a real impending disaster that could perhaps be averted by something like fixed wireless. Are there feasibility studies on the 'Net (cost analyses, etc.) that show the costs of putting in a fixed wireless or other broadband setup? I've seen the case studies, many of which are posted on Slashdot. However, they fail to touch in the bigger problem, which is that this applies to 20% of the country.

If we want people to have broadband, someone is going to have to come up with a plan to offer it over large service areas over something that is not a phone or a cable line. Do we have answers yet? What is on the horizon?

Re:So what is left for rural areas?

[ender81b]

Well they could do what these people did. In all honesty, setting up an internet CO-Op seems to be the most likely way for people in rural areas to get broadband.

Remember only because of the Rural Electrification act of 1923(?) did rural areas get electrict/telephones. A report from the DOE (deparment of Energy) that I read (can't find the link, of course) said that the total cost of wiring all those places took around 30-40 years to pay off. The telecoms make very, very little from rural areas, and in many cases lose money, so they tend to not care about them.

So either build your own or press the gov't to make some sort of law requiring the telco's to provide broadband.

Re:So what is left for rural areas?

[shepd]

>I don't mean this to flame, but why it is so critical for rural areas to have broadband internet.

Do you want to vote online?

Not until everyone can at a reasonable pace (most rural communities connect at 9600 baud - 21.6kbps -- absolutely useless for the modern internet).

Would you like to get rid of your telephone and only use your broadband connection?

Not until everyone one you would ever need to call has access to broadband.

>They already mostly have 56K dialup

As a rural resident, I can tell you that you've been lied to. Most of us are connecting at rates barely faster than a 14.4k modem, and most of us have enough line noise that getting a 24/7 connection is next to impossible.

Of course, if you're still on a party line (pretty much only found in rural areas now) getting on the internet would be a tag-team sport.

>Why do they have a right to broadband

I dunno, maybe because most of your food was produced by these people?

If you continue to treat rural folk as a second class, you can stop expecting first class eats. I mean, it goes with the territory. The more 3rd world countries surpass rural areas for access to amenities, the more likely your food's going to taste like its come from the third world!

And yes, I've heard from at least one local farmer who's pissed that he can't get broadband for his milk farm business. I don't know how he'd use it, though, so don't ask (I'm one of those SUV driving people who you'd rather not see spending any money in your city).

>except for the situation in which people and companies move to these rural areas specifically to save on taxes and land costs, while whining about the lack of services.

Most rural people who do this are willing to pay extra for extra services. I, for example, am paying $150 CDN a month for always-on high-speed internet. I would humbly suggest that your taxes fund $1, maybe $2 a month of your high-speed internet.

If anything, we pay more, and often are willing to pay more.

>They then of course proceed to create excess traffic and pollute our cities as they drive the 50 miles into the city in their SUVs to see a movie.

That's ok. Considering that the bulk of wealth (at least in my town) comes from people living outside of the downtown areas (where the city is most built up, and where DSL is everywhere), we'll just stop putting money into your city. How long do you think that theater will last when no one is buying the $5 cokes?

>I have yet to see any compelling need for universal broadband.

With ubiquity comes application.

If you can trust that anyone you sell a product has access to broadband, you'll build it in.

You are the reason why its taken over a decade after the introduction of broadband before there's been any real interest in broadband online console gaming.

>If someone can figure how to make a profit on wireless, that would be better.

They're trying, but unfortunately the equipment costs, and monthly service fees are not something that even people with money are willing to pay.

>They often can't have a fire station within a 1/2 mile

We do. Many, if not most, rural communities do. Without our volunteer fire department I have no clue what farmers would do when their barns and silos set on fire, not to mention the many times they save idiots from the city when they cause a crashe by driving 20 km/h on an 80 km/h.

>and they are generally not going to be within the limitation of a DSL line.

'Tis true, tis true. Ma Bell has made some very poor choices when building exchanges out in the country, and when the city expands into the country, they often have to pay dearly for it.

>Stop Whining

Sure, but don't expect a lot of home stereo MP3 players to have broadband jacks, and don't expect to be able to phone a lot of people with your new toy broadband phone, or easily watch movies online, or many of the other things that people with broadband want to do until everyone can get it.

We're whining because many of us are willing to pay almost 5 times what you pay for broadband, but somehow companies think even that won't make them money.

BTW: I'd suggest that us rural people are why North America has been stuck with such a pathetic cell phone system (CDMA is good to 5x the distance as GSM). I'd enjoy it if we can keep people like you, who consider us a second class, from getting their hands on broadband enabled devices in the same way. >:-D

TTYL, and remember, ubiquity is what got Microsoft where it is today, and its why Linux is having such a tough time in the market.

Re:Adelphia

[ender81b]

Links:

Adelphia postpones quarterly report due to 'accounting discrepancies'

More on accounting problems (google cache)

Adelphia selling off assets (google cache)

Absolutely ridiculous. All these telecoms going bye-bye. Where the fsck did the people who ran these business get their degrees? I mean, for god's sake, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if your company is 2 billion in debt maybe you shouldn't pay like 50 million to liscense a stadium (titan's adelphia stadium). Or perhaps you shouldn't get those $100,000 sun boxen. Always a favourite of mine - listening to all this super expensive brand-new equipment these companies have. Ebay anyone?

It just boggles my mind that somehow these morons got put in charge of a company like this. Take starband - why in god's name would you ban something like P2P filesharing programs? These programs are like the #1 reason people (Especially younger people) want to get broadband - but you filter them out. Great business strategy. Gee, I wonder why you are going bankrupt?

It just pisses me off that these morons who ran the company will get to live off of 'only 50 million' like that b*tch from Enron while 1,000 or more employees will have to try and have to scrape together a living. Argggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

</RANT<

Slashdot: antinews for nerds, nothing else matters

[babbage]

Guys, first rule of journalism (and for that matter, of getting an "A" on any paper you had to write after, say, the 4th grade): make sure you cover

• who
• what
• where
• when
• [for bonus points] how & why

Before reading this, I had no idea who Starband was, what they did, where I might have known them from, etc. After reading it ...I still don't know, but I know that they're out of money and that it messes up some guy's Cygwin/Squid setup. But I don't *care* about some guy's Cygwin/Squid setup. If you want to convince the reader that this is important, maybe it would make more sense to mention, I dunno, who the fuck Starband is and why the hell it would matter to anyone if they're broke.

And to think I once saw Slashdot as journalism's great shining democratic hope. Oh the disappointment of reality.... :/