Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Internet Providers

pitchblende writes "Our company works in remote locations in Northern Canada. We have been experiencing major communications problems with our current satellite service. We use satellite systems that go for about $1000 apiece, with $100/month in fees. The service is 'shared' rather than dedicated, and our VOIP, etc, has been getting worse by the day lately. From what I can tell, dedicated systems go for $30k and up. I hope someone(s) out there has some suggestions, recommendations?"

35 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Amazing by mrbcs · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I can't believe you got voip to work at all. I had a satelite before.. ping times well over 1200ms. It was pretty much useless as far as I was concerned. 500 meg bandwidth cap a day so you couldn't even download an iso. Mine wasn't "shared", but it still sucked pretty bad.

    Sorry about your luck, dial-up would probably be about the same though and a lot less money.

    --
    I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    1. Re:Amazing by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Residential internet is shared. With satellite, it's the same transmitter for a lot of people. With cable, your neighborhood is on the same cable. With DSL, you may have a dedicated line to the CO, but you're sharing bandwidth at the link the CO has with the rest of the world. Sharing bandwidth is actually a good compromise as it reduces the cost of making sure they have provisions for bandwidth that most people aren't using anyway.

    2. Re:Amazing by anpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had a satelite before.. ping times well over 1200ms.

      Smells like something funny on the provider side. I assume the satellite was geostationnary (35786 km from earth). So given that the signal travels at the speed of light, a RTT between you and the provider hub should be:
      35786 / c * 4 * 1000000 = 477ms
      4 being the times the distance is travelled (modem->sat, sat->provider, hub->provider, sat->modem).
      Of course the signal travels a bit less fast, and there's some processing at your providers but I've seen results around 600ms.

      Weren't the 1,2 sec RTT you're talking about between two sat modems? That would explain such a huge delay.

    3. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dude, they're geostationary over the equator. That place with palm trees and eternal tropical weather. God only knows how much extra distance it adds to go all the way up to northern Canada.

      WTF? God only knows how big the Earth is? The radius of the Earth is only ~6400 km. Which is small compared to the 35786 km distance to geostationary. The north pole is the farthest you could be from them on the Earth surface and so it's 36353 from geostationary orbit. So for all your smart assed "God only knows" bullshit, it's 1.5% farther if you aren't on the equator. Moron.

    4. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You sir, are the moron.

      Pythagoras' theorem is used as follows:
      c = sqrt(a^2 + b^2) (a=distance from centre of earth to north pole, b = distance from centre of earth to geo stationary sat.)
      c = sqrt(6400^2 + (6400+35786)^2 )
      c = 42668.707

      That equates to almost 20% more at the north pole, not 1.5%.

    5. Re:Amazing by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've never looked at a map of Northern Canada, have you?

      People who are doing work there are usually there for a good (at least to them) reason, so saying someone should move if their location is more than 30km from a backbone connection is asinine.

  2. Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by Scuzzm0nkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Try and set up a chain of repeating 12' satellite dish broadcasters retrofitted for 802.11G like the one they set the distance record with. It got like 125 miles, so 10 or 15 of them ought to get out to the middle of nowhere. Latency would probably blow, but it's still better than satellite.

    --
    People are like slinkies; useless but fun to watch when you push them down the stairs
    1. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by diodeus · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and the electricity would come from?

      Go look at a map of northern Canada.

    2. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Informative

      solar panel, battery and a small wind genny should do just fine. That's how most weather stations 'up north' are being powered and it would work quite well for a small low power router. There is a Canadian company in the rockies that makes really nice hardware for just that purpose, check out valemount networks http://www.staros.com/

      here is another example.

      http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/solar-powered-wireless-router-to-bring-internet-access-to-remote-areas/

    3. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He probably would be better off with Packet over Avian Carrier or Packet over Caribou..

      Northern Canada is covered in forest and Just taking a guess.. depending on how far north he is.. he could be 6+ hours drive to the nearest point of civilization and what type of access it would have who knows.. maybe 56K dial-up could be considered high-speed new fangled technology there :)

      I am shocked I haven't seen any comments about Igloo's yet.

         

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    4. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by Goody · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try and set up a chain of repeating 12' satellite dish broadcasters retrofitted for 802.11G like the one they set the distance record with. It got like 125 miles, so 10 or 15 of them ought to get out to the middle of nowhere. Latency would probably blow, but it's still better than satellite.

      Building 10-15 125 mile links with 12' dishes is no trivial (or inexpensive) task when you consider the site acquisition and civil work to pull it off. The operational costs to maintain it in such a harsh environment aren't trivial either. And using 802.11G for this is a joke, and 10-15 125 mile links are going to have an availability that's horribly low, probably in the 70 or 80 percent range. FCC Part 101 (or whatever the equivalent is in Canada) licensed microwave is clearly the way go if they want any reasonable amount of bandwidth and availability, but the cost of this network will dwarf whatever monthly recurring they're paying now.

      Pulling off an interesting wireless experiment with hacked and overextended hardware is a lot different than building a production network.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    5. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed, I haven't lived/worked in the high arctic, but the original poster mentioned 'remote locations in Northern Canada', which is not the same as the 'high arctic', and since I've actually lived in such a location for three years in a solar and wind powered home I think I have some relevant knowledge. In fact, in the Canadian winter when it's clear solar panels will have amazing output because they are kept nicely cool by the surrounding air :)

      The simple fact that they use satellite there right now according to the OP, indicates they are not in the high arctic or even near it, because there are no satellites in line-of-sight doing telco in the high arctic as far as I know, *maybe* inmarsat has some coverage there (it will cost you dearly though, but if you need them they are almost always the only player), but certainly not at the rates the OP quoted.

    6. Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread by ubercam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Manitoba Hydro built, maintains and operates two microwave networks that run from Winnipeg to the north. They use them to control northern dams from the central control office in Winnipeg. I know someone who was involved in the implementation of remote switching of manually operated dams back in the 70's who was actively involved with the microwave system. He said the latency is VERY low. They can switch things almost instantly from Winnipeg, over 1000km away.

      They have used it in the past (maybe still do) to send TV and radio signals to repeaters up north so the folks up there could watch live TV/hear live radio. They also use it for phones as well until quite recently (upgraded to fibre optics since). Which is why the phone company (MTS) helped pay for/build it too. Much cheaper than running thousands of kilometers of copper. The guy I know had a friend in the control office in Winnipeg who sent up various Winnipeg radio stations over the microwave on a subcarrier of the CBC TV signal. Apparently the CBC never even noticed hehe. I think they had to modify their radios, but there were all electronics specialists anyways working on the remote switching stuff, so it was peanuts for them.

      I'm not sure where the poster is located or where his remote sites are, but perhaps there's a utility company that might have some spare capacity on an existing microwave network they'd be willing to sell?

  3. The nature of the beast by Bluefirebird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is the nature of the Internet satellite business. The quality-of-service is dependent of the traffic from other terminals, since it is a shared service.

    The only solution to this problem is to try to secure some premium class traffic for sending VoIP and have the border gateway properly configured to mark VoIP packets accordingly. The rest of the traffic should be served as Best Effort, in order to save money.

    --

    Fear is the mind-killer.

  4. ... ... ... Latency? by game+kid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    What latency? It works great to me!

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  5. Teleco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Depending on where you are, Enerconnex offers some kind of service to remote locations though its primary target is oil and gas in northern Alberta. I don't know if that particular company can help you. It is a division of Northwestel.

    You might also want to contact Northwestel directly but seeing as it is a government-sanctioned monopoly with a government-sanctioned profit margin, I wouldn't expect much help. It's probably cheaper to blast your own satellite into orbit that to get service from it.

    Also, Northwestel should read Bell as Bell wholly owns Northwestel.

    Satellite is pretty much the only system that you can get from another company, at least in the Yukon. Northwest Territories and Nunavut may have different telecos that don't suck so hard. I'm strongly considering getting satellite for my own personal internet just because I loathe Northwestel and its business practices.

  6. Skycasters has speeds in which we commit data can by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Skycasters has speeds in which commit data can be transferred and they have Platinum Service Plan will be optimized for VoIP

    All plans include 1 publicly routable static IP address.

    http://www.skycasters.com/broadband-satellite-compare/compare.html

  7. Have you tried a Riverbed device? by RichMeatyTaste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WAN optimization, works rather well. We have several offices connected via VSAT links (shared bandwidth like yourself) and VOIP and everything works fine. The Riverbed averages about 90% compression across all traffic.
    (a href="http://www.tredent.com/news/fhi-deploys-riverbed-steelhead-appliances-after-testing-cisco-packeteer-and-juniper/">Go here you want to read our "success" story.

    --


    Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
    1. Re:Have you tried a Riverbed device? by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can vouch for the Riverbed as well. We use it for our connection to the Philippines (from Ohio, USA), and it works great. At one point it had cut down 50GB of requests to 2GB of sent traffic. I really don't think there are any alternate connections unless any of the sites get cellular service or you lay your own cabling which would be godawful expensive. You could sample a few other providers maybe, but I think optimizing your current connection may be your best bet.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  8. How's the latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Astronomical.

  9. You can by kellyb9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You should run a few hundred miles of ethernet cable down to Pennsylvania. I'll let you plug into my linksys router.

    1. Re:You can by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately all we have in Canada is metric ethernet cable.

  10. Use Beaver Net... by gwn · · Score: 3, Funny

    never underestimate the bandwidth of a DeHaviland BEAVER full of cd and DVD's...

  11. Terrestrial Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In order to avoid satellite providers altogether, a number of areas in southern Alberta have made the switch to terrestrial wireless systems. These systems typically operate in the 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz band, and provide each client with a highly directional radio frequency line of sight (it works through trees and bush) to the provider tower, which can be several kilometers away. These systems are very reliable, and boast latency and bandwidth similar to modern cable networks. Most providers do have a bandwidth cap in place, but they are not nearly as absurd as satellite provider caps. Best of all, they cost a fraction of a satellite connection, and the equipment itself costs less than $100 at the client site.
    With regards to specific technologies, check out the offerings of Motorola in their Canopy line of products. I'm sure there are many others, but I have experience with this one =)

  12. Satellite? Screw that. Go radio by Gunfighter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Get with some of your local ham radio geeks. Those guys are amazing. Granted, their radio bands and equipment are not approved or licensed for commercial use, but they can probably at least point you in the right direction. Once they get the equipment (which is way less than $30k) and license, they can toss packets all over the place for free. I don't know what the bandwidth or latency is like on their systems, but I do know that when it comes to getting information from point A to point B, they get pretty creative. Certainly they can help you come up with something that will fit your needs (for a nominal fee). Worth a shot!

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  13. Re:Move by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He is in Northern Canada... its highly likely He has no other choice.. Its likely he is using VoIP because there are no copper lines for 100's of miles. Its likely he is even running of a generator for power..

    Being in northern Canada.. its much like being in the middle of the ocean.. Good luck on getting a landline :)

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  14. Re:I'm no expert by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think what he means is dedicated bandwidth.

    I work for a company that has 10+ satelite links and some are better than others. AFIK all satelite operators in Canada use Telesat's satelites, so it doesn't really matter if you switch providers, as you will still be talking to the same bird in the sky.

    We use Infosat Communications for our satelite sites, and lately they have been having issues. Their uplink facility is in downtown Calgary and when a storm rolls through (which they have daily now for several weeks) there is a good chance that the uplink facility will lose connection to the bird, and ALL sites will go offline. Outages are usually breif, but a MAJOR pain in my ass.

    Once service is restored, likely one of the sites will not come up correctly and I have to call the site and do some rebooting tickery to bring it back online, which SUCKS as most of the people up north can barely tie their shoelaces, let alone work satellite equipment.

    We have two different types of satelite dishes. The more reliable of the two (by quite a large margin) is a dish mounted to a 4" pole sunk into concrete. That baby ain't `goin nowhere, and generally works pretty good (but HIGH latency). The other dishes we have are auto aiming, so that, in theory, you can drop the thing anywhere, press some buttons and away it goes. In reality, they can find the satelite in the sky quite well, but if for whatever reason, that connection gets lost, it will not reaquire. Someone has to go out to the site, and play with the equipment. Then when it doesn't come up, we call Infosat, and they get the person on site to play with the equipment, before finally sending a tech.

    When one of my auto-aligning dishes goes down, I curse. Usually it takes DAYS to get it back online. I have to get someone on site, then get infosat on the phone...

    Anyways, I feel the submitter's pain, as I live with it too. Unfortunately I think you are SOL and will have to live with it, as cellular data can be spotty too (and is unavailable pretty much everywhere north, except northern Alberta. We looked into cellular data and they couldn't/wouldn't give us a SLA so we are still on satelitte.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  15. Hosed, Eh? by da'+WINS+pimp · · Score: 4, Informative

    We used NetKaster's commercial grade service at 75+degN. The farthest north it has been deployed according to their tech as of last summer. All satellite is shared, but we had good luck with VOIP and even some video conferencing when the weather cooperated. That far north you have to shoot through a lot of atmosphere to hit the bird. I would say if transport size is not an issue, go with two of their 1m dish systems and load balance. That should get you want you want.

    --

    "I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
  16. Get three providers by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I Had the same problem in the Caribbean. We ultimately just subscribed to the three different satellite services, and just had our network route the traffic accordingly. And yeah voip works fine over satellite. I don't know how it works so well, but it does work.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  17. Advice from an "expert". by DarthBart · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm currently employed by a US-based VSAT provider and I'm the guy in charge of the IP sections and a good portion of the RF section too. Here's my advice and words of wisdom.

    1) You'll get what you pay for. Satellite spectrum *is* expensive, so if you're only paying $100/mo for service, you're being oversubscribed to hell and back.

    2) Consumer satellite providers mostly share bandwidth by TDM access. They have a large carrier from their earth station that runs all the time, but your transmitter bursts in a duty cycle set by the system controller at the earth station. Its great for downloads, but it sucks for VOIP.

    3) The people who say "VOIP won't work over satellite" are dead wrong. It works just fine. We have many customers in the US and several in Europe that use VOIP just fine. However, they're on "dedicated bandwidth", so there's no TDMing. If they're buying 512kbps of bandwidth, they have 512kbps of bandwidth. But they also pay more for that.

    4) I don't know exactly how much data and voice you need, but consider BGAN as a possible solution.

    5) And, shameless plug, feel free to contact me and we can see what we can do for you.

    1. Re:Advice from an "expert". by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's put some numbers on it: bulk satellite transponder time is going to cost you $100 to $200 per hour depending on band and desirability of satellite.

      If you go with DVB-S2 on 36 MHz transponder Ku satellite, I'm assuming you can generally get by with 8PSK 2/3 modulation (except when it rains very hard), about 7.1 dB Es/N0, for a data rate of ~60 Mbps.

      To just break even on $100/month service, you need to revenue of around $100k a month (add in uplink equipment depreciation, internet access costs, to transponder costs), and that means you need at least 1,000 subscribers.

      Average data rate of 60 Mbps / 1000 subscribers is 60 kbps. Yes, Internet use is bursty, but this is a worst-case scenario.

      I suspect most of these systems probably have 10,000 subscribers for a 10:1 oversubscription on a typical 60 kbps end-user capability.

      Note that I've ignored any return satellite bandwidth.

      The Ka band satellites do have the ability to have smaller spot beams, and they may use DVB-S2 variable bitrate to ramp up on cells that have no bad weather, but I don't think the SpaceWay sats are actually being used in this fashion right now.

      The verdict I've heard from everyone using satellite internet: better than dial-up (but with more latency for games), but that's about it.

  18. Re:VoIP on satellite IP? by TheGreek · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can squeeze that down to 200 ms+ for one-way with some voodoo.

    That's some pretty impressive voodoo.

  19. Re:I'm no expert by timster · · Score: 3, Funny

    Exactly how small is "small"? Because a Linksys duct-taped to a Pringles can isn't going to cut it, even if you bolt some solar panels to the bottom.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  20. Good, Cheap, Fast. by zentigger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pick 2.

    We operate over 50 sites North of 60, with our own uplink facility in Southern Canada. I can tell you satellite bandwidth is EXPENSIVE! Face it, it costs a lot of money to get those things floating around the planet and keep them up there.

    There are a few options available to lower the cost, which tend to lead to the 3 options.

    The one thing that Infosat does is use KU band. This is cheaper because is has a much greater suck factor. The main problem is the impact of rain-fade. This becomes especially significant in the high north becuase, being on the edge of the footprint (lower gain) and having much more atmosphere to pass through, plus lower elevation angles on the antenna lead to higher noise from terrestrial radiation. (we used infosat links for a number of years, and had the same problems you talk about)
    The other option is to use C-Band. It has a better footprint in the north and rain fade is a fairly negligible factor. It is also significantly more expensive.
    Telesat now has KA band as well, but I'm not that familiar with how it performs, or is priced. There are some issues with KA band, as well because it uses spot beams, so you cannot have a direct link between the East and West without a downlink in the middle somewhere.
    Most providers that are offering a "cheap" solution will also provide shared bandwidth solutions. This works well up to a point, as it allows you to make use of extra space when other users aren't using it (commonly called "burst" speeds), but the main problems with this are that everyone tends to want to use it at the same time (more or less) and it is easy for the provider to oversubscribe the link. You may be able to talk to your provider about traffic shaping options to see if they can prioritize voip, although I suppose that is not a very PC remark these days :)

    If you use the service mostly within the communities, there is a last mile broadband solution available for most places in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut (www.qiniq.com / www.airware.ca) using MCS (Clearwire).

    --

    the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

  21. VSAT by battery111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am currently deployed to Iraq. Dues to the specialty of my job, my 3 man team rates our own VSAT uplink. The system we use is made by GCS and is their Cheetah model. Not 100% sure whose birds we use, but I believe Intelsat. This system in general works pretty good, auto acquire dish, integrated router, VOIP, etc. Since it is military, it also provides an uplink to SIPR, also with VOIP capability. The system works alright, but it has been known to be quite finicky, particularly with power sources. While the system is allegedly rated for a wide range, both AC and DC sources, in reality, it sometimes has a problem with generator AC power. Because of my remote location, generators are all there is for power, and anyone who has lived off of generators for an extended period of time can tell you that the power isn't always steady. In the past, power outages due to generator outages have killed the system, requiring one or more components to be replaced. Bandwidth is so so but it does do VOIP fine. Only other gripe I have with it is the management of it. Have to jump through a few hoops to connect to slashdot (something about non-work related . . .).