10Mbps satellite anyone?

[Gary]

I think that's the key, Gary. For some, as with TV, satellite will be the only option and they will be prepared to pay. (Though the setup costs seem way OTT to me.)

I will say the set up is extortionate but the cost of putting a satellite up, and maintaining all the systems I guess gets passed along to the user in that cost, but in a few years the prices will drop I would imagine, I'm surprised sky have not jumped on this one

[Rik]

It is odd, given they've got their equipment in 8M homes already.

[Gary]

It is odd, given they've got their equipment in 8M homes already.

exploitation, Rik? You have no choice, so you have to pay, but compared with the French satellite system this is not that fast either, but its a niche market and hey have you by the short and curlies really, especially the business types that need the speed out to their homes in remote areas.

[Rik]

Well, you'd think Sky was well positioned to enter the market, they have the 'ground' infrastructure, they have the dishes installed, they have the marketing organisation and they are a known brand. That they haven't gone for it suggests they don't see it as profitable.

[Gary]

Well, you'd think Sky was well positioned to enter the market, they have the 'ground' infrastructure, they have the dishes installed, they have the marketing organisation and they are a known brand. That they haven't gone for it suggests they don't see it as profitable.

I think you are right but with patch 3.5g mobile networking thats not always an answer, where I like iu cant get 3G for 4 miles either way so having a 3g dongle would be pointless, and using a mobile with unlimited data at GPRS speeds as a modem would be horrid. If the telcos shared masts more it would help a lot more, also building new masts is harder in country conservation areas and farmers seem unwilling to have them on their land as well. I cant see some places getting new mobile masts either for long time. Its unfair but geography sometimes is just against these areas no matter what

[kinmel]

I will say the set up is extortionate but the cost of putting a satellite up, and maintaining all the systems I guess gets passed along to the user in that cost, but in a few years the prices will drop I would imagine, I'm surprised sky have not jumped on this one

Oh look, the exact same offer is much cheaper in France, across Europe the service is being sold by Satellite ISPs of old, such as SkyDSL ( no relation to Sky TV ).

You will find that all of them are cheaper than their U.K. counterparts and that each will break E.U. law by refusing to supply beyond their national boundary.

Since the transponders have Europe wide coverage, it will start with very high speeds and then as it becomes more popular contention will destroy speeds.

Sky TV know that it is all but impossible to supply an acceptable service by satellite at a cost acceptable to mainstream customers.

[Rik]

Though they manage to get people to part with £45 and more for TV every month, Alan.

[kinmel]

Though they manage to get people to part with £45 and more for TV every month, Alan.

But for TV there is just one data stream per channel  broadcast and there is no additional bandwidth costs however many receive it. With Satellite Internet, every subscriber requires a unique data-stream and bandwidth requirements grow exponentially.

Sky don't need to chase high cost business, SkyHD subscriptions alone currently earn them £11,000,000 per month and the figure is climbing.

[Rik]

True. As the largest provider of HD TV, they may well see growth during the recession, while others see a loss of business, Setanta for example.

[colonelsun]

Some years ago i used the services of a broadband company that provided their service via a land-based satellite. A small satellite receiver was placed on the side of the house and that was in contact with a bigger satellite about a 5 minute walk away. For me it was the only option to rid myself of a dial-up connection and i had the system for a year. To be fair weather conditions dictated my connection speed, sometimes it would determine if i ever got a connection that day but on the whole i was satisfied with what i got. I can't recall the name of the company for the life of me.

However, back on topic, i seemed to recall everyone announcing that land-based satellites were the answer to the prayers of everyone who lived in the sticks....that we'd all be connected via satellite by 2004.

It never happened!!

[Sebby]

I suppose that's ultimately down to cost; it's never been a cheap solution.

[vitriol]

I used to work for a company that had a satellite broadband service...........it really was terrible.

[Rik]

There was me waiting for the punchline.