×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Satellite Internet Providers

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the they-all-suck dept.

The Internet 336

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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

336 comments

Down (2, Funny)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#24212975)

Come back down to lower Canada...

Re:Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213129)

must be pretty north, we consider Bathurst to be 'Upper Canada' around here.. =)

I'm no expert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213035)

But I think a 'dedicated systemm' for satellite communication is going to cost a bit more than $30k. That price will barely get your shiny new satellite high enough to be seen from your neighbor's house.

Re:I'm no expert (5, Informative)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213671)

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.

Re:I'm no expert (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214141)

Dumb ass

uh! (-1, Redundant)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213065)

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.

You can get a dedicated satellite for 30K..........

Re:uh! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213285)

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.

You can get a dedicated satellite for 30K..........

Hey, did you know you can get a dedicated satellite for 30k?!?

Quickly now, somebody post a reply to me to let everyone know you can get a satellite for 30k. Because that hasn't been said already.

Re:uh! (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213509)

You can get a dedicated satellite for 30 000$ CAD.

I don't think I'd be able to buy a dedicated satellite with a 30K resistor.

Re:uh! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213813)

Har har har! And you probably wonder why you never get laid.

Re:uh! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213905)

I could affor it, if only it were USD rather than CAD!!!

Re:uh! (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213977)

Quickly now, somebody post a reply to me to let everyone know you can get a satellite for 30k. Because that hasn't been said already.

That's mooosecrap. Launch costs alone are over 30k.

What?

Re:uh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214113)

Parent isn't redundant, even though he used incorrect punctuation. That was a question. What's the difference between "shared" and "dedicated" ? My assumption would be that he means a dedicated satellite. Which definitely costs more than $30,000. Unless by "shared" he means that they share the same dish.

Amazing (4, Interesting)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213077)

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.

Re:Amazing (1)

mongoose(!no) (719125) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213155)

There you go: Get a lot of phone lines and dial-up connections. Or just use regular telephone instead of VoIP if it's that important.

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213909)

This:

remote locations in Northern Canada

Almost certainly negates this:

Get a lot of phone lines and dial-up connections

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214081)

Or even better, use satellite phones instead of rigging up a more expensive and less reliable facsimile of satellite phones.

What is meant by "shared"? (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213605)

Mine wasn't "shared", but it still sucked pretty bad.

What is meant by 'shared'? How is any satellite system not a shared medium?

Perhaps I'm just not understanding some sat lingo here.

Re:Amazing (3, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213677)

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.

Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (5, Interesting)

Scuzzm0nkey (1246094) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213101)

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.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (3, Informative)

diodeus (96408) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213355)

...and the electricity would come from?

Go look at a map of northern Canada.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (1)

Scuzzm0nkey (1246094) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213461)

Solar? In the summer those things would be glowing.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214097)

Yeah but being down for the whole winter is a drag.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214223)

Not to mention that the winter is when most the work up north gets done. In the summer the roads melt and are impassible.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (3, Informative)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213555)

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/ [staros.com]

here is another example.

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

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213959)

Solar power in the far north is sub-optimal. Wind is probably easier.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214127)

Technically, anywhere on Earth but on an equatorial mountain is sub-optimal.

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214213)

Solar panel? What about in the winter, when there is no sun light for most, if not all, of the day?

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213767)

Weather notwithstanding, combination battery/solar would probably work. It's not like they use THAT much power. Still talking a few grand *per relay* plus permission to use the land.

You should probably just bite the bullet and have a cable run. How far is it, exactly, to the nearest whatever?
=Smidge=

Re:Get some of those BUDs in that other thread (3, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213707)

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.

   

All Satellite Internet Providers are Shared (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213135)

That is the dirty little secret of the industry.

And if some punk on your satellite is doing p2p transfers all day, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

If you want a real dedicated connection, you will have to launch your own.

Re:All Satellite Internet Providers are Shared (1)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213261)

most satellite providers though have a hard cap. lets say 200MB i think for Dish Network. Once you hit that cap you are lowered to turtle slow connections and gradually you get faster and faster. satellite internet sucks.

Re:All Satellite Internet Providers are Shared (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213533)

Actually that's not true. You can pay for a guaranteed chunk of bandwidth - your own dedicated PID. And yes you will pay a sizeable amount (5k+ per month for 1-2Mbits).

Re:All Satellite Internet Providers are Shared (1)

Syrinx_87 (1155961) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213887)

Actually, my satellite ISP blocks all P2P traffic. That means no torrents, no DC++, etc.. I tried for weeks when I first got satellite internet (it wasn't my decision to switch from dial-up (high speed isn't available where I am) and I'm not the one paying for it) to make torrents run. They'd start to run at like 1 or 2 KB/s (or less) and then start going slower and slower until they dropped all connection with the seeds.
MSN used to sign out constantly because it's technically P2P. I use Pidgin now which doesn't disconnect as often.

To top it all off, now I'm having problems with FTP downloads. The download will start, get x% finished and then just freeze. It'll look like it's still downloading but it's not, it just sits there until you cancel the download. I've emailed my ISP about it several times and they've never answered me...

Re:All Satellite Internet Providers are Shared (2, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214251)

A group of friends and I went in on dedicated satellite bandwidth in Asia for a few years. It cost us around 4k/month USD for a T1-bandwidth connection, but it was well worth it for a group of 15 guys.

You're screwed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213151)

Not to be flippant, but there it is. There aren't that many satellite internet/phone providers.

Unless you have some coverage from inukshuk wireless [wikipedia.org], there isn't much you can do but suck it up.

The nature of the beast (3, Interesting)

Bluefirebird (649667) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213165)

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.

VoIP on satellite IP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213173)

You have to be kidding me... Satellite ping times are 500 ms+ for two-way, 250 ms+ for one-way. You can squeeze that down to 200 ms+ for one-way with some voodoo.

VoIP requires 200 ms or _less_ latency for quality. You could never expect to get quality VoIP via satellite. Give up. Sorry to say it, but really, just give up.

Satellite contracts and providers (2, Interesting)

esobofh (138133) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213185)

Are you dealing with the satelitte provider directly? i.e. infosat, telsat, etc?

Directly they won't do much in the way of service level agreements that have financial penalties associated with them. However, if you were to purchase network services from a communications supplier that was working along with your satellite provider, you may find they have more weight in getting you the service levels you are paying for (and contracted).

I suggest you give TELUS a call, and compare prices/service levels for service in your area.

Re:Satellite contracts and providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213489)

How cute, you think TELUS is allowed to operate North of 60.

Barrett aka Xplornet is an option. Quality = $$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213233)

I talked about this with a guy from Barrett Explore (aka Xplornet) on a flight between Toronto and Fredricton.

But the problem was that with most solutions like this, it is twisted pair up and satellite down, so the issue with VOIP quality is on the upstream.

Cost, quality and time are the 3 things to always consider and if you expect remote business grade quality running VOIP for $100 a month, you are not going to find it anywhere.

C

Feel your pain (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213245)

If a cellphone network is available for some of your locations then look into that.

I have wildblue, which could be similar to the system you are using (costs are similar). A couple of years ago it was a lot better but since it has been more loaded I am not always getting my bandwidth and the latency has gone up.

Two years ago VOIP was somewhat usable now I am very lucky if I can use it. Any SSL has always been painful.

My situation has changed since I provisioned the sat. I am now running a small business from my home and when I move I will probably go back on the grid. If I don't move I might try putting up an antenna and routing some of my data over a cellular network.

Re:Feel your pain (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213601)

cell phone coverage in rural Canada is a joke.

In fact, telecommunications outside the few large cities that Canada has is limited to the most basic of service levels.

Simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213307)

Stop Living/Working in Canada?

Re:Simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214107)

Stop Living/Working in Canada?

Better option: Stop living.

Seriosuly, that is the best option. If you live you emit carbon, which is the worst thing you can possibly do.

Teleco (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213315)

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.

wi-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213329)

try to set a new record for wifi?

Skycasters has speeds in which we commit data can (3, Informative)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213339)

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 [skycasters.com]

I must feel sick today (0, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213591)

I read your title line as "Skycasters has speeds in which we can vommit data in".

Yuh Huh (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213691)

I notice they don't say anything about the latency. They say they tweak the TCP/IP stack to mitigate the latencies, but you can't tweak the laws of physics. Could one of their customers please ping the next router upstream and post the results?

Don't get me wrong, it's probably great for browsing the web and email and stuff. I'd be really surprised if you could manage a decent VOIP connection or any gaming over that connection.

BASTARD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213341)

Mike Pardon raped his dad

WiFi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213359)

Have you tried WiFi? I heard it's the new "wireless" thing...

Re:WiFi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213451)

Have you tried WiFi? I heard it's the new "wireless" thing...

Yeah, and he will have no problem reaching your router.

Move (2, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213369)

Satellite internet service has latency issues that will NEVER go away. It's the speed of light that is the limiting factor. I'm surprised you were able to use VoIP at all, honestly.

You simply aren't going to get good performance out of a satellite internet service. It might be acceptable for simply web-browsing and e-mail, but for a business? Forget it. It's strictly a "we have no other choice" option.

You're screwed, basically. If you want a good internet connection, you need something that is based on a good ol' cable, whether it be copper or fiber. If you don't have those available, then you need to build them. If you are really in the boondocks of Canada, then expect to pay millions to lay your own fiber.

Re:Move (4, Insightful)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213581)

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 :)

Re:Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213881)

Uh, I'm sure you meant speed of sound right? and I don't see how latency is a crippling issue for a biz... even if you have apps that care, you can tweak or design around it. I don't think your post was very helpful... to put it mildly.

Re:Move (1, Informative)

realmolo (574068) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213975)

No, I meant the speed of light. The signals to/from the satellite travel at the *speed of light*.

In other words, you're a fucking idiot.

Re:Move (1)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214099)

There is always the bright side that if you do lay your own fiber you could rent it out to everyone else and recoup the cost. ....Though if their was people who wanted to pay for fiber to beging with than it would already be there.

Re:Move (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214109)

You know that there are satellite phones, right? Yes, the latency is annoying, but 500ms and even 1000ms is not crippling for a phone conversation. It will not be natural, for sure, but you can still talk. If his VoIP has been getting worse then it's clearly not due to inherent speed-of-light latency, because those satellites don't suddenly get farther away.

Have you tried a Riverbed device? (4, Interesting)

RichMeatyTaste (519596) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213393)

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.

Connection throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213425)

I believe Hughes has an unpublished quota for bandwidth usage. If you go over a set level of data transfered they throttle your DNS requests.

T carrier systems might be cheaper. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213457)

If there are voice circuits nearby, your best bet is probably a T1 or a T3. You don't share it with your neighbors, you get great SLA support, and its latency should be a non-issue. T1s have been around long enough that they can handle some pretty rugged conditions. Not the cheapest solution, but cheaper than a satellite.

Use Beaver Net... (3, Funny)

gwn (594936) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213469)

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

Tech support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213491)

So I got a problem with such and such issue and would like a front page tech support post please.. Come on, since when did slashdot become the expert exchange?

It must be aliens interrupting our communications systems to prevent the new x-files movie from being released.

Or maybe they have just loaded to many customers onto one satellite.

I just stayed at a holiday in last night (1)

fragbait (209346) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213493)

My first thought was "Wow, your bandwidth is precious and you waste it on posting to Ask Slashdot?" Sure, there could be someone here with extensive knowledge and experience with network infrastructure that communicates with satellites. Regardless, it is still like asking someone who just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night (or that just read a magazine article about it, if you haven't seen the Holiday Inn commercials).

There is going to be way to many worthless posts here to filter through. I hope the mod system helps you out a bit. Perhaps even modding down this post....

-fragbait

Terrestrial Wireless (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213507)

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 =)

Satellite? Screw that. Go radio (5, Interesting)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213529)

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!

Re:Satellite? Screw that. Go radio (1)

chinakow (83588) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213711)

HAH, well here in the states it is limited to 9600 baud so good luck with that. I am fairly sure Canada doesn't have the same restrictions but they are not setting up wireless broadband connections either.

Re:Satellite? Screw that. Go radio (1)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213815)

9600 baud limit is for HAM operators. What about commercial use/licensing?

Postal Packet (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213597)

I think you should print out all your data packets and send them via mail.

Re:Postal Packet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24213981)

Postage is too unreliable. Try avian carriers with QoS - read RFC2549.

Hosed, Eh? (4, Informative)

da' WINS pimp (213867) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213769)

We [fmars2007.org] 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.

Satellite has large latency - speed of light rules (1)

rahmrh (939610) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213829)

First of all satellite is going to be horrible on latency, the *BEST* that can be done is around 600ms (speed of light), and at best that is going to be horrible on VOIP and VPN. And with most for *ONLY* $100 per month you will have bandwidth usage limits (the consumer plans have low bandwidth limits 20-40GB/month for that kind of money), to not have bandwidth limits and not be shared it will cost quite a bit more.

You might want to investigate using a point-to-point connection of your own, back before the TCOM companies had connections everywhere large companies did their own microwave links, and I understand that the new point-to-point wireless stuff (not consumer grade-commercial stuff) can do at least 20-30 (or more) miles point-to-point, if you have a line of sight to something with TCOM access you should be able to do it, or you could setup a string of relays to do it.

The big question is how remote is it?

We have a VoIP over Satellite solution (1)

johnlange (1327061) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213879)

We are located in Canada and have a VOIP over satellite solution which we deploy to fishing Lodges. Unlike the VOIP from the large providers we have tuned the settings specially for the long satellite latency times and the service is surprisingly good. Though the latency times are obviously higher, it is quite reasonable to have a conversation with an average 800ms delay. We can provide references to existing customers if you desire. I believe my email address is available in my profile so please contact me if you are interested or post a reply here.

Try QOS (1)

Rabbid Marmet (1327063) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213895)

I know satellite is notoriously (laggy). Its latency will always be causing problems for VOIP. If you have the option to go with something else I would; however if you do not I would try exploring QOS options and traffic shaping this would allow the VOIP packets a ticket to the front of the line in router queues. We use VSAT technology for backups to our primary links.

More Information Please (1)

FrZ!Commodore (706347) | more than 4 years ago | (#24213951)

How Far north? There are multiple companies that have been building Wireless high speed networks in both Northern Alberta (Rainbow Lake Area, High Level) and Northern BC (Chetwynd, Ft. St John, Ft Nelson). but if you are talking NWT, I got no idea, please give us as much information as possible!

Get three providers (3, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214063)

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.

Wireless to a tower. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214075)

Ditch the satellite. Find a wireless internet service provider (we exist in northern canada). Set up your own point to point network if you have to. I use and recommend Motorola Canopy (http://www.motorola.com/business/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=20e284c606de6110VgnVCM1000008406b00aRCRD) but there are lots of other equipment that VOIP will work with. All of it is better than satellite. By the sound of your costs, you can justify the expense. Depends on how remote you are I guess, but canopy goes a good 40 km point to point.

Budgetary prices and some extra info (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214101)

Hi; I will provide some numbers, and I believe, as our market is truly global, these should provide you more or less a valid idea for Canadian pricing. For shared VSAT terminals 1.000 USD (or 999) is pretty much common. Depending on your location and extra needs (larger dishes) this can go up to 1.300 USD. For the service, the bit rate based offers are not so meaningful, you need to know your daily quota in Mbytes. Our 650 MBytes/day limited service is 155 Euro (~250 USD) per month.

For dedicated services; equipment cost is very dependent on capacity and traffic structure. Our regular dedicated Internet capacity customers' baseline cost for equipment (for a 1024/256 asymmetrical dedicated Internet capacity) is around 15.000 USD and monthly service fee is around 2.500 Euro (~4.000 USD) per month. If you have a seriously big capacity need (10+ Mbits), by investing into special equipments (~40.000 USD and above) you can decrease unit service cost up to 50%.

Help may be coming soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214165)

I saw this story [www.cbc.ca] on the CBC the other day. The Liberals and NDP are trying to convince the govt. to spend the $4.2 billion raised from the cell phone spectrum auction on expanding broadband to rural areas. Don't hold your breath waiting for it though.

The only other advice I can offer you comes from The Wolf in Pulp Fiction, "Move out of the sticks, gentlemen".

Obvious one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214177)

Is leaving Canada an option?

Tethered balloon? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#24214185)

How far apart are the sites you need to work from? Within a few hundred kilometers of one another or literally all over the place? If you can set up a high-powered WAP in some kind of central location that has high-speed, you might be able to figure something out by putting some kind of repeater using dish antennas way the hell up there on a balloon or something.

Problem is the satellite, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#24214245)

Satellite internet latency is too high for VOIP. Find another solution.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...