Satellite vs. Wireless in rural area

By onthegogirl1 ·
Ok, this is a vent/question type post. I just moved into a house that is only a few miles outside of the city. Four, precicely. Had I knwo the issues I would have with internet service, I may not have moved!

While we are very close to town, apparently, it's not cost effective for DSL, Cable or Wireless to be out here. I have been doing a lot of research and I'm finding that the satellite systems that might be offered out here (wildblue, hughes, etc) supposedly have a lot of complaints due to the fact that they assign so many customers to the same satellites and the result is that within 6 months, the service bogs down to the speed of dial up. And that's IF I could even GET the service out far, I'm being told by Wildblue that they currently aren't even accepting any more customers due to the afore mentioned situation. I was told by a competitor of theirs, coincidently, that they had to stop signing customers up because they've already had 3 lawsuits against them for overselling, for lack of a better term.

Anyway, I am now looking into wireless. A local around here is apparently setting up towers and is offering the service, provided you have a clear line of sight of the tower. I live in a very hilly area so we're not even sure it would work; he's coming out next week to check things out. If he determines that I don't have a line of sight, I have to wait until they put up another tower in the next few months.

I am just beyond frustrated here. It looks like the choices I have are a) stay with dial up that drives me NUTS, b) sign up with Hughes who is fairly expensive and I've heard complaints about the speed dropping significantly within 6 months, c) wait for the local guy to come look and tell me that there's now way possible for line of sight or d) go with a company out of STL that sells their equipment and install (satellite) for close to 2K but they seem to really know their stuff and I believe I'd have great service if I did it. And if I could swallow the sticker shock.

Sigh. I guess I'm asking for others to share their experience when in a similar situation and tell me what worked for them. What is the comparison between wireless and satellite? Which one is better? What would you do in my situation?

Very frustrated and slow on the internet

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

Wireless would be your best option if it's available to you

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Satellite vs. Wireless in ...

While I don't know what the satellite is like where you are the last time that I looked admittedly a few years ago now it was good for downloads but you needed to retain a phone line for uploads as the Satellite service then was a Receive Only Mode with no ability to transmit.

There is the possibility of CDMA Wireless that may be available to you which doesn't rely on line of Sight but I'm not sure if that applies in your area.

But even if you have to rely on Line of Sight is it piratical to erect a Tower with an aerial on top to get the Wireless transmission? I used to use that for TV Reception many years ago when I was in the country.


Collapse -

Thank you, Hal

by onthegogirl1 In reply to Wireless would be your be ...

Thank you, Hal, for you reply. You know, after you mentioned it, it WOULD make sense to have a tower mounted that could have line of sight of the tower I'm trying to reach. We live on a hill and while the countryside is hilly in the area, one would think that a tower that would rise above it would be able to "see" the other tower. I can't imagine that wireless would only be available ONLY when you can literally lay eyes on the tower, though. Sigh. I don't know. I'll ask the local that's supposed to be coming out Friday if it's a possibility to erect something, possibly on top of the house, to get the service. Not sure. But thank you for the direction!

Collapse -

No Question...

by rusty0007 In reply to Satellite vs. Wireless in ...

I actually don't live far from you, that being said we would probably be on the same beam on Wildblue. Three words...Don't Do It! I have been with WildBlue for about a year. Since May, they have been horrible. Down/up are sometimes close to advertised, but the latency is well...bad. It ranges from 1550 to 3500 ms during peak times. Due to their overloading- peak times are from about 11 am to 12 pm CST. Oh, the best part is the packet loss. It averages about 25%. Their customer service is really a joke too. I left DirecWay, now HughesNet for about the same reasons. Although I hear that they are better now. I still plan on switching to wireless within a week or so. It just became available here. Anyway, from what I have seen and heard, wireless is far better. The lag alone would be worth the switch. Good luck and I feel your pain. :)

Related Discussions

Related Forums