[Asterisk-Users] Satellite Providers

[Bruce Komito]

I don't doubt at all what you are saying.  We never tested a truly
high-end solution such as the one you described, because the cost would
have been prohibitive for our application.  I'm sure we only evaluated
shared solutions.  I guess my mistake was believing the CIR claims.  At
the really low-end, I didn't expect much, since they don't offer ANY CIR.
But when they claimed 64k, silly me, I believed it.

Bruce Komito
High Sierra Networks, Inc.
www.servers-r-us.com
(775) 236-5815


On Wed, 11 May 2005, Chad Wicker wrote:

> Well there are several problems in your description of Satellite
> services.  For one you are grouping several differing technilogies
> together as one.  What it seemed like you were testing was a shared
> bandwidth solution typically used by providers to reduce cost.  It isn't
> uncommon to experience sever delays and packet loss on these types of
> systems.  Alot of these shared providers "claim" 64k cir then
> oversubscribe over that.  Lies, yes, theift yes, and they get away with
> it...  What you would want to ask for is a SCPC (Single Carrier Per
> Channel) circuit and you should have much better results, cost? a lot
> more than these shared solutions.  You may want to look into the
> maritime providers/teleports in the area for this type of service.
> Delay for a decent circuit should not be over 600 ms and it should be
> steady.  Proof is in the pudding, in a SCPC circuit with a v.35
> interface you can run an extended BERT test on it without error. and
> that's Sync data...
>
> I speak confidently on this as we are a provider of VSAT services in
> the oilfield industry.  We are bombarded with these "low cost"
> competition and have to defend ourselves daily. Alot of providers sell
> crap at a decent price.  We don't and won't.  It hurts our market
> penetration but we tend to keep customers for a good long time.  I can
> answer a lot of questions on this subject if anyone needs.  It's a lot
> like point to point microwave, they experienced their "bandwidth
> sharing" days and they quickly died on the vine.  The driving force
> behind shared solutions is that satellite bandwidth is expensive.
>
> Chad C. Wicker
> Systems Engineer
> Petrocom
>
> >>> brucek at bagel.com 5/11/2005 1:06:52 PM >>>
> We looked at this earlier this year and, after evaluating several
> companies, could not get it to work well enough.  The problem didn't
> seem
> to be latency, but rather lost packets in the upstream direction.  Most
> of
> the time, we couldn't even get the phone to register, but even when we
> could, there was such a large amount of breakup (in the up direction)
> that
> it was nearly unusable.  We tried low-end, consumer type services and
> they
> didn't work at all.  Even the high-end services that claim to offer
> guaranteed bandwidth apparently do not live up to their claims.  We
> tried
> running G.729, which should only need about 32-40k over a link that
> claimed to guarantee 64k, and the best we got was broken sound.
>
> Bruce Komito
> High Sierra Networks, Inc.
> www.servers-r-us.com
> (775) 236-5815
>
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, Yiannis Costopoulos wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > 	I am investigating the deployment of VoIP/* in Eastern European
> areas where
> > there is no PSTN infrastructure. As you can understand DSL/Cable
> connections
> > are a dream. The only option is satellite.
> >
> > Does anyone know of any satellite providers that have low
> enough/acceptable
> > delays for VoIP?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yiannis.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> >
> > This message has been categorized as "Legitimate" by Bayesian
> Analyzer.
> > If you do not agree, please click on the link below to train the
> Analyzer.
> >
> http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5Cc819e577de1140fbaa62d0a53c83de86&C=2
>
> >
> > --
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message has been inspected by DynaComm i:mail
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
> This message has been categorized as "Indeterminate" by Bayesian Analyzer.
> Please click on this link if this message is a Spam
> http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5C5b4b9ad2019e496995ded0f9813f6c7a&C=2
>
> Or on this link if this message is a legitimate mail
> http://nospam.wpti.net/bt/a.aspx?M=C:%5Csmtpmail%5CBayesTraining%5C2005-05-11%5C5b4b9ad2019e496995ded0f9813f6c7a&C=1
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message has been inspected by DynaComm i:mail
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>