I Have Ordered the New Hughes Gen V Satellite Internet

[docj]

Originally Posted by bokobird

it's a *minimum* of 500ms due to distances of moving those packets back and forth through the satellite 22,500 miles away.

Actually, the distance involved is usually a lot more than 22,500 miles. Yes, that's the nominal altitude of the satellite but that's measured at the equator. If you have a communications center located in the US then the distance from the ground based antenna to the satellite is essentially the hypotenuse of a triangle where one leg is ~22,500 miles and the other leg is the distance from a point on the equator directly under the satellite to the ground communications location. That's going to make the actual distance to the satellite significantly larger than 22, 500 miles.

Our experience with the older Hughesnet system which we lived with for ~8 years was that ping times were typically in the 750-1200 msec range. At the time we could live with that and with the accompanying download speeds, but the daily data limits were become a real burden even 15 years ago. In today's world I don't know how I could cope with data limits of ~500MB/day.

[FlyFishn]

I just saw this thread here.

I ordered mobile Gen5 Hughes from another provider over a week ago, still hasn't shipped out yet. Hoping I can get everything from them by the end of next week...

The set up looks interesting. I am a Ham radio operator so the set up and aiming of the dish is right up my alley. For most people, though, these set ups are way complicated. It isn't a high powered "wifi" connection - there is a lot of unique set up to it.

[Playtime III]

You can install the dish on your roof as the original owner did on my coach. I have yet to "deploy" it for fear of not being able to "stow" it. The buttons are tempting...



I have to dig through my files and find the receipt but I recall the PO spending thousands and thousands for the dish, controller, router, installation and service plan. like $20k.

[smiller]

This is all very interesting but on a practical level I gotta ask... the OP mentioned that he had service from both Verizon and AT&T. Given this, how often would one really have zero coverage from either, and how could those few instances possibly justify the cost and hassle of the satellite setup?

[computerguy]

Originally Posted by smiller

This is all very interesting but on a practical level I gotta ask... the OP mentioned that he had service from both Verizon and AT&T. Given this, how often would one really have zero coverage from either, and how could those few instances possibly justify the cost and hassle of the satellite setup?

Depends solely on where you want to park your rig and call home. Many boondocking spots are on the fringes of connectivity. Cell boosters and high gain antennas will not always get you connected. If that is where you want to call home well, then, if you want to get connected and pay for the privilege you need satellite. Some also enjoy bleeding edge technology. Seems the OP wants to explore this.
Check out campendium and you'll get a better feel for all the spots that have no or marginal cell reception.

[Brad Felmey]

Originally Posted by smiller

This is all very interesting but on a practical level I gotta ask... the OP mentioned that he had service from both Verizon and AT&T. Given this, how often would one really have zero coverage from either, and how could those few instances possibly justify the cost and hassle of the satellite setup?

Good question. I have a number of drivers for these decisions.

One is that I work, and that requires connectivity. I don't want to time-limit myself at certain locales because I have to get back to a connected area.

Another is that my wife watches quite a bit of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. The satellite service provides plans with high data transfers for a reasonably affordable amount.

Ultimately, it's about having the best-possible connectivity in whatever area we happen to be in, and I'm willing to pay for it as the price of being remote. It's a price I'm very happy to pay.

[smiller]

Yes, I understand. I'm certainly not meaning to criticize or minimize the desire for remote connectivity, I get that and appreciate the information presented in the thread. I guess I've just had very few (but not zero) experiences of total loss of connectivity even in a small vehicle, much less anyplace you're going to take a Class A. Northern Canada/Alaska was one, is the Hughes system compatible with such low satellite elevations?

[Brad Felmey]

Originally Posted by smiller

Yes, I understand. I'm certainly not meaning to criticize or minimize the desire for remote connectivity, I get that and appreciate the information presented in the thread. I guess I've just had very few (but not zero) experiences of total loss of connectivity even in a small vehicle, much less anyplace you're going to take a Class A. Northern Canada/Alaska was one, is the Hughes system compatible with such low satellite elevations?

My understanding is that the new Gen V does cover most of Canada and Alaska, which was of importance to me as I intend to travel through there again several times.

Canada is another plus for satellite - I don't want to pay data roaming fees.

[smiller]

Originally Posted by Brad Felmey

Canada is another plus for satellite - I don't want to pay data roaming fees.

Yes, although there are several good options for that these days. T-Mobile (and Millenicom, a T-Mobile MVNO) allow unthrottled roaming in Canada and Alaska with no additional fees or charges. I found coverage surprisingly good (on Telus in Canada and GCI in Alaska) although it was of course not difficult to find locations without any kind of cellular service in that part of the continent.

[FlyFishn]

Blue areas are HughesNet Gen5 beams. That doesn't cover much of Canada or Mexico. However, the coverage in Canada is a major reason why I ordered it also. Thats the price of connectivity when you're in the middle of nowhere.

[Brad Felmey]

I got the equipment in and got it locked in. Speedtest.net reports 600ms latency, 37Mbit down, 1.6Mbit up with 120 signal strength. I'll continue to report as we have more experience.

[bokobird]

Originally Posted by Brad Felmey

I got the equipment in and got it locked in. Speedtest.net reports 600ms latency, 37Mbit down, 1.6Mbit up with 120 signal strength. I'll continue to report as we have more experience.

Not too shabby. What is the range signal strength measures in? e.g., is 120 max?

[smiller]

Originally Posted by FlyFishn

Blue areas are HughesNet Gen5 beams. That doesn't cover much of Canada or Mexico. However, the coverage in Canada is a major reason why I ordered it also. Thats the price of connectivity when you're in the middle of nowhere.

I'm confused, if Canadian coverage is a major reason you ordered and there essentially isn't any per the above map (other than the border area and that is covered very well for the most part by terrestrial cellular, so you would't need satellite there) then why would Canadian coverage be a major factor for you? Also apparently there's also no coverage in Alaska?

Does look tempting for US usage though for those who need it as the costs are really coming down. To duplicate this service several years ago (actually I don't think you even could have duplicated the download speed) would have cost many times more for both equipment and service.

[bokobird]

According to the HughesNet web page here, they do support Alaska.

Next-generation architecture
EchoStar XIX, with JUPITER™ System technology, will cover the contiguous United States and Alaska.

Gen5 is on EchoStar XIX.