Talk:Satellite Internet access

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ViaSat-2  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleharpoon (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Capacity Geo Satellite 

message: The page needs to include definition / links on latency and round-trip delays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.96.64 (talk • contribs) 14:58, July 5, 2005
The page also needs to be qualified as 'home' or 'consumer grade' satellite internet access. There are many definitive and interesting applications of modem and modulation technologies that apply to professional or government 'ad hoc' networks that are not currently used in commercial systems marketed to the public for a variety of practical reasons. This page refers mainly to consumer systems, and ignores significant advances using broadcast and military grade equipment.
A statement should be made at the top to redirect to more relevant information if 'non-consumer grade' internet is being researched.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cborgcbtv (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more detail

message: Much of the information presented about satellite ground station and antenna architecture is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.229.8 (talk • contribs) 06:02, November 22, 2005‎
:10 years after it's still very bad. For example, in the Gateways section, it's written: "Once the initial request has been processed by the gateway’s servers, sent to and returned from the Internet, the requested information is sent back as a forward or downstream payload to the end-user via the satellite, which directs the signal to the subscriber terminal"... It's not clear, like a marketer's one-liner as this sentence could sound like the VSAT transceiver is directly receiving its data from the satellite... There's simply no such thing as "via the satellite" for end-users, everything goes through the Gateways. --HawkFest (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate

message: I put a picture of the Wild Blue dish that we have installed on our home up on the article.  One of these days if I remember I'll take a picture of the satellite modem and put it up on this article too.
JesseG 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture

message: There's no mention here of the WINDS satellite. I'm wondering how that satellite works... I noticed it's got a geosynchronous orbit... so it would pass the same spot in the sky every certain time (in this case 24 hours). How are people on the ground supposed to communicate with it?. And will it later on be a web of satellites so that there's always one up?.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:JunCTionS (talk • contribs) 19:52, February 21, 2008‎
: (This is a misunderstanding of geosynchronous orbit.  Geosynchronous orbit means that the satellite stays in the same place over the Earth, because it's orbit is synchronous with the Earth's rotation.  Both rotate every 24 hours, so the effect as seen from the ground is that the satellite never moves.  Thus it's very easy for people on the Earth to point a dish at it and communicate with it.  It's why geosynchrous satellites are generally preferred over lower orbit satellites.) 24.16.12.238 (talk)  22:56, December 2, 2009‎ - Dave Berg)
:: I tried to give some mention of the satellite in the Satellites launched section.  I also referenced it to the other "WINDS" Wikipedia article. -- (blantond) 15:07, December 2, 2011‎ 
::: Expanded on the section some with the launch of the WINDS satellite. (blantond)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WINDS

message: It needs to include information about iPSTAR, listed elsewhere in Wikipedia, the worlds first pure IP satellite, and most efficient  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.228.37 (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: iPSTAR

message: It only mentions a few, i can't believe those are the only ones up there... --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Satellites launched" section is too restricted 

message: I do not understand why the use of GEO satellites for internet connectivity is so much negatively depicted throughout this whole article.
It seems as if it is written by somebody who has business interest in MEO of LEO has been editing this article. The majority of all internet links over satellite for IP trunking, backbone and internet access are over GEO satellites, and I know from my personal experience that VoIP, Skype, etc... works without problematic delay. However, real time games, remote surgery, etc... who are very time critical do not work well over satellite, which is common knowledge.
Overall I think this article is pretty negative towards GEO, and pretty positive for MEO/LEO.  I would suggest to make the article more neutral towards GEO, and add the negative aspects of MEO/LEO as well (higher costs because of tracking antenna's, less obvious to be used for VSAT consumer type of internet access, etc...)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.58.98.250 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More neutrality on GEO vs MEO needed 

message: I was looking for a list of companies that offer satellite internet access to consumers.  I expected to find it here.  I didn't.  At least it could have pointed me to such a list somewhere else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.147.27 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: List of companies that offer satellite internet access to consumers

message: Is this article stuck in 2010? SpaceX, Boeing (with Apple?), OneWeb, maybe some others. The article talks so much about light-speed delays for high orbits, but doesn't cover recent LEO plans at all. --mfb (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a small section in the history section, but the article structure makes it challenging to edit it consistently. --mfb (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned LEO constellations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satellite Internet access. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017002043/http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1800 to http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=1800
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The infobox does, with one exception, not cite its sources. Claims such as about the "average" bandwidth are highly dubious, especially without explanation how such an average is determined. --Tobias (Talk) 10:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite Internet Characteristics -- Sources? 

message: An Indian start-up with large promises but questionable notability (nothing to do with Spacenet). Is it enough to mention it here? Website, other website, Whitepaper, some self-promotion. I didn't find any external coverage, despite the first website claiming to have been mentioned in several newspapers, but maybe that is just an issue with my search. Based on the whitepaper they want to launch the first satellite in Q1 2020, a schedule that seems extremely optimistic given the lack of anything visible. --mfb (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone from the company pointed me to this list of news articles. I used "SpaceNet" as keyword in my searches but that seems to be a more recent name. --mfb (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrome / SpaceNet 

message: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/new-fcc-processing-round-prompts-license-requests-frhr-von-der-ropp/
Several companies plan to launch constellations, many increase their planned size. Unfortunately it's not a good reference and the primary reference is not the best source either (while it is reliable: it's a technical primary source). --mfb (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FCC round 

message: cf "Using such a modem is extremely expensive—data transfer costs between $5 and $7 per megabyte." With landbased internetproviders in cities, you get between $5 and $7 per Gigabyte - a thousand times more in a typical 200 €/month family consumer package for mobile phone, landbased phone, TV and internet!  Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost / MegaByte or GigaByte?