Connect with us

Power Requirements for Satellite Internet

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by Scott Willing, May 19, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Hey all,

    Been thinking again about satellite internet, having made a trip to my
    head office recently and been reminded what it's like to have a
    broadband connection. Heck, even the hotel had plug'n'play highspeed.

    Several times in the past I've looked into the sat internet thing and
    been scared off, first by reading horror stories surrounding DirecWay,
    and second, by the figure of 265W quoted to me as a power requirement.
    (2.3A @ 115V)

    I assume that these figures were just read off the power supply
    (supplies?) for the gear, so actual power consumption would presumably
    be somewhat less than that even during peak requirements. I am also
    guessing that peak usage would be experienced during upload only, on
    the assumption that these things don't broadcast unless they need to.

    Anyone have a clue if these assumptions have any merit? Sat internet
    isn't an easy thing to test-drive...

    (Aside to Canucks: apparently Telsat is getting ready to roll out a
    Canadian solution in July.)

    Cheers,
    -=s
     
  2. Gotta love this newsgroup. Thanks very much Ron, that's exactly the
    kind of data I was looking for.

    May I ask what you thought of the service in general? The stories I've
    read online are about evenly split between "swell!" and "nightmare!"

    I kid myself that it's only when I'm moving large files that the slow
    dial-up is a pain, but it's a lie.

    -=s
     
  3. Thanks very much for all o' dat, DJ, but that site is exactly where I
    found out that they're rolling out Telsat in July. They've had
    Direcway for quite some time, yes, but not Telsat, yeah?

    Telsat is Canadian, right down to the orbiting hardware.

    -=s
     
  4. On alt.satelite.direcpc there's much growling about DirecWay's service.
    Xplornet/Lincsat has been vastly better than I hear from there.
    The first question I asked was "power consumption". Obviously it's a common
    one because they actually knew off the tops of their heads. 45W for my
    (older 4000) modem. That's reliable for a peak consumption - I haven't
    tried to measure it over a longer term, as I only power up when I need it.
    The new 6000s should be less, I would hope.
    I don't know how they could have read those numbers - unless they read 2.3A
    on the DC output side (that number sounds familiar - but maybe that's my
    laptop power supply :) ).
    Not quite. It talks to the satellite when you're not doing anything, but it
    should be brief.
    Xplornet (my provider) provides Direcway and Telesat. Direcway has two
    other Canadian providers (iirc, Galaxy and C-Com).
     
  5. Maybe, but Hughes is offering 6000 series modem upgrades to customers in the
    US, so I'm hoping we get the same deal (soon!).
    I can't really see how it could help VoIP (how's that working for you? lag
    times not too annoying?). You could double the upload speed but you'd
    still have the same latency.
     
  6. I have been running the StarBand System since its inception. Since I
    generate all my own power, my system qualifies as "Off Grid". I have
    a Trace 2624 that provides all the power for the modem, routers, Servers,
    and network infostructure. My speeds vary as Starband loads and unloads
    the Cluster/subcluster that I am on. I have better speeds after 5Pm and
    before 8Am daily. I also have increasing speeds as the week progresses.
    Mondays are the pits, bit better on Tuesdays, and by Wed things usually
    are running nicely. Weekends are wide open with Sunday evenings running
    in the 1.2Mbs range. One must remember that latency on Sat Segments
    is the limiting factor, in most cases. Every DNS Lookup takes 2 Sec,
    and that adds up, on todays WebPages in Http. Same problem with VoIP
    Apps. If you can get over the latency delays, you will do ok.

    Bruce in alaska
     
  7. All very interesting and valuable information.

    My preference would certainly be for terrestrial wireless, but the
    population is so thin in my area that I have doubts that it will ever
    become available here.

    -=s
     
  8. Ah, that's a lot better coverage than the stuff I've researched on the
    'net. Maybe there's hope for wireless yet.

    To receive anything land-based, I'd probably have to put up some kind
    of tower (I'm in a wee valley, no cell service). I'm thinking about
    doing that to collect some wind data anyway.

    -=s
     
  9. Yeha! But I'll believe it when I see it. The one thing I can say about
    sat internet is that I don't have to wait for it to come to my area.

    And I'm near certain that I'll have to put up a tower to receive any
    terrestrial signal... though as I said I've other interests in doing
    that anyway so I don't consider that a show-stopper.

    -=s
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-