Streaming / data caps
I called HughesNet a week or so ago (Case ID: 105921812) and after complaining about data caps and how unfair they were to rural broadband customers who already have to pay a premium for internet, I ...
Forum Discussion
Didn't see all of your reply. There is no bottle-neck on those satellites; they are a relay point. The servers are on the ground.
RDBrown wrote:Didn't see all of your reply. There is no bottle-neck on those satellites; they are a relay point. The servers are on the ground.
Nonsense. Satellites aren't simply a relay point, like nothing more than a mirror. You can have all the ground infrastructure you want, but each satellite has a finite throughput. The data caps are there to keep the service usable for everyone. Ditch the data caps and just about everyone will do what is in their nature to do with an unlimited service, which is stream. If enough people on the service tried to stream, that means the service slows to an absolute crawl for everyone, making it practically unusable for anything more than the most basic of browsing. That's why the data caps are there. The are a necessity.
And that's as a whole. Keep in mind that the satellite is also divided into beams, and each beam can only carry so much data at any given time. The data caps MUST be in place. They are a fact of the technology.
No data caps would be like trying to throw tens of thousands of cars per hour down a two lane highway. Sure, they'll move, but at a snail's pace. You limit the number and they can drive at a decent speed.
It also costs what it does because it's the most expensive type of internet, per capita, to provide.
Most expensive to provide because of the amount of real estate and technical complexity, yet still relatively cheaper than DirecTV, which is receive-only.
Makes me wonder more about DirecTV's margins.
