internet provider

[FT92]

being I'm way out in the country and have no cable (the local cable company won't run a line just for me, over two miles) and my now my internet provider tells me they are going to phase out all copper lines (as in a house phone i now have DSL which uses a hard wired phone line) leaves me with the only choice of satellite. does anyone use HughesNet if so, is it worth it? any problems.? any suggestions as a decent satellite provider

 

[IveBeenRued]

Is Starlink available for you? I have relatives that used to have HughesNet, they hated the latency and all have switched to Starlink. If I recall correctly from my Network+ days, HughesNet has 500ms+ latency compared to Starlink with sub 60ms.

 

[Hall]

The old-school satellite options are non-starters except when they are absolutely the only option. Go wireless (cellular, i.e. Verizon, T-Mobile, etc) over that option. Today though, go with Starlink.

 

[dogememe]

Starlink is probably your best best. My buddy in Alaska has been using it for a while now and it works well.

 

[Arc]

being I'm way out in the country and have no cable (the local cable company won't run a line just for me, over two miles) and my now my internet provider tells me they are going to phase out all copper lines (as in a house phone i now have DSL which uses a hard wired phone line) leaves me with the only choice of satellite. does anyone use HughesNet if so, is it worth it? any problems.? any suggestions as a decent satellite provider

Going to see more of that as people drop their landlines. If you have cell service I would look into using your cell phone as the WiFi hotspot.

 

[Kruse]

My church is waaaay out in the boonies where there is no access to high speed internet.
About a year ago, they went with Starlink and it has done everything they have wanted. I think the box used to be ~$500, but I have seen specials where it dropped to under $200 and the monthly fee is about $125.
Last I checked, Starlink is not available in all 50 states, but that may have changed since I checked.

 

[Hall]

Not sure if it still works, but if Starlink says your area isn't available currently (it changes continually, based on customer density I think), tell them you want "RV service".

 

[Pew]

It's a Hughes pile of dump. My mom had them in rural OK; DSL speeds for $80/month with spotty connection but it was her only option. Third party company installed 5G antennas on existing telephone poles and now she has usable internet.

 

[Rand]

Starlink or cell phone provider

PA seems to be covered. Hughesnet is steaming pile.

 

[Wireman1987]

ran into this problem at the water company we have a few really rural sites hughesnet wasn't cutting it transitioned over to starlink because the local isp's wouldn't run us fiber or coax. if cellular coverage isn't an issue tmo and vz has home broadband options.

 

[wwillson]

I’m on Starlink posting this. I haven’t used Starlink heavily in about 18 months. As you may know I design networks for a living and am a network snob. I’m very impressed with the capacity Starlink has added. My latency is right at 20ms and the best throughput I’ve seen over the last 24 hours is >300 Mb/s and not < 200 Mb/s.

 

[tburke]

I’m on Starlink posting this. I haven’t used Starlink heavily in about 18 months. As you may know I design networks for a living and am a network snob. I’m very impressed with the capacity Starlink has added. My latency is right at 20ms and the best throughput I’ve seen over the last 24 hours is >300 Mb/s and not < 200 Mb/s.

Snobby network architect here, too. Starlink has been extremely impressive, even on the Mini unit I picked up. Just wish they offered an unlimited plan that offered a global IP address, not a fan of CGNAT so I end up paying for the business "priority" tier when I need service.

 

[Hall]

My latency is right at 20ms

That's the same latency I get on cable internet ! I thought just the physics of transmitting back and forth to satellites would put it in the 60+ ms range ? Or are Starlink satellites at much lower altitudes than geostationary (Hughes, etc) satellites ?

 

[tburke]

That's the same latency I get on cable internet ! I thought just the physics of transmitting back and forth to satellites would put it in the 60+ ms range ? Or are Starlink satellites at much lower altitudes than geostationary (Hughes, etc) satellites ?

DOCSIS has on average 8-10ms latency overhead… my ping to most CDNs is around 10-12ms on my backup cable modem compared to 2-3 on my GPON fiber, with both providers being equally well peered.

Starlink is low earth orbit compared to the geostationary satellites resulting in far lower latency. Last experience I had with Hughes was around 250-300ms latency.

 

[CKN]

being I'm way out in the country and have no cable (the local cable company won't run a line just for me, over two miles) and my now my internet provider tells me they are going to phase out all copper lines (as in a house phone i now have DSL which uses a hard wired phone line) leaves me with the only choice of satellite. does anyone use HughesNet if so, is it worth it? any problems.? any suggestions as a decent satellite provider

Will they run a line If you pay?

Don't be cheap Hughes net is not great. Buy the equipment-install properly and use Starlink.

 

[dishdude]

Have you checked to see if any of the wireless carriers offer 5G service at your place? I've seen coverage in some pretty remote areas I wouldn't expect it.