It would be cheaper, but download/upload speed of 512/128 kbps if I get satellite. Is that an improvement over DSL?

quote:

---

It would be cheaper, but download/upload speed of 512/128 kbps if I get satellite. Is that an improvement over DSL?

---

I don't know where you are at but the base DSL speeds in my area are 1024/256 (I'm pretty sure).

The biggest problem with satellite in the past has been with latency and not with bandwidth.

It would really depend on your needs.. if you are wanting to do anything latency intensive (such as VoIP, Video Conferencing, Playing Video Games, streaming content - movies/music) online I would pass on the satellite

[This message has been edited by sellis2003 (edited 7/18/2007 11:48a).]

Sellis is right. Satellite has a built in half second of latency, and there is no way around it. Takes a long time for the signal to bounce off a box in the sky. As for DSL, it's going to be slower than you would get with cable or fios, but 1.5M/768k is a standard speed that will be relatively inexpensive. There are faster available I'm sure.

I've read that satellite internet companies will also limit available bandwidth for those who they think use too much.

I use to live in the rural mountains and the only internet access was the phone or Direcway. We had the Direcway installed and it was a nightmare. The delay in the Direcway service made it unusable. We then switched to ISDN which was more expensive but more reliable, less latency, and not usage monitored.

DSL is the best bet in my opinion. Few people really need more than 384k download. I suppose if you download ISOs all day you might want a faster service. And to put it into perspective, the Direcway service will limit you before completing the download of your second DVD ISO.