Printable View
just wondering.
is there a affordable broadband solution to be used in remote areas?
I know there's sateellite interenet but it seems u need a big dish and have to have it aimed all the time.
I was thinking of something like a laptop card with a small antenna.
where u can still move around (as long as it see the sky)
similiar to those Iridium satellite phones.
They have satellite phones with data access, but it's OBSCENELY expensive, the the data-rate is something like 9600bps.
It is either cellular service or satellite service for remote access. Both are quite slow and satellite is several times more expensive than cellular $6 per minute versus $80 per month with a US account.
Also some places have thing like this: http://www.wispertel.com/
I had WisperTel before we had Comcast in our area. Basically, what they do is have a hard line that goes to a large broadcasting tower, and then they set you up with a small receiver on your roof. I think it works on the 5Ghz band. The services was eh. It would go in and out quite a bit, and the speed was always at least half of what was advertised, but it did work, and uploads speeds were surprisingly decent.
I don't know how remote you're talking, but you can get cellular internet in 95% of the US, or about 80% with either of the technologies (I included an extra 15% because there's places where CDMA works and GSM doesn't and vice versa and they tend to almost overlap the entire US). It will be roughly dialup speeds in most of the areas.
I would say in the middle of the desert, ocean, artic, jungle.
I was just wondering.
Satellite is the only answer. Be careful of the vendor because not all of them have world wide coverage. Plan on about $6 per minute, but deals are available for high usage accounts.
For strictly non-commercial activity offshore, get a ham license. You cannot use it to order merchandise or any other commercial use.
There are several RF solutions one of which is to communicate with your own land based station with an internet link.
But, even if cellular coverage is that thorough, and from what I've seen it really isn't, then you would need to purchase a CDMA and a GSM card. In other words, you'd have an account with both Verizon and Cingular or T-Mobile to get such coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
Satellite just isn't reasonable for the average person. Iridium (or what's left of it) is awesome, but it's simply too expensive. That's why the company failed -- not because it didn't have stunning technology, but because no one bought it, even after they tried to publicize the advantages of their technology by doing such things as allowing people in Boznia during the conflicts there to use their phones.
Most of Alaska and Hawaii do not have coverage in remote areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
About 20% of Florida is without coverage especially in the panhandle and the Everglades.
Most mountainous areas in Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, etc. lack coverage.
Move indoors and cellular coverage is more limited.
This year I've covered about 50% of the US, across the northern border and straight through the middle, and I've had a cell signal approximately 80% of the time with my CDMA phone. Both times the other person in the car had a GSM phone, and there were times I had a signal and they didn't and vice versa. It may not be 95% of the continental US (to please UA) but it's certainly close.
I had phone service throughout Montana, Oregon, Colorado and Arizona, in almost every spot including national parks. And yes, I was using the phone most of the time. Every time I leave the state things crash, just to piss me off. So I spend the majority of my roadtrips on the phone with any number of people. That's not to say I don't get a lot of dropped calls, because I do, but the point is that you can get service. There were times I lost service with the CDMA phone and had to switch to the GSM phone and vice versa.
In regards to having 2 PC cards, that's the cost of doing business. Verizon's best plan is a mere $60/mo and I would guess Cingular's is somewhere near the same. If you're doing something where you need Internet access in remote areas, $120/mo isn't a big deal.
The only 2 states with horrible coverage are Utah and Wyoming. Southern Utah is a beautiful wasteland and almost entirely national parks and monuments. Since there's next to no people there's no cell towers (or tv towers or any other type of tower). Wyoming is so barren you can't even get a signal on the middle of I-90 for crying out loud.
Obviously there are pockets without coverage across the US (such as the everglades and others) but those places are minimal and I would daresay they wouldn't account for more than 5% of the (continental) US when both technologies are included.
Check outu http://www.globalstarusa.com. They have a satellite phone that covers most of the world save for middle of the ocean and sub-Saharan Africa. data rate is only 9600bps. Their domestic pricing in actually insanely cheap, but if you want international coverage you have to shell out like $1,000 a year and then pay some ridiculous per-minute fees.
Cellphone coverage in remote areas is pretty much restricted to a few hundred yards of the roads. This discussion was about remote areas such as off road places accessible only by boat, air or animal.
Normal VHF radio communication is the only reliable method in the remote areas of places such as Alaska, Michigan, ... that are dozens of miles from any kind of infrastructure. There are islands in Hawaii I've visited that don't even have electricity let alone cellular service. IIRC When I was last on Molokai in the early 90's that was the case. My cell phone did not work on over 2/3 of Maui. In essence service stopped as soon as the roads changed to 4 wheel drive only.
Look at a road map of Alaska or Hawaii on Google. Where there are no paved roads there is no cellular service.
It's more like: no service within a few hundred yards of electrical towers. I've gotten cellular service miles from paved roads, as long as there was still electric lines.
It really depends on how flat the land is and what your position is. The biggest reason Wyoming has such crap service is because it's so hilly with so few towers. When you're on the apex of the hills you can get service, when you're in the valleys not so much.
About 75% of Hawaii is covered by CDMA:
http://hawaiiantel.com/Wireless_CoverageMaps_Hawaii.htm
Only about 40% is covered by GSM (pdf):
http://www.wireless.att.com/download...verage_leg.pdf
Alaska is a dead zone though, regardless of carrier. And in looking at that cingular map, I never realized most of the west is a dead zone for GSM. You can definitely tell that Bellsouth was the most supportive member of that company, since it's only Bellsouth area that's really any good.
Look at the Verizon map for Molokai. There is no coverage for the south central half of the island. They have no coverage at all for Niihau or most of Kauai.
You are thinking about rural areas, not remote areas. There is a big difference.
Most remote areas do not have electricity or roads. Think mountains in Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Idaho and Washington with no infrastructure whatsoever. Other large areas without cellular service are inside many buildings and on large bodies of water such as in the middle of one of the great lakes. I have not been to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but I doubt if there is complete coverage there either.
If one selects Hawaiian Tel, they have almost no roaming coverage in Alaska.
The real issue is using a single cellular provider and having coverage throughout the United States. I'd estimate that coverage is closer to 50% when counting remote areas, rural areas and buildings. The most widespread US cellular coverage is provided by Verizon and AT&T. The best worldwide cellular coverage by a US provider is AT&T.
There is a reference and link on HowardForums to a speech made by the president of Verizon Wireless about 3 years ago that people should not expect cellular service when inside buildings.