What is "WiFi" and satelite connection faster than cable?

[Jincuteguy]

Some wireless NIC card have the word "WiFi" , what is the benefit of it compared to regular wireless NIC???
Also, some ppl use Satelite for broadband connection and it is cheaper, I wonder if it's faster or equal or slower than cable connection?? thx.

 

[IceNineJon]

WiFi is a standard for wireless networking (http://www.weca.net/OpenSection/index.asp). It basically ensures that wireless devices from one company will communicate with devices from another company.

As for satellite, satellite has large bandwidth potential but from the way you're describing it, it sounds like you're talking about the system where you upload data through a modem and download from the satellite. I personally would go with cable. Satellite has large delays between when you request information and when it's sent (around half a second which doesn't seem like much but really affects your connection). Also, you don't want to upload through a dial-up modem do you? Just go with cable, it's not very expensive nowadays.

 

[JackMDS]

Satellite for broadband is usually the solution of the desperate that are in areas with no DSL, and or Cable Internet services.

It is more expensive, when there is heavy rain or very thick clouds there is no connection.

As for Wireless "WIFI" (802.11b.


The following links might help.

AnandTech - FAQ. What do I need for wireless Networking?

Wireless What Should I Get?

 

[Jincuteguy]

are you sure that Satelite is more expensive than cable? cause one of my friend uses that and he said it's cheaper, he pays $30/month, i have to pay $50 for cable. So you said it has a larger bandwidth, is it faster than cable as in traffic? what about the downloading speed?

 

[Soybomb]

are you sure that Satelite is more expensive than cable?

Perhaps since you're the one interested you should call the provider and get a solid price?

As a general rule:
satellite is more expensive than cable/dsl
the packages offered are usually slower than cable/dsl packages
you might have a maximum through put limit a month that most cable/dsl providers don't hold you to
you will have much much higher latency than cable/dsl
the equipment/start up cost will be much much higher than cable/dsl

If you have no other broadband options, satellite is great, if you have other options, its usually not a good choice.

 

[Jincuteguy]

One of my friend using Satellite, and he pays $30 a month, and im using cable, i pay $49 a month. Why is that?
And you said the latency is much higher than cable right? so that mean it's not as fast as cable???

 

[Jincuteguy]

comon anyone?

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Jincuteguy
One of my friend using Satellite, and he pays $30 a month, and im using cable, i pay $49 a month. Why is that?
And you said the latency is much higher than cable right? so that mean it's not as fast as cable???

The latency will make it VERY BAD for playing games online. The lag is just too much. Hell anything over 350ms is bad.

What provider is your friend with?

I live in England but I know that Satellite is more expensive then cable/adsl.

The latenc refers to the time it takes to do an action after you request it. It has to travel further as its by satellite.

 

[MacaroneePenguin]

cable is optimized for download at around 1.7mbps while its upload is less than par, I think about 128kbps. Satellite connections, I think it depends on the provider. My experiene with Satellite is bad. The firm that I work for had no choice but to get Satellite. They never got the promised speed and it was very very inefficient. I could swear my old 57.6k modem was faster then the Satellite connection. And sharing that connection with 8 computers was hell. Finally, T1 was available so we got that.

IMHO, the $10-15 extra is worth the price of cable connection.

Like JackMDS said. Satellite is ususally a last resort.

 

[ktwebb]

Cable's not really "optimized" for a particular downstream nor is cable regulated to 128K upstream. Your provider might cap your upload traffic. Mine is capped at 256K and my downstream traffic is around 2 Mb but cable can be much, much faster.

In answer to the original question. Wi-Fi isn't a standard. It's a certification. Weca tests the vendors hardware and ensures interoperability and gives the device it's Wi-Fi label. Sort of a golden seal to let you know this card/ap/bridge will work with other mfg's gear.

Satelite is a last mile technology. At least for gamers. Frames have to make a 50K mile (roughly) trip so it's pretty easy to understand why a ping and latency is poor. Downloads are generally pretty good and you don't really notice the half a second or so delay.

 

[Jincuteguy]

what's the average download speed and upload speed of satelite broadband?

 

[mee987]

im still wondering how/where you can get satellite internet for $30/month. ive looked at it before and iirc the cheapest bidirectional satellite connection was ~$70/month. i think the plans with dialup upload were ~$40-50, but when you add in the cost of an extra phone line its around the same as bidirectional. i remember seeing a few deals where you could get it as cheap as $300 installed, but normal price was around $600 to install.

and i think the latency is worse than you guys are suggesting. im pretty sure it takes around 1000ms just to get the signal to the satellite then back to the ground, then add in the normal delays of ground travel. definitely makes FPS games unplayable online, maybe some mmorpgs would still work but im not sure.

if you have cable/DSL, be happy with it. im on dialup right now connected at 26.4 and im not even willing to switch to satellite internet.

 

[ktwebb]

From transmitter to receiver (satellite), then back again is about 49,000 miles. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. Specificially that is in a vacuum but even with the atmospheric conditions of earth it is near the speed of light. 186,000 miles and hour. Do the math. Even if you say 150,000 miles an hour on the average. It's less than 50,000 miles in the air. Even worse case scenario it wouldn't take more than 500 ms roundtrip. You then have to deal with terrestrial issues, namely routers, backbones, et al..Pings suck on satellite broadband. No doubt about that. Just not 1 full second added to the trip via the wireless transfer.

 

[Rkonster]

Originally posted by: ktwebb
From transmitter to receiver (satellite), then back again is about 49,000 miles. Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. Specificially that is in a vacuum but even with the atmospheric conditions of earth it is near the speed of light. 186,000 miles and hour. Do the math. Even if you say 150,000 miles an hour on the average. It's less than 50,000 miles in the air. Even worse case scenario it wouldn't take more than 500 ms roundtrip. You then have to deal with terrestrial issues, namely routers, backbones, et al..Pings suck on satellite broadband. No doubt about that. Just not 1 full second added to the trip via the wireless transfer.

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, not per hour.

 

[MacaroneePenguin]

Originally posted by: ktwebb
Cable's not really "optimized" for a particular downstream nor is cable regulated to 128K upstream. Your provider might cap your upload traffic. Mine is capped at 256K and my downstream traffic is around 2 Mb but cable can be much, much faster.

I'm fully aware that our cable providers such as Cox or TimeWarner/AOL limit the usage of cable to each user. Maybe I should've used another word other than "optimized." But, I was trying to say that at least those Cable providers set us up for high download speeds.

 

[ktwebb]

"The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, not per hour."

Doh. Of course.