Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:26:41 -0600
Reply-To:     Bob Stevens <mtbiker62@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bob Stevens <mtbiker62@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: How About Satellite Internet?
Comments: To: jeffmichal@gmail.com
In-Reply-To:  <E13EF71E39CC4878BA05FB1B5C681970@b0zd3sk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Jeff Michal <jeffmichal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally I'd go cellular, much less equipment and lower latency over
> satellite.  The trick with satellite is you have a relatively large amount
> of relay time from ground to sky and back for the request to get to the
> destination, and the same for the return trip with the response.  I'd
> expect
> cost will be the same for the Verizon EVDO service, and it works over a
> pretty wide area.  The only exception would be if you are going to truly
> remote places, then satellite is your only choice.
>
>
> Poor reception (read: none) in several places I often go to in my Syncro.
I've got Verizon and take my laptop with wireless USB modem stick.
Although I have access on occasion, when I'm in an area that it would
be helpful, or even necessary in order to get help when needed, it's
useless. Most places I can get a signal, I would be close enough to
"civilization" to see or hear someone inside an hour, and consistently
thereafter. When remote, I'd strongly suggest some sort of satellite
device is always going to be more useful. You can send a Spot signal
from places there is no cell tower service, and when you drive into
the zone where the cell service appears, the phone rings and "answers"
the Spot signal transmission. What that means is that anyone who you
have programmed into your Spot, has also gotten your transmission,and
had it been an emergency, much more likely that help would be on the
way.

bob