Exede/Dish compared to Charter

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 1 year ago
  • Doesn't Need an Answer
We live in Jefferson county keep getting notice of unlimited internet availability in our area. Why does Exede still have limits on their products. We know that schools in our area are requiring more internet access and, while not available in my subdivision, Charter is offering fast unlimited internet for as low as $30 and you guys are getting $80 to $90 for a far inferior product. The cost of satellite is less than land lines and they are extremely slower, so why is Exede so much higher?

Guess the easy answer is competition it is either Exede or Dish both about the same product.
Thanks
Paul Siebels
Photo of paul siebels

paul siebels

  • 0 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • disappointed with service offered

Posted 1 year ago

  • 1
Photo of Brian

Brian, Champion

  • 295 Posts
  • 215 Reply Likes
Good morning, Paul

I'm not certain where you got your information from, but hard wired cable is much less expensive than shooting a billion dollar satellite into orbit and hard wired cable is much faster.

If you're speaking only of telephone land lines then keep in mind that infrastructure was installed and paid for decades and decades ago and there has been very limited upgrades to that technology since. That infrastructure is essentially paid for (except for periodic maintenance when a tree or backhoe takes out a transmission line) and even when a new housing or commercial development pops up the TELCO can probably connect to an existing trunk line that's within a few miles or less.

If you're talking about DSL, then it's a similar situation. Paid for infrastructure with speeds that are pretty similar to satellite.

Satellite's market are those who live in remote locations without access to other alternatives.
Photo of Bradley

Bradley

  • 1087 Posts
  • 353 Reply Likes
Not sure where you did your research.  Cost per subscriber is what you should really consider.  Is Exede cheap?  No.  Is it better than dial-up?  Absolutely.  Cable always wins the battle of speed, latency, per cost.  Satellite has come a long way in the last 10 years.  
Photo of Bev

Bev, Champion

  • 3090 Posts
  • 1299 Reply Likes
Okay, say Charter needs more data capacity to offer unlimited service. they buy a few servers, run a few miles of cable, done.

Viasat/Exede needs to add more capacity. They have to design, and build a new satellite and, yes that requires rocket scientists and a boat load of highly trained people, the have to hire a rocket to launch the new satellite into space, that costs a few million. Great, new bird in space, now they have to build more gateways, more of the large dishes that transmit the signal to and from the gateways to the satellite and, hire people to man those gateways and, maintain them, keep them all working and in good repair. Got it working, they then need more people in the monitoring center because these things are subject to weather outages and, other technical problems land based providers simply don't have to deal with.

Who do you think has to spend more to increase data capacity? Which do you think costs more per subscriber? Yep Satellite, by a good margin, like a billion or so more in total for the same added capacity.
Photo of Brian

Brian, Champion

  • 295 Posts
  • 215 Reply Likes
If you want to base comparisons of cost per subscriber you need to take operating costs, add a margin for profit and divide by the number of customers (in broad terms).

Cost per subscriber isn't based upon some wishful thought that we all like to pay less than more or the cost per subscriber of an entirely different technology.