5 ms·
Perhaps it is not a client hardware issue, but a lack of coverage at your latitude.
by schappim 4y ago
Perhaps it is not a client hardware issue, but a lack of coverage at your latitude.
- langsoul-com 4y agoCould be regulation and legal issues as well. Probs is.
- francislavoie 4y agoI know many Canadians (including family) who've gotten theirs. That's not the issue in this case.
- FireBeyond 4y agoSeems like offering a $25,000/mo aviation service (which could be at almost any latitude) might be pretty risky, in that case. For $25,000/mo, customers are going to expect connectivity.
- usefulcat 4y agoFor aviation, they'll get connectivity most of the time; it will just flake out occasionally. The real question is, what are the prices of the services they're competing against? I'll bet those prices are higher.
- FireBeyond 4y agoViaSat charges $14K/mo for their top tier service. And the only coverage failure I've had while traveling, with ViaSat, is for an hour or so on polar routes (for me, SEA - DOH/DXB).
- Thlom 4y agoInmarsat will launch two satellites in HEO next year to provide coverage for the arctic. Should improve coverage in higher latitudes for the merged company.
- drusepth 4y agoAccording to this Viasat brochure [1], their top global (not regional) plan is $14k/mo with speeds ranging 20-40Mbps, or approx. $466 per 1Mbps. Comparatively, $25k/mo for 350Mbps would average $71 per 1Mbps, or ~6x cheaper for the speed. We'll see how the actual speed (and reliability) shake out in practice, though. [1] https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviation_ds_brochure_web-3 https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat...
- Retric 4y ago$25,000/mo for 350 Mbps and no download limits is extremely cheap compared to Viasat. In the short term Airlines could probably save money setting this up alongside existing services. Though Viasat isn’t going to be able to survive this kind of competition for long.