I would appreciate any help in comparing these quotes. I've narrowed the choice down to two options, both roughly the same price per month.
Option 1
CIR Rx 260 Kbps (0 contention)
CIR Tx 100 Kbps (burstable to 200)
Rx volume per month: 3 GB (which works out at around 18 cent per MB)
Router: Hughes 7740
Satellite: IS-10 (probably Ku-band?)
Hub: Griesheim, Germany
Volume limit: No throttling, but if volume limits are exceeded by more than 50% during 3 consecutive months, an upgrade to a more expensive plan is required.
Option 2
CIR Rx 64 Kbps (max burst to 600 during working hours, "average throughput 512", contention probably around 1:16?)
CIR Tx 16 Kbps (max burst to 120 during working hours, "average throughput 60", contention probably around 1:16?)
Router: HX 50
Satellite: W3E (Ku-band?)
Hub: Torino, Italy
Volume limit: 8 h limits Rx 90 MB, Tx 10 MB, throttling if exceeded [note: Assuming I only use 2 8h slots per day, and manage to use 70% of the limit of these 29 days per month, I'm at 3.6 GB, roughly 15 cent per MB].
To me (and for my usage), looking at the numbers and specs only, it seems as if Quote 1 is a better offer (almost too good to be true?).
Most importantly, I prefer CIR to shared bandwidth. While burstable bandwidth may work well in many cases (even if the actual goodput is much lower than max theoretical burst), imho a Service Level Agreement with best-effort clauses isn't worth much if there are problems with a link, there are just too many possible excuses for the operator.
Another issue with quote 2 are the relatively low Tx volume limits. Assuming a 16 Kbps voice stream, I will reach the limit after little more than one hour. Realistically, I would probably be limited to one 30 minute voice call per 8h slot. Apart from that, I assume the technology is comparable. No dramatic differences for me as an end-user, the routers both seem to have about the same capabilities? Any differences regarding the hubs or satellites I should be aware of?
What do you think? Am I wrong? Anything I forgot? Any other questions I should ask?
Option 1
CIR Rx 260 Kbps (0 contention)
CIR Tx 100 Kbps (burstable to 200)
Rx volume per month: 3 GB (which works out at around 18 cent per MB)
Router: Hughes 7740
Satellite: IS-10 (probably Ku-band?)
Hub: Griesheim, Germany
Volume limit: No throttling, but if volume limits are exceeded by more than 50% during 3 consecutive months, an upgrade to a more expensive plan is required.
Option 2
CIR Rx 64 Kbps (max burst to 600 during working hours, "average throughput 512", contention probably around 1:16?)
CIR Tx 16 Kbps (max burst to 120 during working hours, "average throughput 60", contention probably around 1:16?)
Router: HX 50
Satellite: W3E (Ku-band?)
Hub: Torino, Italy
Volume limit: 8 h limits Rx 90 MB, Tx 10 MB, throttling if exceeded [note: Assuming I only use 2 8h slots per day, and manage to use 70% of the limit of these 29 days per month, I'm at 3.6 GB, roughly 15 cent per MB].
To me (and for my usage), looking at the numbers and specs only, it seems as if Quote 1 is a better offer (almost too good to be true?).
Most importantly, I prefer CIR to shared bandwidth. While burstable bandwidth may work well in many cases (even if the actual goodput is much lower than max theoretical burst), imho a Service Level Agreement with best-effort clauses isn't worth much if there are problems with a link, there are just too many possible excuses for the operator.
Another issue with quote 2 are the relatively low Tx volume limits. Assuming a 16 Kbps voice stream, I will reach the limit after little more than one hour. Realistically, I would probably be limited to one 30 minute voice call per 8h slot. Apart from that, I assume the technology is comparable. No dramatic differences for me as an end-user, the routers both seem to have about the same capabilities? Any differences regarding the hubs or satellites I should be aware of?
What do you think? Am I wrong? Anything I forgot? Any other questions I should ask?
