Inmarsat iSatHub?

[Tim Good]

I'm leaving it as long as possible before going on our trip in 2016 before investing in a smartphone / internet setup and it seems the market is still evolving quickly towards a single do everything wireless solution.

Here is Inmarsats version. Has anyone has any experience with it and can lay down the pros and cons. I appreciate it can't be taken in the lift raft.

 

[oldvarnish]

Thanks for posting that. I wondered when Inmarsat were going to catch up with Iridium GO.

As you say, things are moving on quickly. Best wait and see where we end up.

 

[RobbieW]

Hmm, interesting - found a link to some other data - http://www.groundcontrol.com/IsatHub.htm. Looks like the data transfer speed, at up to 384 Kbps, is starting to be useful in todays internet - by contrast most Iridium connections (including the Go) are at 2.4 Kbps. Following links on that site connection pricing doesnt look too bad either, at least you're now paying per Mb rather than by time only. Just note though that its $3.85/Mb, in a typical day messing about on the internet I use 200-400Mb so some discipline (or very deep pockets) is going to be necessary offshore.

 

[oldvarnish]

Just note though that its $3.85/Mb, in a typical day messing about on the internet I use 200-400Mb so some discipline (or very deep pockets) is going to be necessary offshore.

As a matter of interest, how big is an average 150 word email (no graphics, attachments etc) by the time its been through compression software?

I noticed that with Iridium, and paying per second, by the time you added in the log on and log off time, you very rarely got an email away in less than 2 minutes, which costs roughly 2 dollars.

 

[RobbieW]

As a matter of interest, how big is an average 150 word email (no graphics, attachments etc) by the time its been through compression software?...

About 3.5k for roughly that size, including all the headers etc, looking at emails I have in my mail tool. Thats without compression

EDIT: That 3.5k assumes that you have an offline mail handler so all the connection has to do is transfer the email up or down. The data requirement is vastly different using web mail services because you then have all the overhead of the web page to transfer as well.

 

[Tim Good]

some discipline (or very deep pockets) is going to be necessary offshore.

I think we are 25 years away from not needing discipline whilst using the net offshore. In fact I am not looking forward to that day. It will change the way we look at the safety, solitude, risk and reward. That latter word being the key to it all.

 

[oldvarnish]

I think we are 25 years away from not needing discipline whilst using the net offshore. In fact I am not looking forward to that day.

Quite right. It will make a profound difference.

I am fond of the Blondie Hasler principle - everyone who goes to sea should be presumed missing till they arrive.

Much as I am fond of email exchanges while at sea on long passages, I do realise that it has already changed things completely.

 

[RobbieW]

I think we are 25 years away from not needing discipline whilst using the net offshore. In fact I am not looking forward to that day. It will change the way we look at the safety, solitude, risk and reward. That latter word being the key to it all.

I'd agree with both your and oldvarnish's sentiments. The reason I made the comment is that at 384 Kbps it would be easy to be fooled into thinking it was a 'normal' connection; at 2.4 Kbps its bleeding obvious that it isnt.

 

[Tim Good]

I'd agree with both your and oldvarnish's sentiments. The reason I made the comment is that at 384 Kbps it would be easy to be fooled into thinking it was a 'normal' connection; at 2.4 Kbps its bleeding obvious that it isnt.

384kbps.... assume it is bytes and not bits per second, is very reaosnable especially if charged by data usage.

Isn't Inmartsat generaly seen as better than Iridium?

 

[RobbieW]

... assume it is bytes and not bits per second...

I assumed bits as thats whats normal when talking connection speed. I have roughly 20Mbps where I am now so 384 Kbps would seem slow, more like the speed you actually get around 3pm when the kids leave school and the US gets going.

 

[Tim Good]

I assumed bits as thats whats normal when talking connection speed. I have roughly 20Mbps where I am now so 384 Kbps would seem slow, more like the speed you actually get around 3pm when the kids leave school and the US gets going.

20MBPS broadband usually equates to 2000 k bytes per second. I'd say 384 is bytes otherwise it would take you a long long time to receive an email on 384 bits.

Generally it was always bytes when referring to speed on the net and then the Broadband companies wanted a buzzz word for marketing like "MEGS".... "Yeah with Virgin you get 20 MEGS!" Sounds better than 2 Megabytes or 2000 kbytes.

 

[RobbieW]

20MBPS broadband usually equates to 2000 k bytes per second. I'd say 384 is bytes otherwise it would take you a long long time to receive an email on 384 bits.

Generally it was always bytes when referring to speed on the net and then the Broadband companies wanted a buzzz word for marketing like "MEGS".... "Yeah with Virgin you get 20 MEGS!" Sounds better than 2 Megabytes or 2000 kbytes.

Umm, I'mm sure youre right about the change in units to suit marketing - being ex Big Blue I used to think in bytes but am being re-educated I have also checked that on the site I referenced they talk about speed as Kbps (as does Inmarsat literature), which implies bits, and pricing in Megabytes (explicitly). Did a quick poke about using Google and found this set of definitions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units, so providing we all use the same naming convention 'b' is bits and 'B' is bytes.