Don't the satellite options cost over $1 per minute to operate? I didn't think they're cheap, world coverage, could be usefull, but expensive. Is anyone buying out ricochet? and keeping the same type of service? At 10:19 AM 12/17/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Hi! > >Sorry -- as far as I know, that does not exist anymore. The >only solution close to that bandwidth was Ricochet (wireless >networking) but that company is dead. Or close to death and >Chapter 11, anyway. > >GSM networks only allow 9.6 Kbps uplink and downlink -- which >is barely usable. Other radio networks (non-GSM) should not be >much better, and do not offer the communication quality of >GSM. > >To get close to that kind of speed, the only solution I can >think of is satellite phone/modems (such as Intelsat), which >gives you up to 36.6 Kbps anywhere in the world, but the price >is prohibitive... To say the least. > >Your best bet? Wait for the 3G phones (next-generation GSM). >These promises HUGE speed increases -- up to 128.8 Kbps, if I >remember well -- but they won't be in use for another 3 years. >And they will be deployed first in Europe, not in the USA. > >Sorry! =( > > >On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:50:02 -0600 >Brent Harding <bharding@doorpi.net> wrote: > >>Is there any good way to get cellular access to the Internet in the >> states at at least 28.8 k using my computer to get online? I don't care >> what OS I must use as long as it's not required to upgrade to millenium or >> xp, staying with 98 and linux. If it's a pcmcia card, is there a pci to >> pcmcia adapter that I can put the card in a desktop system? Thanks. >> > > >/-------------------------------------\ >| Gil Andre -- Technical Writer | >|Knox Software: http://www.arkeia.com | >| email: gandre@arkeia.com | >\-------------------------------------/ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Blinux-list@redhat.com >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > >