Telecommuniting on Mars. Possible?
May 10, 2011 1:08 PM Subscribe
Where is the remotest place on earth where I can get a 10mbps internet connection for less than $100 USD/month.
Do you care about latency to any particular place? I'm not trying to be a dick and say "WELL IF YOU FILL UP A PLANE WITH DVDS AND FLY IT TO PITCAIRN ISLAND YOU WILL HAVE A 100GBPS BUT IT WILL BE VERY HIGH PING TIMES!!!" its just that remote internet connections tend to have highly variable latency to different places.
This can even happen between places that are not remote at all, just far apart. Like, I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina. My friend has a server he needs to do work on somewhere on the USA west coast. For some reason, if he ssh's into that server from his apartment, it runs at unusable latency. But if he ssh's into a different server he has somewhere on the US east coast AND THEN ssh's into the west coast server, it works fine. There's some routing issue that puts his packets on a vastly higher-latency route if he tries to go direct to the west coast.
I have to use a particular machine in New York via VNC all the time. Usually, I have plenty of bandwidth for what I want to do but the latency between my apartment and that machine kills (its fine at my office).
Anyway, I'm going to take a guess and say: "somewhere that is under the control of a wealthy europe socialist state like Norway." because (a) Norway would be able to afford to do this kind of thing (b) Norway would be the kind of place where they'd say, "if we have this service in one place, we must have it every place!" and (c) parts of Norway are hella remote.
Specifically, I'm thinking somewhere like Svalbard. Super remote, but part of norway, so they probably have government-subsidized FTTH. But, to reiterate, that doesn't mean the latency between it and where you need your packets to go will be tolerable. You're at the mercy of all the routers in between. In fact, googling "internet access svalbard" returns this Fast Company story from 2004:
This can even happen between places that are not remote at all, just far apart. Like, I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina. My friend has a server he needs to do work on somewhere on the USA west coast. For some reason, if he ssh's into that server from his apartment, it runs at unusable latency. But if he ssh's into a different server he has somewhere on the US east coast AND THEN ssh's into the west coast server, it works fine. There's some routing issue that puts his packets on a vastly higher-latency route if he tries to go direct to the west coast.
I have to use a particular machine in New York via VNC all the time. Usually, I have plenty of bandwidth for what I want to do but the latency between my apartment and that machine kills (its fine at my office).
Anyway, I'm going to take a guess and say: "somewhere that is under the control of a wealthy europe socialist state like Norway." because (a) Norway would be able to afford to do this kind of thing (b) Norway would be the kind of place where they'd say, "if we have this service in one place, we must have it every place!" and (c) parts of Norway are hella remote.
Specifically, I'm thinking somewhere like Svalbard. Super remote, but part of norway, so they probably have government-subsidized FTTH. But, to reiterate, that doesn't mean the latency between it and where you need your packets to go will be tolerable. You're at the mercy of all the routers in between. In fact, googling "internet access svalbard" returns this Fast Company story from 2004:
When a switch is flicked this fall, two undersea fiber-optic cables will deliver ultrafast Internet access to the 1,700 people in Svalbard's capital, Longyearbyen. The twin cables run 800 miles along the bed of the Arctic Ocean, at depths reaching almost 10,000 feet. That makes them some of the deepest plowed cables in the world, and the only known undersea cables beneath ice.posted by jeb at 1:31 PM on May 10, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you start going too far off the grid it starts getting expensive and slow, quickly.
This page, for example, shows tariffs and speeds for broadband in the Falklands: $150, 1MB/s.
In lots of ways Perth, Australia is remote. Package prices here.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2011
This page, for example, shows tariffs and speeds for broadband in the Falklands: $150, 1MB/s.
In lots of ways Perth, Australia is remote. Package prices here.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2011
In Alaska, if you want 10mbps for under $100 you'd be limited to civilized areas like Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau which have cable internet in the city proper. Outside the city, it's DSL where available, or satellite (if you have a clear view of the southern sky), neither of which offer speeds of 10mbps, and may not stay under your budget of $100.
posted by griselda at 2:13 PM on May 10, 2011
posted by griselda at 2:13 PM on May 10, 2011
The Serengeti is nice, although you might need to spend up to $150 to get satellite 10mps.
Of course there are much more remote places in Northern Africa, but they don't have wildebeest migrations.
Generally anywhere with 60 degrees of the equator is doable.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:55 PM on May 10, 2011
Of course there are much more remote places in Northern Africa, but they don't have wildebeest migrations.
Generally anywhere with 60 degrees of the equator is doable.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:55 PM on May 10, 2011
(btw, the 10mbps is shared bandwidth in the same way that 10mbps cable internet is. Actual throughput depends on the total system usage)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:02 PM on May 10, 2011
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:02 PM on May 10, 2011
Maybe I've been out of the market for too long but I think $100/month for satellite Internet access in East Africa will get you more like 128kbps with a really small peak quota. 2Mbps with a 1:10 contention is $1,000+/month.
posted by ChrisHartley at 3:53 PM on May 10, 2011
posted by ChrisHartley at 3:53 PM on May 10, 2011
Maybe I've been out of the market for too long but I think $100/month for satellite Internet access in East Africa will get you more like 128kbps with a really small peak quota.
Only for unlimited traffic. If you're willing to pay by the gigabyte you can get much better deals.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2011
Only for unlimited traffic. If you're willing to pay by the gigabyte you can get much better deals.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2011
I've recently spent a fair bit of time traveling rural America. Internet basically stops a couple miles outside the town. Just five miles from a rural town and there's no wired internet at all, speed limited to GSM wireless. (0.5 Mb/s at best) And that's not particularly remote, you can still see the neighbors.
Best bet would probably be next door to a remote science outpost.
How about deep underground but near a population center?
posted by Ookseer at 9:38 PM on May 10, 2011
Best bet would probably be next door to a remote science outpost.
How about deep underground but near a population center?
posted by Ookseer at 9:38 PM on May 10, 2011
Some cities in South Africa now have 10Mbps and it will cost you about $70 for line rental, plus an additional $2 per GB of transfer.
Not that remote, but at least it satisfies the rest of your requirements.
posted by Gomez_in_the_South at 9:46 PM on May 10, 2011
Not that remote, but at least it satisfies the rest of your requirements.
posted by Gomez_in_the_South at 9:46 PM on May 10, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 1:17 PM on May 10, 2011 [1 favorite]