Critics argue that Vermont's "Fiber First" insistence puts policy before people: rural residents wait years for bandwidth ten times more than they need, and funding remains uncertain.
From what little I know, the main flaw with satellite is upload speed and capacity. Down link is Ok but uplink is nowhere near as good. Can’t imagine it working well for online gaming or other interactive applications where speed is critical both directions.
Good Morning Walt - Thanks for weighing in — this was a fair critique of earlier generations of satellite service, and it’s one that still comes up often.
Historically, satellite internet did suffer from poor upload speeds and high latency, which made real-time applications like video conferencing, gaming, and cloud tools difficult. That criticism applied especially to older geostationary satellites, which sit far from Earth and introduce long signal delays.
However, most of today’s debate — including what’s driving the Welch–Cruz legislation — centers on low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite systems. These systems dramatically reduce latency and have significantly improved upload speeds compared to earlier satellite models. In real-world use, many LEO customers can now support video calls, remote work, and other two-way applications that were previously impractical.
The policy question isn’t whether satellite is “better” than fiber, but whether it should be treated as an acceptable interim or alternative solution for rural households that may otherwise wait many years — or indefinitely — for wired service.
We appreciate the comment and the chance to clarify — these technical distinctions are exactly what this debate hinges on.
If any prt of the pro satellite argument includes SpaceX or Starlink, no thank you. I'll wait for something I can trust.
From what little I know, the main flaw with satellite is upload speed and capacity. Down link is Ok but uplink is nowhere near as good. Can’t imagine it working well for online gaming or other interactive applications where speed is critical both directions.
Good Morning Walt - Thanks for weighing in — this was a fair critique of earlier generations of satellite service, and it’s one that still comes up often.
Historically, satellite internet did suffer from poor upload speeds and high latency, which made real-time applications like video conferencing, gaming, and cloud tools difficult. That criticism applied especially to older geostationary satellites, which sit far from Earth and introduce long signal delays.
However, most of today’s debate — including what’s driving the Welch–Cruz legislation — centers on low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite systems. These systems dramatically reduce latency and have significantly improved upload speeds compared to earlier satellite models. In real-world use, many LEO customers can now support video calls, remote work, and other two-way applications that were previously impractical.
The policy question isn’t whether satellite is “better” than fiber, but whether it should be treated as an acceptable interim or alternative solution for rural households that may otherwise wait many years — or indefinitely — for wired service.
We appreciate the comment and the chance to clarify — these technical distinctions are exactly what this debate hinges on.