<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>[Lightstalkers] Bgan or RBgan</title>
    <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan</link>
    <description>An entire Lightstalkers thread via RSS/XML.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>Ok, another stupid rookie question. Call me dumb but I've yet to buy a sat modem. Since most of my time here has been in embedded, I've relied on the good graces of the Army to let me file by email. When I am unembedded the hotels downtown have internet for a fee.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
But I'm feeling the need to buy a sat modem. I've looked on Outfitter Satellite's Web site and they're advertising the new world-wide sat mode, the Bgan. Of course, they also have the regional modem, the RBgan.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
My question is... is it better to buy the RBgan than the Bgan?&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
Thanks.&lt;br/&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>Hi Bill,

Looking into either of those two satellite systems myself for assignments abroad. Obviously cost is a big thing as the bgan is about &#194;&#163;2.5 thou and the rbgan is just under 500 bucks.
I know the bgan has a much larger coverage zone and enables you to use voice over. No doubt you have researched this yourself but i would be interested in seeing what others have to say on this subject myself.

Trent</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan#14890</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>To all: You may want to consider ThurayaDSL which is much cheaper for large volumes of data. &lt;font face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;FONT-SIZE: 12pt&quot;&gt;The ThurayaDSL unit is&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;Arial&quot; size=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial&quot;&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;LETTER-SPACING: -0.1pt&quot;&gt;a high-speed, cost-effective, portable satellite data-transfer solution for people who need reliable communication in remote areas. It is very competitive with Inmarsat&amp;rsquo;s RBGAN and in fact for large data transfers is so much cheaper because there is an Unlimited Plan which Inmarsat does not have. If you are interested, email me at &lt;a href=&quot;mailto:jan@xsatusa.com&quot;&gt;jan@xsatusa.com&lt;/a&gt; or call me at 678-315-6689. It is much better than the RBGAN and is complementary to the BGAN.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan#16917</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>inmarsat issued an rbgan firmware and software upgrade last summer so clients could connect to the new North / South American sat.   i understand it is just a matter of getting an account that allows dual sat access 

i don't see a breakthough difference between the Rgban and bgan other than size.  the speed may be a factor for streaming video, but if you're just FTPing, save the grand .. you're going to need it for data charges.
</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan#17680</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>Hi,&amp;nbsp; we just got the newest BGAN (492kbps) from Hughes, and one of our teams will be trying it out from overseas in a couple of weeks.&amp;nbsp; This is the new unit that is much faster than the&amp;nbsp;older RBGAN.&amp;nbsp; Still, I used the RBGAN recently&amp;nbsp;in Pakistan with good results.&amp;nbsp; It is a simple system to get up and running.&amp;nbsp; Our transmission costs amounted to about $11US per MB.&amp;nbsp; Even with the older RBGAN you could count on sending a hi-res JPEG from a D2X in under 5 minutes.&amp;nbsp; That's pretty fast!&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
Sgt Frank Hudec&lt;br/&gt;
Canadian Forces Combat Camera&lt;br/&gt;
www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.frankhudec.ca&quot;&gt;www.frankhudec.ca&lt;/a&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan#17992</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bgan or RBgan</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Frank, That's not bad transmission time. I'm gonna stick with the RBGAN. Most of my work will be here or Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
I've even been desperate enough to consider getting a date link for my Thuraya. But that's slower than dial-up speed.&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/bgan-or-rbgan#18556</link>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
