* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Bgan or RBgan

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. 

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. 

My question is… is it better to buy the RBgan than the Bgan? 


by Bill Putnam at 2006-02-03 13:09:14 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Baggers , Iraq | Bookmark | | Report spam→

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 £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.


by Trent Keegan | 06 Feb 2006 08:02 | Galway, Ireland | | Report spam→
To all: You may want to consider ThurayaDSL which is much cheaper for large volumes of data. The ThurayaDSL unit is 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’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 jan@xsatusa.com or call me at 678-315-6689. It is much better than the RBGAN and is complementary to the BGAN.

by Jan Rademaker | 03 Mar 2006 15:03 | Peachtree City, United States | | Report spam→
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.

by Tom Popyk | 12 Mar 2006 15:03 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Hi,  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.  This is the new unit that is much faster than the older RBGAN.  Still, I used the RBGAN recently in Pakistan with good results.  It is a simple system to get up and running.  Our transmission costs amounted to about $11US per MB.  Even with the older RBGAN you could count on sending a hi-res JPEG from a D2X in under 5 minutes.  That’s pretty fast!

Sgt Frank Hudec
Canadian Forces Combat Camera

by [former member] | 16 Mar 2006 07:03 | Ottawa, Canada | | Report spam→
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. 

I’ve even been desperate enough to consider getting a date link for my Thuraya. But that’s slower than dial-up speed. 

by Bill Putnam | 23 Mar 2006 16:03 | Ad Dawr, Iraq | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Bill Putnam, Producer. Bill Putnam
Washington, D.C. , United States
Trent Keegan, Photojournalist Trent Keegan
Nairobi , Kenya
Jan Rademaker, Jan Rademaker
Peachtree City , United States
Tom Popyk, Journalist/Videographer Tom Popyk
New Delhi , India


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven