4 ms·

.

chiph 10y ago
The microwave transmissions stay in the analog realm to get their signal boosted at the intermediate towers, so you don't lose time in D/A-A/D sampling conversions like in the typical fiber signal booster (there are optical signal boosters for fiber under development).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Hikikomori 10y ago
  Optical amplifiers has been the standard for quite a few years already, especially for long haul dwdm.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
arbitrage 10y ago
> The most you'd be able to push through the air is a few Gigs Total capacity isn't the key, here. It's latency. And you're really exaggerating the impact air has on the speed of radio propagation. When you take into account the physical latency of the distance to satellites in geo stationary orbit, it's easy to see that a microwave network can be faster. If you're using non-geostationary satellites for communication, you have to negotiate the infrastructure changing out from under you constantly. Reliability is key for these networks. Waiting milliseconds for your physical layer to switch to a new satellite means you lose. QoS also adds significant latency. It's not a viable choice for extremely low-latency networks. As an aside, you'll probably get a more positive response around here if you endeavour to keep your comments from getting so emotionally laden ... saying bullshit multiple times doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
rini17 10y ago
Speed of light in in air is indeed almost the same as in vacuum. But speed in fiber is about 2/3 of that. Satellite internet has high latency not because "pushing through air" but because geostationary satellites are very far.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Fiber is about .53C I seem to recall from my CCNA classes
Aser 10y ago
A quick bit of research shows that the speed of light in air only 0.3% less than the speed of light in a vaccuum. So that works out to 298,896km/s. This is significantly faster than the speed of light in an fibre optic cable (around 200,000km/s). Combine this with the ability for a microwave link to have a shorter path than optical fibre, and it's easy to see why a microwave link can be lower latency. Nobody is disputing the fact that fibre optic can handle much higher bandwidths, but that is irrelevant in this application. The amount of data required to make a trade is probably in the order of kiloBytes or MegaBytes, easily handled by the few Gbps limit of microwave links. The reason why satellite internet is so terrible is because a geostationary satellite sits 22,236 miles above the surface of the earth. So for a roundtrip journey, a packet of data has to travel nearly 45,000 miles.

chiph 10y ago

The microwave transmissions stay in the analog realm to get their signal boosted at the intermediate towers, so you don't lose time in D/A-A/D sampling conversions like in the typical fiber signal booster (there are optical signal boosters for fiber under development).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Hikikomori 10y ago
Optical amplifiers has been the standard for quite a few years already, especially for long haul dwdm.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

arbitrage 10y ago

> The most you'd be able to push through the air is a few Gigs Total capacity isn't the key, here. It's latency. And you're really exaggerating the impact air has on the speed of radio propagation. When you take into account the physical latency of the distance to satellites in geo stationary orbit, it's easy to see that a microwave network can be faster. If you're using non-geostationary satellites for communication, you have to negotiate the infrastructure changing out from under you constantly. Reliability is key for these networks. Waiting milliseconds for your physical layer to switch to a new satellite means you lose. QoS also adds significant latency. It's not a viable choice for extremely low-latency networks. As an aside, you'll probably get a more positive response around here if you endeavour to keep your comments from getting so emotionally laden ... saying bullshit multiple times doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.

rini17 10y ago

Speed of light in in air is indeed almost the same as in vacuum. But speed in fiber is about 2/3 of that. Satellite internet has high latency not because "pushing through air" but because geostationary satellites are very far.

walshemj 10y ago
Fiber is about .53C I seem to recall from my CCNA classes

Aser 10y ago

A quick bit of research shows that the speed of light in air only 0.3% less than the speed of light in a vaccuum. So that works out to 298,896km/s. This is significantly faster than the speed of light in an fibre optic cable (around 200,000km/s). Combine this with the ability for a microwave link to have a shorter path than optical fibre, and it's easy to see why a microwave link can be lower latency. Nobody is disputing the fact that fibre optic can handle much higher bandwidths, but that is irrelevant in this application. The amount of data required to make a trade is probably in the order of kiloBytes or MegaBytes, easily handled by the few Gbps limit of microwave links. The reason why satellite internet is so terrible is because a geostationary satellite sits 22,236 miles above the surface of the earth. So for a roundtrip journey, a packet of data has to travel nearly 45,000 miles.