5 ms·
[deleted]
by matt_wulfeck 10y ago
[deleted]
- jpambrun 10y agoCan you even read?
- ahh 10y agoThe answer is in the article, sure (OP: much lower altitude satellites, so much lower RTTs), but that was an incredibly rude way to say so. Please don't do that.
- jpambrun 10y agoI understand that I easily get annoyed, but it is the first topic of the article. I mean.. why even bother to comment if you don't even read the first few paragraphs?
- whatupdave 10y agothe article states that they'll be ~800 miles up, so about 8ms there and back
- dfischer 10y agoIn the article it says that it's because of the current deployment of satellites being at 22k miles high. Tesla plans to launch the satellites at a range of 715-823 miles which will reduce the latency to 25-35ms.
- cryptoz 10y agoThere is a lot less distance between Low Earth Orbit and New York City than there is between New York City and Los Angeles.
- monk_e_boy 10y agoSome of us are in the arse end of the UK, so our packets are going across the atlantic and back again.
- candiodari 10y agoSpecs for minimum ping of some internet technologies: 2G (100–400 Kbit/s) 300–1000 ms 3G (0.5–5 Mbit/s) 100–500 ms 4G (1–50 Mbit/s) < 100 ms ADSL+PPP (0.1-200 Mbit/s) 40 ms Cable (2 Mbit/s - 1 Gbit/s) 80 ms Fibre (1 Gbit/s - 100 Gbit/s) 5 ms Note that this latency is just the transmission delay, it does not send your data more than a few hundred meters (technically up to 200km for fibre, but usually the actual distance sent is still hundreds of meters). After that, you should consider that your data is probably being sent at least to the capital of your state, or some other large city, before there is any routing (meaning a packet to your neighbor gets sent to this large city and back). This distance tends to be more than the distance to LEO and back (but of course, your wouldn't be sending it straight up to LEO but at an angle, so the number of satellites makes a large difference. At 4000, it won't be a huge angle). So this can still beat every technology except perhaps FTTH, which is hugely expensive and not widely spread at all. Furthermore, it can beat every mobile last mile technology.
- ricardobeat 10y agoWhere are those numbers from? I get a consistent 12ms ping with my cable internet (200Mbps) to local cloud servers, and have seen as low as 1-4ms on fiber.
- Benjamin_Dobell 10y agoYeah, I'm pretty sure they're made up, and they lack context. 40ms for ADSL... From where to where are you pinging? Gamers will regularly achieve ~20ms pings to other gamers on the same continent. Where as pinging around the other side of world (under-sea cables) is going to add approximately 150-200 ms. Also FTTH vs. ADSL vs. Cable really shouldn't make much difference with regards to ping (they're all fibre for the majority of the distance). The main reason FTTH (or even FTTN) networks tend to have a quicker ping is because they usually have newer/faster routing hardware running on them.
- candiodari 10y agoYou should try Australia. Undersea cables definitely adds more than 150-200ms (but I guess you mean the Atlantic) to everything here.
- trsohmers 10y agoThese satellites are orbiting at around ~900 miles up, which is about a 10ms round trip ping. I average around 75ms ping on my T Mobile LTE connection, which I think will be in line with SpaceX's offering. The altitude of the ISS is only ~250 miles above sea level, while the distance from SF to LA is ~400.
- felixfurtak 10y agoIt only has fiber to compete with, and light only travels at 2/3 speed in fiber compared to free space.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoIt certainly higher latency than loitering solar powered aircraft or balloons above 60,000 feet.