5 ms·
So what kind of latency should we expect from a satellite at that altitude?
by JankySolutions 9y ago
So what kind of latency should we expect from a satellite at that altitude?
- dgritsko 9y agoFrom the article: > SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms.
- bloopernova 9y agoI really hope that this works well. Being able to break the comcast/att/verizon effective monopolies across the USA would (hopefully) have great positive effects. At least competition would bring prices down for low-latency land-based connections. Of course, you're swapping control of your internet connection from a "mostly evil" to a "not yet known if evil" corporation.
- btown 9y ago> not yet known if evil A decent heuristic would be whether said corporation manufactures flamethrowers. Wait...
- dustinmoorenet 9y agoThey are specifically not flamethrowers.
- nickik 9y agoThat a different company. Just the same Bond villain in control.
- stcredzero 9y agoThere are the good looking Bond villains and the bad looking ones. Obama and Musk are good looking Bond villains. (The former had assassination sky robots, ICBMs, and a military. The latter has rockets, oceangoing spaceship landing pads, and huge enigmatic installations in the middle of the desert.) Putin and Trump are bad looking Bond villains.
- boznz 9y agoI know which ones I'd rather be a henchman for.
- colordrops 9y ago* different company * not flamethrowers * manufactured by a third party sorry, I know you are joking, but I couldn't help myself.
- nickik 9y agoCompetition is not just about price. The capacity of a corporation to be evil depends on alternatives people have. The closer the competition the smaller the 'evilness' that would make people switch. The same company can be perfect in one country and a 'evil' in another depending on the situation.
- mseebach 9y agoCompanies aren't "evil" as such, but they can get complacent when not exposed to sufficient competition. Once SpaceX is a viable competitor, Comcast will probably fairly quickly "forget" that they are evil. I seem to recall people reporting that Comcast is actually just fine in many areas with a second viable provider. With SpaceX, that would be all of them.
- stcredzero 9y agoCompanies aren't "evil" as such, but they can get complacent when not exposed to sufficient competition. Power corrupts. Therefore, power in the market also corrupts.
- greenhouse_gas 9y agoThey'll just turn around, provide better service at lower prices, drive spacex out of the market, and raise them again. They have a lot more money to play with (and their infrastructure is much cheaper to maintain).
- Ajedi32 9y ago"They" meaning... every ISP on the planet? At the same time? Starlink will have the ability to offer coverage globally, even in places where existing ISPs have no infrastructure. Not to mention that that kind of predatory pricing is illegal in many countries.
- jazoom 9y agoBut their potential market is like 1/40 the size.
- kbaker 9y agoAnyone know what the downlink bandwidth might be for this system (i.e. not to the user, but to the Internet backbone?) Seems like only a few customers at 1 Gb/s could saturate the network pretty quickly. Especially if the coverage area is a few hundred square miles.
- kristofferR 9y ago"Each satellite will provide aggregate downlink capacity of 17 to 23Gbps" https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/space...
- Robotbeat 9y agoThat's just the initial system. And there will be, say, 30 satellites in view at any one time, giving an aggregate of 600 Gbps. At a typical 100:1 over-subscription ratio, they should be capable of serving almost a million customers per region (~500km diameter) at that speed. At more reasonable 10 or 100Mbps, it's on the order of tens of millions of customers in a region. But that's just the initial constellation. SpaceX plans to put 12,000 total satellites up, with the VLEO ones having much higher throughput. Idea is to replace them every 4-6 years with faster throughput.
- mirashii 9y agoIt's in the article, but 25-35ms total. For the highest orbit they plan, one way latency is under 5ms, so these goals seem easily within the realm of possibility.
- Retric 9y agoWith multiple base stations that's the minimum latency to get across the street. However, the added latency is not necessarily that bad vs landlines. Picture a triangle with the satellite at the apex and the goal at the other side. On the other hand if their base station was further from the network than your house then things get significantly worse.
- mirashii 9y agoI also failed to account for slant angle for the distance, which could add a few more milliseconds to each leg in the worst case.
- baseethrowaway 9y agoWith so many satellites in the sky, I think those effects will be exactly as you said, a few (<10 ms) milliseconds in the worst case, depending on how aggressive the hopping from sat to sat is.
- gpm 9y agoAlso not taken into account is that light travels about 30% slower in a fibre optic cable than in space.