3 ms·
80msec is not a good outcome considering the cost and complexity of the investment. Aren't there alternative technologies to achieve this connectivity?
by buboard 8y ago
80msec is not a good outcome considering the cost and complexity of the investment. Aren't there alternative technologies to achieve this connectivity?
- elteto 8y agoI think you might be underestimating latencies in the real world. These [0] are statistics from Verizon showing 90ms RTT for trans-atlantic connections. Trans-pacific is > 100ms. 80ms seems highly competitive for me in this context. [0] https://enterprise.verizon.com/terms/latency/ https://enterprise.verizon.com/terms/latency/
- buboard 8y agothere is a video posted in the comments that compares latencies to cables. spacex advertises latencies from 50-80 , but cable is in all cases fasters (rather obvious i think).
- icelancer 8y agoIt is a good outcome considering the speed of light and existing technologies. I don't know what you rightfully expected if you were hoping for serious improvement on that number, other than breaking the laws of physics.
- buboard 8y agomy question is if the slight improvement in latencies makes the investment worthwhile
- gsich 8y agoIt's still a somewhat good value, compared to GEO satellites. It's no fun to use those.