12 ms·

What do you mean remember HughesNet? People are still on it. Some of those people are young. All of them have been taught what latency is by having satellite i

by jgowdy 7y ago

What do you mean remember HughesNet? People are still on it. Some of those people are young. All of them have been taught what latency is by having satellite internet. There are plenty of non-technical consumers who have had a very unwilling education in what latency is and how it differs from speed.

ethagknight 7y ago
You are correct, it’s more prevalent than I realized, but those people will most likely welcome Starlink with wide open arms.
- adventured 7y ago
  Starlink (and other similar systems that are hopeful to launch) are the real competitive threat that Google Fiber only partially lived up to being. It threatens the existing entrenched providers everywhere. They can't hide from it. They will have no choice but to respond. They face a scenario losing tens of millions of access customers over time to this approach. And the existing options are priced so high in the US, it provides a big fat margin opportunity for Starlink & Co. to target (and ride for the benefit of paying for the buildout). We had to go to space to route around the cable oligopoly, beyond their local crony jurisdictions.
  - wmf 7y ago
    Nope, Starlink would be crushed by tens of millions of customers (mostly concentrated in major metro areas) in the US and those customers would switch right back to cable. The capacity isn't there.
    - adventured 7y ago
      Can you show me the definitive proof that Starlink (along with its competitors, who will plausibly also launch a vast number of satellites) can't support eg 20 million customers in the US over time? I'd be very interested in that demonstration of the limits on the market. Also can you support the premise that their customers would be concentrated in major metros, when the biggest beneficiaries will be outside of metros where broadband options are drastically worse (which is why the primary market for HughesNet the past two decades has not been concentrated in major metros). Access providers in metros can soundly compete with Starlink. They'll lower prices, increase speeds, improve bundles, etc. Their infrastructure and customers are already in place there, they won't just ignore Starlink, they'll compete. That heavily limits the upside potential for the Starlink concept in metros. It's everwhere else, mostly lacking any real broadband, that Starlink & Co will face minimal competition and will particularly lure customers. It's why HughesNet still has over a million customers today. I've seen a lot of people claim - with very little supporting evidence thus far - that the market is extremely limited due to capacity restraint. While you're proving out your claim, if you don't mind given that you've got a strong handle on the market ceiling, please provide what you believe to be the maximum subscriber potential for Starlink - and the approach in general - in the US over time.
      - wmf 7y ago
        I think Starlink is for rural customers and can't compete with decent wired broadband. You were the one who seems to be putting it against cable (which exists in the metros, not in rural areas). The MIT work linked in this thread calculates a total worldwide capacity in the ~20 Tbps range for Starlink.
        Bluestrike2 7y ago
        I didn't see the link, but here's the presentation[0] I believe you're referring to. It estimates Starlink's max total system forward capacity at 23.7 Tbps. 0. http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-s...
studentrob 7y ago
EDIT: Sounds like this site's measurements for satellite internet are incorrect. Maybe HughesNet partners with fiber providers in some areas and therefore brings average speed down. We could use objective reporting of internet speeds in finer detail. Any ideas? Original comment: --HughesNet's average latency is now 62ms, 58 ms jitter,-- https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test --That's quite reasonable.--
- gonesilent 7y ago
  That is incorrect. Round trip is still 20k+ miles that is ping to ground station before it's sent to one of the sats. It will still be 600ms+
  - studentrob 7y ago
    That's unfortunate. Looks like we don't have an objective measurement of satellite internet speeds, then.
    - meritt 7y ago
      Sure we do, we have the laws of physics. HughesNet has geostationary satellites. They orbit at ~22,200 miles up. Assuming speed of light, it's going to take ~120ms per hop. There's a minimum of 4 hops (you -> satellite -> ground station -> satellite -> you), or 480ms. And that's assuming perfect conditions and ignoring the rest of the normal latency encountered online. It's physically impossible to have a latency lower than ~480ms with geostationary satellites.
      - studentrob 7y ago
        Color me skeptical that Starlink will reach its theoretical maximum capabilities, or that it is competitive with 5G. I'm fine with fiber until then. It's affordable in most of the world. The problem of broadband monopolies in the US is not going to be resolved by a new privately-owned technology. We should hold local politicians' feet to the fire, not throw money at new tech from a monorail salesman.
djsumdog 7y ago
I was going to ask, "Didn't HughesNet try this?" .. I didn't realize they were still around, although it does make sense for a lot of rural areas with limited broadband options.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Or RVs. Even chain stores use the service: easier to manage 1 big Hughes subscription instead of 500 or 5000 different local ISP contracts, each with their own quirks. LTE may have put a dent in that model though.
  - rizwank 7y ago
    LTE hasn’t made as much of a replacement in Home Broadband in rural as much as you’d think largely due to tower congestion. Cell site density is so low — plus deprioritization at 30/50gb. In addition you’ve usually got only 1-2 networks in deep rural. Source : I run an MVNO.
whoopdedo 7y ago
Customers of HughesNet know about latency but it's low on their list of concerns. The top three being data caps, price, and data caps.
twothamendment 7y ago
> All of them have been taught what latency is by having satellite internet. Yes, life is a great teacher. HughesNet sends me a post card every quarter or so. Sure I live in the middle of nowhere and would seeming be likely to want it. What makes me laugh is even the old people in the area who you'd think wouldn't know how to use a computer will warn friends, neighbors and community not to use them. They may not know the term latency, but they know that the quality of calls are poor and they know uploading videos from their phones takes way too long.

by jgowdy 7y ago

ethagknight 7y ago

You are correct, it’s more prevalent than I realized, but those people will most likely welcome Starlink with wide open arms.

adventured 7y ago
Starlink (and other similar systems that are hopeful to launch) are the real competitive threat that Google Fiber only partially lived up to being. It threatens the existing entrenched providers everywhere. They can't hide from it. They will have no choice but to respond. They face a scenario losing tens of millions of access customers over time to this approach. And the existing options are priced so high in the US, it provides a big fat margin opportunity for Starlink & Co. to target (and ride for the benefit of paying for the buildout). We had to go to space to route around the cable oligopoly, beyond their local crony jurisdictions.
- wmf 7y ago
  Nope, Starlink would be crushed by tens of millions of customers (mostly concentrated in major metro areas) in the US and those customers would switch right back to cable. The capacity isn't there.
  - adventured 7y ago
    Can you show me the definitive proof that Starlink (along with its competitors, who will plausibly also launch a vast number of satellites) can't support eg 20 million customers in the US over time? I'd be very interested in that demonstration of the limits on the market. Also can you support the premise that their customers would be concentrated in major metros, when the biggest beneficiaries will be outside of metros where broadband options are drastically worse (which is why the primary market for HughesNet the past two decades has not been concentrated in major metros). Access providers in metros can soundly compete with Starlink. They'll lower prices, increase speeds, improve bundles, etc. Their infrastructure and customers are already in place there, they won't just ignore Starlink, they'll compete. That heavily limits the upside potential for the Starlink concept in metros. It's everwhere else, mostly lacking any real broadband, that Starlink & Co will face minimal competition and will particularly lure customers. It's why HughesNet still has over a million customers today. I've seen a lot of people claim - with very little supporting evidence thus far - that the market is extremely limited due to capacity restraint. While you're proving out your claim, if you don't mind given that you've got a strong handle on the market ceiling, please provide what you believe to be the maximum subscriber potential for Starlink - and the approach in general - in the US over time.
    - wmf 7y ago
      I think Starlink is for rural customers and can't compete with decent wired broadband. You were the one who seems to be putting it against cable (which exists in the metros, not in rural areas). The MIT work linked in this thread calculates a total worldwide capacity in the ~20 Tbps range for Starlink.
      - Bluestrike2 7y ago
        I didn't see the link, but here's the presentation[0] I believe you're referring to. It estimates Starlink's max total system forward capacity at 23.7 Tbps. 0. http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-slides.pdf http://www.mit.edu/~portillo/files/Comparison-LEO-IAC-2018-s...

studentrob 7y ago

EDIT: Sounds like this site's measurements for satellite internet are incorrect. Maybe HughesNet partners with fiber providers in some areas and therefore brings average speed down. We could use objective reporting of internet speeds in finer detail. Any ideas? Original comment: --HughesNet's average latency is now 62ms, 58 ms jitter,-- https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test --That's quite reasonable.--

gonesilent 7y ago
That is incorrect. Round trip is still 20k+ miles that is ping to ground station before it's sent to one of the sats. It will still be 600ms+
- studentrob 7y ago
  That's unfortunate. Looks like we don't have an objective measurement of satellite internet speeds, then.
  - meritt 7y ago
    Sure we do, we have the laws of physics. HughesNet has geostationary satellites. They orbit at ~22,200 miles up. Assuming speed of light, it's going to take ~120ms per hop. There's a minimum of 4 hops (you -> satellite -> ground station -> satellite -> you), or 480ms. And that's assuming perfect conditions and ignoring the rest of the normal latency encountered online. It's physically impossible to have a latency lower than ~480ms with geostationary satellites.
    - studentrob 7y ago
      Color me skeptical that Starlink will reach its theoretical maximum capabilities, or that it is competitive with 5G. I'm fine with fiber until then. It's affordable in most of the world. The problem of broadband monopolies in the US is not going to be resolved by a new privately-owned technology. We should hold local politicians' feet to the fire, not throw money at new tech from a monorail salesman.

djsumdog 7y ago

I was going to ask, "Didn't HughesNet try this?" .. I didn't realize they were still around, although it does make sense for a lot of rural areas with limited broadband options.

Scoundreller 7y ago
Or RVs. Even chain stores use the service: easier to manage 1 big Hughes subscription instead of 500 or 5000 different local ISP contracts, each with their own quirks. LTE may have put a dent in that model though.
- rizwank 7y ago
  LTE hasn’t made as much of a replacement in Home Broadband in rural as much as you’d think largely due to tower congestion. Cell site density is so low — plus deprioritization at 30/50gb. In addition you’ve usually got only 1-2 networks in deep rural. Source : I run an MVNO.

whoopdedo 7y ago

Customers of HughesNet know about latency but it's low on their list of concerns. The top three being data caps, price, and data caps.

twothamendment 7y ago

> All of them have been taught what latency is by having satellite internet. Yes, life is a great teacher. HughesNet sends me a post card every quarter or so. Sure I live in the middle of nowhere and would seeming be likely to want it. What makes me laugh is even the old people in the area who you'd think wouldn't know how to use a computer will warn friends, neighbors and community not to use them. They may not know the term latency, but they know that the quality of calls are poor and they know uploading videos from their phones takes way too long.