3 ms·

> Signals from space have to travel a long way, so the connection is slower than earth-bound internet options. But in unserved places, it's better than nothing.

> Signals from space have to travel a long way, so the connection is slower than earth-bound internet options. But in unserved places, it's better than nothing. Is this true for LEO projects such as Starlink and OneWeb? I thought the latency characteristics were much more reasonable there. Or is this speaking about bandwidth? The wording is a bit vague.

whatshisface 7y ago
The Wikipedia article for Starlink says 35ms ping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...
manigandham 7y ago
No, LEO satellite meshes can be faster than terrestrial options. Light travels faster in a vacuum than fiber optic cables.
gopalv 7y ago
> I thought the latency characteristics were much more reasonable there London to NY via space should be faster than through the ocean fiber, though it won't have a steady RTT over minutes, as the satellites pass overhead. Look at fig 7 on [1]. [1] = http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf
rsynnott 7y ago
I think they mean latency, which is less of a problem, though still not good, for hypothetical LEO solutions. Bandwidth, however, will remain a problem.
mabbo 7y ago
I think the author is remembering 15 years ago when the first satellite internet companies existed. I remember trying to play Warcraft 3 at a friend's house in the country and having 2-3 second pings. Those companies were using Geosynchronous satellites so that dishes could point at a single spot in the sky. Unfortunately, geosynchronous orbit is at a height of 35,786 km. That means almost 120ms just to reach the satellite, plus another 120ms to get the signal back down to earth, then your request hitting the real internet and another 240ms to get back to you over the same two satellite hops. SpaceX's Starlink will be <1000 km up in low earth orbit, so somewhere under 5ms away at speed of light. For any transmission across an ocean, Starlink will be much faster (so you just know high speed trading companies will be big customers). How much bandwidth it offers remains to be seen.

whatshisface 7y ago

The Wikipedia article for Starlink says 35ms ping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...

manigandham 7y ago

No, LEO satellite meshes can be faster than terrestrial options. Light travels faster in a vacuum than fiber optic cables.

gopalv 7y ago

> I thought the latency characteristics were much more reasonable there London to NY via space should be faster than through the ocean fiber, though it won't have a steady RTT over minutes, as the satellites pass overhead. Look at fig 7 on [1]. [1] = http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf

rsynnott 7y ago

I think they mean latency, which is less of a problem, though still not good, for hypothetical LEO solutions. Bandwidth, however, will remain a problem.

mabbo 7y ago

I think the author is remembering 15 years ago when the first satellite internet companies existed. I remember trying to play Warcraft 3 at a friend's house in the country and having 2-3 second pings. Those companies were using Geosynchronous satellites so that dishes could point at a single spot in the sky. Unfortunately, geosynchronous orbit is at a height of 35,786 km. That means almost 120ms just to reach the satellite, plus another 120ms to get the signal back down to earth, then your request hitting the real internet and another 240ms to get back to you over the same two satellite hops. SpaceX's Starlink will be <1000 km up in low earth orbit, so somewhere under 5ms away at speed of light. For any transmission across an ocean, Starlink will be much faster (so you just know high speed trading companies will be big customers). How much bandwidth it offers remains to be seen.