4 ms·

Seems like SpaceX's Starlink will have no shortage of business. It seems like a no-brainer to use space as a backbone haul for inter-continent traffic vs. phys

by kjksf 7y ago

Seems like SpaceX's Starlink will have no shortage of business. It seems like a no-brainer to use space as a backbone haul for inter-continent traffic vs. physical cables. It might be slightly faster, it'll probably be cheaper, you can scale the bandwidth by deploying more (very cheap) satellites. Most of all, the traffic cannot be cut, spied on, you can spread access points in multiple locations (i.e. resiliency via distribution vs. single point of failure).

fastball 7y ago
Such satellites have firmware which presumably can be hacked.
schoen 7y ago
I don't think that the inability to spy on traffic is a typical benefit of satellites over fiber optic cables. :-( Spying on RF signals to and from satellites was a major Cold War activity. Governments spent a lot of money on it and got really good at it. You might say that satellite data is still safer than terrestrial cables because a particular adversary might not be present in the footprint of a particular satellite, but (1) they might be, because the equipment needed to intercept the downlink may be easy enough to conceal, and (2) satellite signals get intercepted in both directions, uplink and downlink. The one countersurveillance benefit that I can think of is in bypassing cable landing regulations that are used to require cable operators to give governments access to the data on their cables. While governments may also try to place licensing regulations on the use of satellite data services within their territory, it's a lot easier for individual end-users to evade or ignore those regulations than it would be for them to surreptitiously land a fiber-optic cable! However, governments will also have an easy time monitoring downlink signals in their territory so they may not lose much access compared to the cable landing license approach, depending on how the operators handle link encryption.
zozbot234 7y ago
There's no way that wireless links will ever be faster than backbone fiber - the whole notion makes very little sense. Starlink may be useful in other ways, of course.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  There's also no way that it won't have backbone fiber in that network. It's gotta cross connect with the rest of the internet at some point.
- pitaj 7y ago
  Wireless links could absolutely be faster than fiber links in latency. Unlikely they'll be faster in bandwidth though that's also possible if they are able to convince regulatory agencies that their beam-forming is good enough to allow them to use large swaths of bandwidth.
- ethbro 7y ago
  > There's no way that wireless links will ever be faster than backbone fiber - the whole notion makes very little sense. Why? Wireless signals propagate faster linearly than fiber signals, no? I don't have time to do napkin math, but if 2x orbital height + curvature path multiple < linear speed difference, wireless comes out ahead. From memory, I think this held true for transoceanic distances.
  - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
    So is the high latency reputation from satellite links just due to low end hardware on the satellite?
    - NOT_JON 7y ago
      Typical satellites are at geostationary orbit (35,786km). Starlink satellites will be at 340km/550km/1150km. Lower orbits = less latency, but require a lot more satellites to cover the same area.
    - jws 7y ago
      Traditional satellite internet providers used satellites in geosynchronous orbit (that whole “aiming your dish” thing). That’s a 270ms hop up and another back. Starlink is the other “not here yet” services are going to use low earth orbits for something like a 25-35ms latency to the satellite.
walrus01 7y ago
Starlink, Kuiper and Oneweb will be a significant improvement in $ per Mbps and throughput capacity over current options via C, Ku and Ka band geostationary VSAT terminals, for very remote and hard to reach locations. And for small users much more likely to be affordable for a CPE terminal and monthly service than the smallest service options available via o3b. It will not be a viable option to replace 80 x 100 Gbps DWDM wavelengths on submarine fiber cables.

by kjksf 7y ago

fastball 7y ago

Such satellites have firmware which presumably can be hacked.

schoen 7y ago

I don't think that the inability to spy on traffic is a typical benefit of satellites over fiber optic cables. :-( Spying on RF signals to and from satellites was a major Cold War activity. Governments spent a lot of money on it and got really good at it. You might say that satellite data is still safer than terrestrial cables because a particular adversary might not be present in the footprint of a particular satellite, but (1) they might be, because the equipment needed to intercept the downlink may be easy enough to conceal, and (2) satellite signals get intercepted in both directions, uplink and downlink. The one countersurveillance benefit that I can think of is in bypassing cable landing regulations that are used to require cable operators to give governments access to the data on their cables. While governments may also try to place licensing regulations on the use of satellite data services within their territory, it's a lot easier for individual end-users to evade or ignore those regulations than it would be for them to surreptitiously land a fiber-optic cable! However, governments will also have an easy time monitoring downlink signals in their territory so they may not lose much access compared to the cable landing license approach, depending on how the operators handle link encryption.

zozbot234 7y ago

There's no way that wireless links will ever be faster than backbone fiber - the whole notion makes very little sense. Starlink may be useful in other ways, of course.

jethro_tell 7y ago
There's also no way that it won't have backbone fiber in that network. It's gotta cross connect with the rest of the internet at some point.
pitaj 7y ago
Wireless links could absolutely be faster than fiber links in latency. Unlikely they'll be faster in bandwidth though that's also possible if they are able to convince regulatory agencies that their beam-forming is good enough to allow them to use large swaths of bandwidth.
ethbro 7y ago
> There's no way that wireless links will ever be faster than backbone fiber - the whole notion makes very little sense. Why? Wireless signals propagate faster linearly than fiber signals, no? I don't have time to do napkin math, but if 2x orbital height + curvature path multiple < linear speed difference, wireless comes out ahead. From memory, I think this held true for transoceanic distances.
- LMYahooTFY 7y ago
  So is the high latency reputation from satellite links just due to low end hardware on the satellite?
  - NOT_JON 7y ago
    Typical satellites are at geostationary orbit (35,786km). Starlink satellites will be at 340km/550km/1150km. Lower orbits = less latency, but require a lot more satellites to cover the same area.
  - jws 7y ago
    Traditional satellite internet providers used satellites in geosynchronous orbit (that whole “aiming your dish” thing). That’s a 270ms hop up and another back. Starlink is the other “not here yet” services are going to use low earth orbits for something like a 25-35ms latency to the satellite.

walrus01 7y ago

Starlink, Kuiper and Oneweb will be a significant improvement in $ per Mbps and throughput capacity over current options via C, Ku and Ka band geostationary VSAT terminals, for very remote and hard to reach locations. And for small users much more likely to be affordable for a CPE terminal and monthly service than the smallest service options available via o3b. It will not be a viable option to replace 80 x 100 Gbps DWDM wavelengths on submarine fiber cables.