4 ms·

Latency will restrict it to niche use cases, the most likely of which is probably #4. No Great Firewall can stop this, unless it morphs into a Great Faraday Dom

Latency will restrict it to niche use cases, the most likely of which is probably #4. No Great Firewall can stop this, unless it morphs into a Great Faraday Dome. I assume public transportation wouldn't be practical because of the costs of keeping a dish pointed in the right direction when in motion. Edit: expanded concept.

sangnoir 7y ago
> No Great Firewall can stop this[...] True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking… [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_of_ASATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      >The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
      - sangnoir 7y ago
        I'm sorry, but this is getting too abstract for me: China will not fight a war of attrition against Apple, Inc. over internet satellites. Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)
sitkack 7y ago
Could you explain how you come up with your increased latency numbers vs ground based fiber? 1000 miles is about 5ms.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Satellite Internet has always been plagued by high latency, in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, plus slow uplinks and generally high costs. Unless of course I missed some new development, which I think is unlikely because it would have made big news everywhere. Tons of Apple money can solve the cost and speed problems, probably something can also be done about latency by keeping everything in house therefore reducing the number of hops, but IMO it would still be too much say for online gaming, and barely usable for realtime VoIP.
  - dx87 7y ago
    If they're doing LEO satellites like SpaceX, the latency is typically under 100ms. The super high latency satellite internet is from satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
- ksec 7y ago
  Even the best case LEO satellites adds tens or close to hundreds of ms to latency. In the days of 5G where everyone is working tirelessly to get rid of the last 5 - 10ms in their system, I hardly see this to be an improvement.
  - sitkack 7y ago
    Neither one of the responses showed the math where the supposed increase in latency comes from. The current application latency is already dominated by server response time within the geographic region serving the application. The phrase "get rid of the last 5 - 10ms" doesn't make sense, and in those regimes, it is mostly isolated to HFT.

sangnoir 7y ago

> No Great Firewall can stop this[...] True, but the great Surface-to-Space anti-satellite missile can, and China has very publicly demonstrated this capability. So Apple will still have to comply with onerous request from some space-faring nation's.

cinquemb 7y ago
And if said missiles is greater in cost (manufacture/maintenance/launch) than the satellites (manufacture/maintenance/launch)? I'm thinking there are much more cost effective[0] ways to go about such possible ends any given space-faring nation may be seeking… [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_of_ASATs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_missile#Limits_...
- sangnoir 7y ago
  The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. Rather, what matters is the "cost" of someone poking holes in the Great Firewall (which itself cost(s) no small amount). What price would China pay to maintain "social cohesion"? My guess is "a lot", especially if they are setting a public example. The mere threat to destroy a hostile satellite would likely be enough to activate censorship, if economic incentives have failed. Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    >The cost of a target is immaterial to the cost of weapon. With thinking like this, this is how one looses in the game of attrition warfare (setting aside the technical difficulties shooting down satellites that are trying to active evade such, rather than some boisterous demo on one that isn't). If the Chinese can't maintain "social cohesion" at a cheap of enough cost, it would be only be ruinous in the long run. "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu >Alternatively, they could insist that all ground control stations be based in China, with Chinese "partner" firms before the service gets off the ground Well this certainly sounds like a cheaper alternative that seems way more sustainable and wont be as burdensome on the resources of a population. However, any ground station that has LOS into china from outside its borders) and powered high enough would evade such, then we're talking about the cat and mouse game of trying to impede beam paths. Maybe they'd have to purse something on the device level via the manufactures to block such things.
    - sangnoir 7y ago
      I'm sorry, but this is getting too abstract for me: China will not fight a war of attrition against Apple, Inc. over internet satellites. Just like the US or Russia, or any other major power, China does not need to play a game of cat and mouse over an entity acting in a way perceived as harmful to its populace. I'd like to think they are able to perform attribution, and have a range of options on how to apply pressure (diplomatic, financial / economic, or electronic - remember N. Korea vs Sony Films?)

sitkack 7y ago

Could you explain how you come up with your increased latency numbers vs ground based fiber? 1000 miles is about 5ms.

squarefoot 7y ago
Satellite Internet has always been plagued by high latency, in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, plus slow uplinks and generally high costs. Unless of course I missed some new development, which I think is unlikely because it would have made big news everywhere. Tons of Apple money can solve the cost and speed problems, probably something can also be done about latency by keeping everything in house therefore reducing the number of hops, but IMO it would still be too much say for online gaming, and barely usable for realtime VoIP.
- dx87 7y ago
  If they're doing LEO satellites like SpaceX, the latency is typically under 100ms. The super high latency satellite internet is from satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
ksec 7y ago
Even the best case LEO satellites adds tens or close to hundreds of ms to latency. In the days of 5G where everyone is working tirelessly to get rid of the last 5 - 10ms in their system, I hardly see this to be an improvement.
- sitkack 7y ago
  Neither one of the responses showed the math where the supposed increase in latency comes from. The current application latency is already dominated by server response time within the geographic region serving the application. The phrase "get rid of the last 5 - 10ms" doesn't make sense, and in those regimes, it is mostly isolated to HFT.