3 ms·
That, and latency. Or has that improved in the last decade?
by colejohnson66 4y ago
That, and latency. Or has that improved in the last decade?
- Dylan16807 4y agoI wouldn't care about 40ms of latency for my phone. If by "last decade" you're comparing against geostationary, then yes. The satellites are roughly a hundred times closer.
- deepdriver 4y agoStarlink latency is somewhere around 50ms on average according to friends, more than adequate for e.g. online multiplayer first-person shooters.
- Faark 4y agoSounds about right. Here are some other stats, in case someone wants sth more authoritative than someones friends: https://www.ookla.com/articles/starlink-hughesnet-viasat-performance-q2-2021 https://www.ookla.com/articles/starlink-hughesnet-viasat-per...
- smoldesu 4y agoStarlink gets 40-150ms, more often erring on the faster side. If they can get their peak load under control, I don't think I'd ever pine for hardwired internet again.
- krisoft 4y ago> Or has that improved in the last decade? Yes. Starlink satelites are at low earth orbit, much much closer than the geosyncronous orbits communication satelites a decade ago had to be at. Distance is latency because the radio waves can “only” propagate at the speed of light. The shorter the trip the faster the signals can make it.
- PeterisP 4y agoLatency is big issue for geostationary satellites - the ones at which you can aim a dish at a fixed point in the sky - which have to be very far away from Earth to be geostationary, 35000 km above surface, unlike Starlink satellites which are just 550km above ground.
- AtlasBarfed 4y agoJust to underline the point, starlink satellites are two orders of magnitude closer, and far more numerous.