Yet Another Attempt At Satellite Internet Access
from the don't-get-too-excited dept
Every few years or so, the press gets excited about the possibility of internet access via satellite. Of course, internet access by satellite has been available for years, but it gets little usage, mainly because it's awful. As we discussed a few years back, such offerings almost never live up to their promised bandwidth claims, and always fail to discuss latency. Most people like to focus on bandwidth, but if the latency sucks, then the bandwidth doesn't matter. And, of course, the problem with satellite-based internet is that the latency always sucks, due to the distance. So, before people get too excited about the news of Japan launching a "super high-speed internet access" satellite, read someone like Tom Evslin explaining why latency problems will make it not particularly useful for most internet activities.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hah!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It has it's uses...
The newsgroup info was fed at a constant 2 MB with the catch that you had to run your own local news server (which they provided you with the software and support to do so).
You would then point your news reader to localhost and you could download warez, mp3s, porn, etc. at (for the time) unbelievable speeds.
You still had to pay for a dial up account, you still had to dial in to be able to do much of anything (except newsgroups!) online, so it ended up being pretty expensive and you were limited to what times of day and what days of the week you could be online without paying a premium...
I guess on second thought, it *DID* suck.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Latency
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Latency
Seems like a huge gain to me:
0.015ms vs 240ms
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Latency
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Latency
Remember the round trip of every transaction is 22,500 miles x 4. Up/Down to connect then Up/Down to return.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Latency
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
sat internet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Is latency that big a deal breaker?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is latency that big a deal breaker?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is latency that big a deal breaker?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I use a satellite connection...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellular High Speed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Latency nor a problem for video
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
My parents use HughesNet
All in all, it's not bad. It's expensive, but now that they don't have to pay for Satellite TV (they use the internet) the cost pretty much evens out. They are also so far out they can't get Cable...so for being their only option I'm pretty sure they are satisfied. Hell of a lot better than the crappy 56k!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Satellite is evolving...
We've tried a company called Tachyon who offers guaranteed QoS with their satellite solution and I can vouch for the fact that we're able to do it all - including VoIP over satellite.
Granted, not really consumer-class but definitely a viable solution when no other options exist.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
caution to the critic
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Satellite Internet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
have WildBlue Broadband Satellite
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment