111–120 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arbitrage between multiple exchanges requires data to go from exchange A to exchange B as fast as possible. Light in vacuum is faster than light in fiber.
Light in vacuum is only faster if it goes in a straight line from point A to B, not if it zig-zags across 50 satellites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Count yourself lucky you don't live in either South America, Africa or Asia, where +100ms latency is more common than not. Fortunately I can count on one hand the applications that don't work with +100ms latency (not counting gaming). Usually it's the fault of the application developers (or rather the infrastructure team) where they put too low timeouts for requests rather than letting the requests go for a bit longe…
> Fortunately I can count on one hand the applications that don't work with +100ms latency (not counting gaming). Pardon my ignorance, but what are some exampes of applications that wouldn’t work with +100 latency?
Last time I mentioned latency all the fanboys squealed about how latency isn’t a problem any more with low orbit satellites. Whatever.
Just as a heads up, you'll be downvoted, not because you're mentioning latency, but because your comment is low effort and basically complaining about discussions in a place where discussions are kind of the point. Is there any new information about latency since before that you want to expand on?
This is only a few Mbps slower than my Fibre-to-the-Cabinet broadband in the UK provides. And I'm living in a town; plenty of rural areas are much slower.
Wait till the service is massively over subscribed and get back to me.
With any luck Starlink operators (Elon Musk?) won't let that happen, but it does tend to be the way of things.
Additions, the unintended consequences haven't revealed themselves fully yet.
One thing I personally dislike about electricity, cable internet, and fibre optic, is what they do to the visual appeal of the built environs. Could be underground, but only areas missed that boat.
Not saying the trade-offs, if any, won't be worth it though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question - why is it a given that there will be latency issues? It looks like the satellites are only ~350 miles, or a little less than 2 light-milliseconds, from Earth's surface.
The issue is with overall latency. User -> Satellite -> multiple hops between satellites (as they are orbiting earth and the right one has to be selected to relay data to -> earth DNS servers -> multiple hops across internet -> satellite -> user Additional latency is introduced due to satellites and the grid between the satellites, as well as complications from rotation of satellites.
All of that in general is comparable to the costs incurred on the ground from any other kind of network.
> complications from rotation of satellites
As far as a single routed packet is concerned, the satellites are stationary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Light in vacuum is only faster if it goes in a straight line from point A to B, not if it zig-zags across 50 satellites.
How could zigzagging through fiber be faster thaz zigzagging through vacuum? You still need to cross nearly the same distance with fiber.
The satellite mesh is not, a straight line from point A to point B is not possible most of the time, given the number of satellites available and range of laser communication in space.
Fantastic. I'm keenly curious on how this will work with national regulations. Having a single global ISP is very attractive on the surface and that's with the huge caveat on monopoly, but as an additional option. I'm just not sure how this will interact with some nations' policy/restrictions. Looking at this aspect very much.
If countries require permission to use slices of radio spectrum over their territory (I don't know to what extent), then they can control whether a radio service operates there. Does this usually apply to space-based operations? I would guess there must be minimal coordination, or otherwise anyone space-based could degrade the infrastructure of countries in line of sight. If such regulation exists, then satellite int…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a heads up, you'll be downvoted, not because you're mentioning latency, but because your comment is low effort and basically complaining about discussions in a place where discussions are kind of the point. Is there any new information about latency since before that you want to expand on?
Cause with satellite is ALL about latency. It’s THE topic. Most comments here will reference it. It’s a critical issue. It doesn’t go away.
At 550k off the deck, my house to Los Angeles isn't that much closer via satellites link that terrestrial fibre, maybe a few hundred kilometres.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30-100ms is better than I feared, and should be generally reasonable for most uses.
30 is really good actually. At least for what I’m used to.