Amazon proposes satellite internet system

[jim1521]

Originally Posted by Dav L

I don't know the specifics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Sat communications are buffered to put the data packets "in line" so the Sat bandwidth is 100% utilized. So, the time lag isn't just the distance issue. More about waiting for the next data train to arrive.

You wouldn't be able to do that with voice or video traffic. The buffering would make a call or video unusable.


Traffic protocols already take packet reassembly into account, so there would be not need for buffering.

[Dav L]

This is on the fringe of my background...but video and voice / music is always buffered (cached). Especially in my low speed DSL connection :(
Now, IP protocols inherently might "pack the train" but to me this is just a concept.

[Johninar]

Many applications buffer data, with voice you can't wait for a missed packet to be retransmitted, so if you missed a packet generally you just go on. With data transfers you can pipeline data and if you don't miss anything in that block you really gain performance. You guys are bringing back memories that I have been trying to forget. Like explaining to someone in Europe why an application based and run in San Jose just doesn't work right when you introduce an extra 60~100ms of latency. Sat latency just kills VPNs LOL.
In a previous life I would capture packets by the millions and look for the culprit. I heard "your network is slow" many times. Not once did someone say "our crappy application is running slow".
Our motto was "Fixing the network one misconfigured server at a time".

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by msturtz

The old VSAT systems did have roughly a 2500 millisecond time delay round trip. It is true that light speed is about 186,000 miles per second. The delay was in the limited number of ground stations, slow processing speed, limited head end bandwidth, shared up and downlink channels, and so on. Remember at the time all, the traffic was on the same shared channel just like Wi-Fi. The new modern systems are much better.

My HughesNET Gen 5 system has an average latency of between 600 - 800 ms.

I haven't seen a discernible difference between this large delay and the typical 30 ms delay of my 4G LTE. Only problem occurs when I try VOIP over HughesNET.

Otherwise, streaming audio/video isn't a problem as none of the protocols are ACK-NAK based.

[docj]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

My HughesNET Gen 5 system has an average latency of between 600 - 800 ms.

We had Hughesnet Gen4 (the older system) for ~8 years and the ping times were always ~800-1000 msec. With all due respect, claims that they were in the 2,500 msec range are simply incorrect. Maybe, it seemed as if the system response took that long, the the actual ping time was much shorter than that.

The ping time for a satellite in geosynchronous orbit over the equator is largely due to speed of light issues going to and from the satellite. Ground station processing times are small by comparison. The satellite sits >22,000 miles above the surface of the Earth and the "slant angle" from North America to the equator makes the real distance at least twice that. So a roundtrip to the satellite to the ground station and back is on the order of >80,000 miles which amount for ~400 msec of ping before any other signal processing is included. That's why satellites in low earth orbit are so attractive in concept.

Ping times that long make it difficult to perform real-time, interactive tasks such as gaming or video conferencing. Hughesnet advertises that it has some feature that makes VoIP easier, but I don't see how you can do much about the intrinsic delay.

[Dav L]

many years ago I had Hughes Sat / modem system where the Internet requests went out the telephone modem and the response came down the sat link. Certainly lots of lag and limited bandwidth but innovative. Then DSL was available which is what I use now. Neighbors are petitioning to get Cable strung down our private road...hopefully all are on board and the cable company agrees.

[doc]

docj will likely know about this and much more than me for sure. We just switched to Dish (and it is not nearly as friendly as Direct was) The installer was telling me something about Dish was considering some sort of communication via cell type towers for internet and TV. I cannot imagine how that will work or if it is even true.
I guess if we can send video on a cell phone, we ought to be able to send a TV signal in a similar manner as well as text and streaming.

I hope we don't see a forest of cell towers all over the nation.

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by docj

We had Hughesnet Gen4 (the older system) for ~8 years . . .

Since HughesNET Gen 4 was introduced in 2012, you didn't have it. You probably had Direcway which was introduced in 2002. Comparisons between the old Direcway and current Gen 5 systems would be like comparing dial-up modems to modern WiFi hotspots.

As far as I can tell, the HughesNET "Gens" go like so . . .

1996 DirecPC - Ku band - max speed 1 Mbps ???
2002 Direcway - Ku band - max speed 4 Mbps. Still available.
2012 Gen 4 - Ka band ("spot beamed") - max speed 15 Mbps
2017 Gen 5 - Ka band ("spot beamed") - max speed 25 Mbps

[Dav L]

Originally Posted by doc

docj will likely know about this and much more than me for sure. We just switched to Dish (and it is not nearly as friendly as Direct was) The installer was telling me something about Dish was considering some sort of communication via cell type towers for internet and TV. I cannot imagine how that will work or if it is even true.
I guess if we can send video on a cell phone, we ought to be able to send a TV signal in a similar manner as well as text and streaming.

I hope we don't see a forest of cell towers all over the nation.

I am guessing dish is talking about "5G" which WILL create a lot more cell towers. Rollout has already started in some major cities.
DirecTV streams much of it's content via Internet now. I assume Dish does as well.

"As far as I can tell, the HughesNET "Gens" go like so . . .

1996 DirecPC - Ku band - max speed 1 Mbps ???"

Yup, I had DirecPC...slow but interesting technology.

[BirchyBoy]

If it works AND it provides current broadband speeds in both directions AND it will not be a metered connection AND Amazon won’t monitor traffic for advertising purposes AND my wife says OK I may give it a try.

My biggest complaint with current broadband is its tied to a house. I know that cell phones can work that way (I use my T-Mobile phone as a hotspot), but this could be a game changer and force some real competition into the marketplace.

[docj]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

Since HughesNET Gen 4 was introduced in 2012, you didn't have it. You probably had Direcway which was introduced in 2002. Comparisons between the old Direcway and current Gen 5 systems would be like comparing dial-up modems to modern WiFi hotspots.

With all due respect, the speed of light hasn't changed one iota regardless of whether or not Hughesnet has improved its systems. Therefore, my comments about the intrinsic delays caused by the transit time to and from a geosynchronous satellite are just as valid for Gen 5 as they were for the Direcway system. That's why the ping time for a system based on geosynchronous satellite will always be ~>500 msec. I made no other comparison between the older and newer systems.

[mailfored1]

Maybe someday..."Fog parts...harp playing..." Amazon is working on Project Kuiper, which would put 3,236 satellites into orbit to provide high-speed internet to any point on the globe. I hope we all live long enough...

[bbyphatt]

If they do I'm buying in....

[desuhu]

Isn't that always the way it is? Investors in new start-ups that fail end up with nothing and the big shots just keep getting richer.