Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [Forbes] SpaceX Launches First Starlink Satellites In Space Internet Battle Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-06-2019 04:24 PM
UltraMega
Quote: Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post
Then it would seem we've fallen victim to a common problem on forums, which is the tendency to view supporting viewpoints emphasizing different aspects of the discussion as opposing.
I oppose your comment!
06-06-2019 12:26 PM
Mand12 Then it would seem we've fallen victim to a common problem on forums, which is the tendency to view supporting viewpoints emphasizing different aspects of the discussion as opposing.
06-06-2019 12:05 PM
ToTheSun!
Quote: Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post
But they are the primary market for these satellites. It isn't aimed at improving gigabit FTTH, it's about providing internet service literally anywhere on the planet. You don't care if your emails are 10% slower than in a city if the alternative is not receiving them at all.

As far as latency goes, yes, short-range dedicated connections to the sorts of datacenters that powerusers like us care about likely aren't going to be replaced by satellites. It's STILL cheaper to make those connections in the ground (or undersea) rather than in space. It's why Facebook is building their own brand new personal cross-Atlantic optical cable, to reduce latency between its NA and EU datacenters so that updates to your Facebook page are spread globally within ever-fewer microseconds (Why, I'm still not sure, but hey, it's their couple hundred million bucks to spend, I guess).

It's still important to understand the physical layers of our networks though, which is why I'm here commenting at all. Lots of discussion about latency with little engineering basis, and some gross oversimplifications of the colossally complex and inefficient beast that is the modern telecom network.
This is my second comment on this thread, btw: "I don't think the point of this is to replace latency sensitive, high-bandwidth communications. For everything else, this will be fantastic."
06-06-2019 12:04 PM
skupples does this mean we'll finally have definitive proof of a roundish globe shaped flat earth?
06-06-2019 11:57 AM
Mand12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
Ok, but those are not the ones we've been contemplating.
But they are the primary market for these satellites. It isn't aimed at improving gigabit FTTH, it's about providing internet service literally anywhere on the planet. You don't care if your emails are 10% slower than in a city if the alternative is not receiving them at all.

As far as latency goes, yes, short-range dedicated connections to the sorts of datacenters that powerusers like us care about likely aren't going to be replaced by satellites. It's STILL cheaper to make those connections in the ground (or undersea) rather than in space. It's why Facebook is building their own brand new personal cross-Atlantic optical cable, to reduce latency between its NA and EU datacenters so that updates to your Facebook page are spread globally within ever-fewer microseconds (Why, I'm still not sure, but hey, it's their couple hundred million bucks to spend, I guess).

It's still important to understand the physical layers of our networks though, which is why I'm here commenting at all. Lots of discussion about latency with little engineering basis, and some gross oversimplifications of the colossally complex and inefficient beast that is the modern telecom network.
06-06-2019 10:53 AM
ToTheSun!
Quote: Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post
Most connections aren't latency-sensitive, though.
Ok, but those are not the ones we've been contemplating.
06-06-2019 10:33 AM
Mand12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
I'm in Europe. I'm pretty sure latency-sensitive connections inside this continent do NOT go through the US, ever. A simple traceroute is enough to confirm this.
Most connections aren't latency-sensitive, though.
06-06-2019 08:43 AM
ToTheSun!
Quote: Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post
You're assuming ground-based fiber optic cables go straight, and that the route uses the shortest path. Those are not valid assumptions.

90% of global internet traffic ends up going through the US. You send an email from LA to San Francisco, and there's a decent chance it routes through Chicago. The internet is full of these detours, and they're constantly shifting and changing as the networks seek to balance loads and compensate for problems.
I'm in Europe. I'm pretty sure latency-sensitive connections inside this continent do NOT go through the US, ever. A simple traceroute is enough to confirm this.
06-06-2019 08:27 AM
Mand12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
Exactly. So, hypothetically speaking, this will only beat fiber in latency if a connection is established at a long enough distance.
You're assuming ground-based fiber optic cables go straight, and that the route uses the shortest path. Those are not valid assumptions.

90% of global internet traffic ends up going through the US. You send an email from LA to San Francisco, and there's a decent chance it routes through Chicago. The internet is full of these detours, and they're constantly shifting and changing as the networks seek to balance loads and compensate for problems.
06-05-2019 11:36 AM
UltraMega
Quote: Originally Posted by Blze001 View Post
And you don't realize how much of an impact these "primitive" ground-based scopes have on astronomy, not everyone can afford time with the Hubble or it's replacement. Or the cost of upgrading an entire observatory. Or how little funding observatories get because we live in a "eff science, if this doesn't make me money next quarter, it's useless" society.

He's in support of increasing internet access and thinks it's a net benefit, but he is lamenting what thousands of satellites overhead could do for ground-based observations.
There are already thousands of satellites in orbit and they are generally much bigger than star link satellites.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off