• Google attempts to do what the dot.com companies of the 90s bankrupted doing: Spreading internet acc
    26 replies, posted
[quote]It is too soon to say whether Google's balloons, drones, or satellites will successfully expand internet access to the parts of the world without it. Whichever works, it is clear that Google is willing to go to the edge of space and beyond to spread the internet beyond the terrestrial tyranny of tubes. [img]http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/article_image_large/public/pose%20fm2%20sur%20dispenser_039.jpg?itok=mQLIKkGq[/img][/quote] Estimated cost of $1 billion. Doesn't sound too bad for Google. [url]http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/google-will-deploy-1-billion-worth-satellites-spread-internet-access?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=7&con=google-will-deploy-1-billion-worth-of-satellites-to-spread-internet-access[/url]
The kicker is that satellite development and deployment technology is lightyears ahead of what it was in the 90's. It cost so much money per mbit to operate.
This is one of the benefits of having large corporate powerhouses with tech interests like google. 'course, I just hope they continue to be a good company as they grow.
Yeah, considering Google has essentially got liquid gold for blood, I'd say they could probably pull this off. Probably won't be immune to the cyber-terrorist cartels that constantly throttle American bandwidth for no valid or acceptable reason, and won't offset the nature of Google as a corporate superpower, but it's still a cool infrastructure that goes beyond fibres an' shit. That said however, I imagine satellite internet would be adversely affected by space weather (solar flares and stuff).
I have a satellite ISP due to living in the middle of nowhere, and ping is pretty bad. The terrible service is most likely due to the provider, Hughes Network Systems, but our service is advertised as like 3mbps, and is generally about about 1.5 for the first week of the month, and then sub-dial up speed the other 3 weeks. Satellite internet sounds nice and it's cool technology, but practically there are latency issues and other problems with the concept.
[QUOTE=Groat;45030873]I have a satellite ISP due to living in the middle of nowhere, and ping is pretty bad. The terrible service is most likely due to the provider, Hughes Network Systems, but our service is advertised as like 3mbps, and is generally about about 1.5 for the first week of the month, and then sub-dial up speed the other 3 weeks. Satellite internet sounds nice and it's cool technology, but practically there are latency issues and other problems with the concept.[/QUOTE] You're running on the remains of the older 90's network which was a money pit of a failure. In theory these new satellites will overcome the shortfalls current satellite internet has.
Satellite internet is going to inherently have bad latency, but hopefully in the future it will be more reliable and faster.
It's gonna have bad latency, but I dont think it's intended for video gaming on
I this would be more for people who need the Internet for the basics, not hardcore download enthusiast and gamers
This is mainly to spread the internet to countries or large areas with no internet access. Not for the average American consumer.
[QUOTE=Groat;45030873]I have a satellite ISP due to living in the middle of nowhere, and ping is pretty bad. The terrible service is most likely due to the provider, Hughes Network Systems, but our service is advertised as like 3mbps, and is generally about about 1.5 for the first week of the month, and then sub-dial up speed the other 3 weeks. Satellite internet sounds nice and it's cool technology, but practically there are latency issues and other problems with the concept.[/QUOTE] The problem is with the technology, not the provider. The way that satellite internet works is that the satellite link is effectively one way and acts as your download link. To upload data back to the internet, you use dialup, which is where the biggest bottleneck is. You could have a 7000 gbit download link but still be lagged to hell because dialup is bottlenecking the hell out of the connection. The latency issue is partially because of the dialup, but it's also caused by the satellite link itself. The satellite link usually has a large token bucket (packet buffer) that must be completely full of data before it's bursted down to you. While this is fine for just basic web use, it's terrible for games that rely on realtime packet transmission. You'll actually get better ping in games if you use dialup only since it removes the token bucket from the internet connection.
This is such a huge thing for my University for example. We're on vessels quite a lot, faster internet on the ship or in the field would be awesome.
Who cares about ping. As long as actual transfer speed is decent this is great. Many middle of nowheres need decent internet.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45032941]Who cares about ping. As long as actual transfer speed is decent this is great. Many middle of nowheres need decent internet.[/QUOTE] Because downstream bandwidth is directly tied to latency, as the latency increases the usable bandwidth decreases.
I remember when I had to have satellite internet because there was no network in my street. *shudder* 80 - 120 ping on local servers, and 10gb of data a month.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45030912]Satellite internet is going to inherently have bad latency, but hopefully in the future it will be more reliable and faster.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45032285]It's gonna have bad latency, but I dont think it's intended for video gaming on[/QUOTE] There's no actual reason why modern satellites in low orbit would have significantly higher latency than cables provided the coverage is decent enough, so saying it will have inherently bad latency is simply not true.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;45033026]There's no actual reason why modern satellites in low orbit would have significantly higher latency than cables provided the coverage is decent enough, so saying it will have inherently bad latency is simply not true.[/QUOTE] Satellites don't continously transmit data.
[QUOTE=Ogris;45033213]Satellites don't continously transmit data.[/QUOTE] It does, I already did that with multiple satellites in KSP. The satellite have to follow the Earth's turning speed in a much greater distance, bit further off from GPS or as close as them.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45032538]The problem is with the technology, not the provider. The way that satellite internet works is that the satellite link is effectively one way and acts as your download link. To upload data back to the internet, you use dialup, which is where the biggest bottleneck is. You could have a 7000 gbit download link but still be lagged to hell because dialup is bottlenecking the hell out of the connection. The latency issue is partially because of the dialup, but it's also caused by the satellite link itself. The satellite link usually has a large token bucket (packet buffer) that must be completely full of data before it's bursted down to you. While this is fine for just basic web use, it's terrible for games that rely on realtime packet transmission. You'll actually get better ping in games if you use dialup only since it removes the token bucket from the internet connection.[/QUOTE] Depending on how Hughes has is set up. My grandparents had WildBlue, and it was all two-way satellite, with no dial-up uplink. The latency is probably even worse though, because you still have to wait the uplink, and then the downlink. A simple ping packet was 2 seconds guaranteed. Playing Halo PC online has hilarious though. [editline]8th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Re1nhardt;45033002]I remember when I had to have satellite internet because there was no network in my street. *shudder* 80 - 120 ping on local servers, and 10gb of data a month.[/QUOTE] Uh, I'm pretty sure you didn't have satellite. 80-120 ms is astounding. Like breaking physics good. I don't believe you had satellite internet in the same way we are talking about. You probably have a mobile wireless based system, which normally has that ping. Satellite usually has latency around at least 1000 ms just to go out and back, not including the actual routing over the internet process.
[QUOTE=ironman17;45030517]Yeah, considering Google has essentially got liquid gold for blood, I'd say they could probably pull this off. Probably won't be immune to the cyber-terrorist cartels that constantly throttle American bandwidth for no valid or acceptable reason, and won't offset the nature of Google as a corporate superpower, but it's still a cool infrastructure that goes beyond fibres an' shit. That said however, I imagine satellite internet would be adversely affected by space weather (solar flares and stuff).[/QUOTE] Hell, it would be affected by terrestrial weather, let alone solar flares.
That's one of the main barriers between us and advanced space-gubbins, isn't it? Fucking weather, not only does it delay shuttle launches, but it can disrupt space-to-earth communications. Well, let's hope future space tech is better suited to saying fuck off to stormclouds.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;45032984]Because downstream bandwidth is directly tied to latency, as the latency increases the usable bandwidth decreases.[/QUOTE] The point is bad internet > no internet. Unless it is very overpriced.
[QUOTE=Demache;45034786]Uh, I'm pretty sure you didn't have satellite. 80-120 ms is astounding. Like breaking physics good. I don't believe you had satellite internet in the same way we are talking about. You probably have a mobile wireless based system, which normally has that ping. Satellite usually has latency around at least 1000 ms just to go out and back, not including the actual routing over the internet process.[/QUOTE] Once again, this is not true. Signals travelling at the speed of light can make it out to low earth orbit and back in well under 10ms, provided the technology is good enough and the satellites are somewhat close to being overhead (which is why sufficient coverage is important). Compared to the distances around Earth, low earth orbit is really not very far away at all. Weather can be a problem, obviously, but we can sort-of deal with that in most cases, and it doesn't make low latency satellite Internet physically impossible.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;45035191]Once again, this is not true. Signals travelling at the speed of light can make it out to low earth orbit and back in well under 10ms, provided the technology is good enough and the satellites are somewhat close to being overhead (which is why sufficient coverage is important). Compared to the distances around Earth, low earth orbit is really not very far away at all. Weather can be a problem, obviously, but we can sort-of deal with that in most cases, and it doesn't make low latency satellite Internet physically impossible.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the normal, consumer level satellite internet tech that's commercially available right now currently in people's homes and small businesses, not what is technically possible. Unless in AUS, they use some tech that's far more advanced than what we use in the states. Because here, 80-120 ms ping would considered extraordinarily low latency satellite internet.
[QUOTE=Demache;45036557]I'm talking about the normal, consumer level satellite internet tech that's commercially available right now currently in people's homes and small businesses, not what is technically possible. Unless in AUS, they use some tech that's far more advanced than what we use in the states. Because here, 80-120 ms ping would considered extraordinarily low latency satellite internet.[/QUOTE] You said 80-120ms would be "breaking physics good", which is completely wrong. I can understand that 80-120ms might be unrealistic with the current tech (I wouldn't know though, I haven't looked into it and haven't tried satellite Internet either), but the thread is not about current tech.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;45037303]You said 80-120ms would be "breaking physics good", which is completely wrong. I can understand that 80-120ms might be unrealistic with the current tech (I wouldn't know though, I haven't looked into it and haven't tried satellite Internet either), but the thread is not about current tech.[/QUOTE] Ah, fair enough. You got me there.
I had satellite internet for a while, the speeds were decent and all. The ping made online gaming almost impossible though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.