With latency as low as 25ms and gigabit speeds, SpaceX to launch broadband satellites in 2019 - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]SpaceX today said its planned constellation of 4,425 broadband satellites will launch from the Falcon 9 rocket beginning in 2019 and continue launching in phases until reaching full capacity in 2024. SpaceX gave the Senate Commerce Committee an update on its satellite plans during a broadband infrastructure hearing this morning via testimony by VP of satellite government affairs Patricia Cooper. Satellite Internet access traditionally suffers from high latency, relatively slow speeds, and strict data caps. But as we reported in November, SpaceX says it intends to solve these problems with custom-designed satellites launched into low-Earth orbits. ... Customer terminals will be the size of a laptop. While speeds should hit a gigabit per second, SpaceX said it "intends to market different packages of data at different price points, accommodating a variety of consumer demands." Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements, but SpaceX has said its own system will have latencies between 25 and 35ms. That's better than DSL and similar to several of today's major cable and fiber systems, according to FCC measurements. The measurements show that the Altice-owned Optimum and Verizon FiOS had latencies of just over 10ms, better than what SpaceX is expecting to achieve. [/QUOTE] [url]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-will-launch-thousands-of-broadband-satellites/[/url]

Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...

Wow that is going to be hard as shit. With all the sats in LEO the connections are going to have some major fading, Doppler shifts, and low gain Antennas. They also will also need to develop a pretty robust hand-off solution considering how quickly sats in LEO will come in and out of optimal range and fade out. Hats off to them if they can achieve it but man, doing usable TCP/IP over microwaves comms links that are in low earth orbit to ad hoc receivers below 25ms is a really crazy bar to set. Edit: I'd really love to know how they do this. Typically protocols for large numbers of users use OFDM, CDMA, TDMA, or a combination of all of them. None of those would work very well for large numbers of users given the low latency requirement and large Doppler shifts. They could possibly just use more spectrum but they didn't buy any at the last auction and the higher frequencies will be low performing due to all the atmosphere the signals will have to pass through at steep angles.

Satellite internet, as it is now, seems like it REALLY sucks. A friend of mine has Hugh's Net and he tends to get a latency on Discord of around 1200ms. On a really good day, maybe he gets 600ms.

Broadband satellites are a wildly expensive way of treating the problem of crap internet infrastructure IMHO. What really needs to happen is either US ISPs get a swift kick to the gonads (which is unlikely considering our current FCC head) and install more fiber, cut bullshit pricing. Or pray that more cases like Google Fiber or Chattanooga, TN's municipal fiber crop up more around the country.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52182300]Broadband satellites are a wildly expensive way of treating the problem of crap internet infrastructure IMHO. What really needs to happen is either US ISPs get a swift kick to the gonads (which is unlikely considering our current FCC head) and install more fiber, cut bullshit pricing. Or pray that more cases like Google Fiber or Chattanooga, TN's municipal fiber crop up more around the country.[/QUOTE] Probably cheaper than installing proper infrastructure all over rural areas.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52182386]Probably cheaper than installing proper infrastructure all over rural areas.[/QUOTE] [img]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=465554&dateline=1484348879[/img]

[QUOTE=Morgen;52182386]Probably cheaper than installing proper infrastructure all over rural areas.[/QUOTE] No, for more rural areas, you still have other options besides copper, i.e. Microwave Towers. If you don't even have cell reception, then yes Satellite is the absolute only choice you have.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52182386]Probably cheaper than installing proper infrastructure all over rural areas.[/QUOTE] probably cheaper to beam down power too and deliver water by tankers with the logic ISPs use, hell if utilities were built today by comcast and its ilk it'd be another hundred years before most of the country got power.

Tesla Motors SpaceX SolarCity NeuralLink OpenAI ... SpaceNET? SkyNET.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52182486]No, for more rural areas, you still have other options besides copper, i.e. Microwave Towers. If you don't even have cell reception, then yes Satellite is the absolute only choice you have.[/QUOTE] Not for gigabit level speeds on the individual level.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52182172]Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...[/QUOTE] I just escaped CenturyLink's 4/1 death grip a couple weeks ago when I moved. SuddenLink's gigabit is treating me well for about $40 less.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52182172]Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...[/QUOTE] 8.6k. Shit I'd run it my self at that cost.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52182580]Not for gigabit level speeds on the individual level.[/QUOTE] I think you'd be surprised. High density gigabit delivery would be tricky, but so would doing it from space. In rural Mississippi I had a 23 mile wireless link to my house and got upwards of 150/200 with better-than-cable latency and that wasn't even with terribly high end equipment.

I mean, I kind of understand the technical aspects behind achieving decent signal transmission and the fact that a combination of various tech and low orbit satellites could do the trick, but we're talking about [i]four thousand internet satellites.[/i] There's barely 1500 active satellites orbiting earth as of this post, if it was anyone else I'd be saying they'd have an easier time selling me a bridge.

[QUOTE=Cold Finger;52182246]Satellite internet, as it is now, seems like it REALLY sucks. A friend of mine has Hugh's Net and he tends to get a latency on Discord of around 1200ms. On a really good day, maybe he gets 600ms.[/QUOTE] greetings i am the friend its more like 12,000

[QUOTE=Morgen;52182580]Not for gigabit level speeds on the individual level.[/QUOTE] WISPs are the probable future for rural customers. Especially if more places go for municipal fiber, since rolling out fiber is cheaper labour in those areas, then you can beam unlicensed spectrum to the few dozen who need it.

I mean it's easy to say "this wouldn't be necessary if ISPs just improved their infrastructure", but we've seen the lengths they'll go to halt progress with how aggressively they litigated google when they tried to put fiber installations in big cities. There'd also be a tonne of exciting applications in robotics/research if they had smaller/lower power receivers that had even a fraction of that bandwidth at reasonable monthly costs. Right now you're mostly at the mercy of the only infrastructure even worse than ISPs in North America, and that's cellular providers.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52182668]WISPs are the probable future for rural customers. Especially if more places go for municipal fiber, since rolling out fiber is cheaper labour in those areas, then you can beam unlicensed spectrum to the few dozen who need it.[/QUOTE] Yep, after being a network engineer for both a WISP and a fiber based ISP I'm pretty sure the best future is in muni WISPs for rural and muni fiber for suburban/urban. But the best future is not this one, rural will probably be stuck with 6meg ATT and CenturyLink DSL until the heat death of the universe.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52182767] My neighbor actually let the company build the tower in his yard, that's how much we wanted it.[/QUOTE] This is one of the reasons municipal internet can be so effective, people who want reasonable speeds will be very willing to accommodate the means for it. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] Furthermore if you build a robust fiber network you can place towers wherever they're needed. IMO with the soon rollout of 5G companies like T-Mobile and Verizon are going to realize how nice fiber cities are, since there'll be plentiful and cheap places for femtocells to get their backhaul.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52182767]Well for one, they advertise using generic terms like "fast speeds!" when they're slow as shit. [editline]3rd May 2017[/editline] I run on WISP. When it came it, AT&T's DSL monopoly was broken. Every single person in my neighborhood is on WISP, which has 10x the speed of what we had for the same price. It also doesn't go down constantly, every single day. [B]From 70kb/s [I]in[/B] ~2015[/I], to 600kb/s. It was a new fucking day in my neighborhood. My neighbor actually let the company build the tower in his yard, that's how much we wanted it.[/QUOTE] Prior to getting fiber last summer I was getting a fucking palty 50kb/s max with frequent downs even over WIMAX (or maybe it was a microwave tower?). Fucking for the same price I paid for that, I now get TV/Fiber/Phone at 50mb/s.

For the love of god be available in the uk, smash the shit out of BT and the infrastructure monopoly.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52182172]Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...[/QUOTE] Oh man centurylink. I had centurylink for about 3 years and It would drop me for an entire day maybe even longer multiple times a month. It would also periodically slow down to a crawl for weeks at a time.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52182172]Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...[/QUOTE] Having seen and crunched install numbers myself, I can tell you right now that that price is accurate. The only way you're going to mKe that affordable is if you get neighbors in on it too and split the cost.

[B]GOODBYE COMCAST[/B]

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52182767]Well for one, they advertise using generic terms like "fast speeds!" when they're slow as shit.[/QUOTE] I love how much shit ISP's can get away with. They sell you one thing, send you another, then overcharge you for it. Getting the actual speeds you were promised for the price you agreed to is actually pretty fucking hard. How they do not get reamed for false advertising and fraud being a standard business practice, I can only imagine.

I see Musk is trying to make the Kessler Effect a reality. Thats a heck of a lot of extra stuff whizzing about in orbit.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52182300]Broadband satellites are a wildly expensive way of treating the problem of crap internet infrastructure IMHO. What really needs to happen is either US ISPs get a swift kick to the gonads (which is unlikely considering our current FCC head) and install more fiber, cut bullshit pricing. Or pray that more cases like Google Fiber or Chattanooga, TN's municipal fiber crop up more around the country.[/QUOTE] I want Google fiber in Denver/Aurora SO FUCKING BAD.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52182172]Please rescue me from the hell that is CenturyLink 10/1 DSL... My only escape is Comcast, and they want $8600 just to run ~1000' of RG-11 cable across existing powerlines straight to my house...[/QUOTE] Lol Century Link actually offers only up to 5mbps in my area. Consider your self lucky tbh. That's only if you raise hell too, their standard and only openly offered package is 3.5mbps. In some parts of their coverage area, Dial Up is faster than Century Link. Their call representative who I talked to when I cancelled my account with them literally has a competitor's service because Century Link only offers his area Dial Up speeds. [editline]4th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52183263]I love how much shit ISP's can get away with. They sell you one thing, send you another, then overcharge you for it. Getting the actual speeds you were promised for the price you agreed to is actually pretty fucking hard. How they do not get reamed for false advertising and fraud being a standard business practice, I can only imagine.[/QUOTE] Up To**** X mbps They could sell you "1000 mbps" Internet and constantly only give you 1mbps so long as their line can technically do 1000 in theory. Because they sell it as "up to 1000 mbps" and never have to actually provide the speed advertised.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52183411]This is why we need more regulation. Internet advertising has always been scummy, it is as if there are no standards they're held up to.[/QUOTE] Not only are there no standards, but they double dip all this money from the gov. to upgrade the infrastructure, then they charge the consumer for it with bill increases, and then they don't even fucking do the upgrades.