20 ms·

No, the latency for traditional satellite internet is between 600ms to 1000ms (one full second). Cite: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/sat

No, the latency for traditional satellite internet is between 600ms to 1000ms (one full second). Cite: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/satellite-internet-faster-than-advertised-but-latency-still-awful/#p3n http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/satell...

apendleton 12y ago
The whole point of the original comment is that these are LEO satellites, rather than the geosynchronous satellites in use for previous internet service. These won't be traditional; they'll be about a thirtieth as far away.
- throwaway90999 12y ago
  There were mentions of both technologies and I was replying to devindotcom who was talking about how high latency satellites are still useful. Here's a link to that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8920059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8920059 That is why I was careful to specify traditional satellite internet services. It appears the distinction was lost.
Crito 12y ago
That article is about satellite internet using geostationary satellites. Those satellites are as much as 200 times farther away than satellites in LEO. 22,236 miles up, opposed to LEO which starts at about 100 miles up.
- throwaway90999 12y ago
  Yes I am aware. I am discussing the replies above me, not the article.
ericHosick 12y ago
The distance between geosynchronous orbit and low earth orbit is huge. One is ~22,236 miles and the other is 99 miles to 2,000 miles.
freeqaz 12y ago
For geostationary orbit, yeah it's high latency. That's like >22k miles up. Low-earth orbit is a few hundred miles. The difference in latency is huge. The highest cost is that you will lose sync with the satellite, since they will be rotating over the horizon frequently. If you can launch enough satellites, then you can have multiple in view at any given time and thus keep a continuous link.
tsotha 12y ago
That's because geostationary orbit is at 22,000 miles. These will be more like Irridium, which is at 485 miles. You can go lower, but it's more expensive because of extra fuel costs.

apendleton 12y ago

The whole point of the original comment is that these are LEO satellites, rather than the geosynchronous satellites in use for previous internet service. These won't be traditional; they'll be about a thirtieth as far away.

throwaway90999 12y ago
There were mentions of both technologies and I was replying to devindotcom who was talking about how high latency satellites are still useful. Here's a link to that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8920059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8920059 That is why I was careful to specify traditional satellite internet services. It appears the distinction was lost.

Crito 12y ago

That article is about satellite internet using geostationary satellites. Those satellites are as much as 200 times farther away than satellites in LEO. 22,236 miles up, opposed to LEO which starts at about 100 miles up.

throwaway90999 12y ago
Yes I am aware. I am discussing the replies above me, not the article.

ericHosick 12y ago

The distance between geosynchronous orbit and low earth orbit is huge. One is ~22,236 miles and the other is 99 miles to 2,000 miles.

freeqaz 12y ago

For geostationary orbit, yeah it's high latency. That's like >22k miles up. Low-earth orbit is a few hundred miles. The difference in latency is huge. The highest cost is that you will lose sync with the satellite, since they will be rotating over the horizon frequently. If you can launch enough satellites, then you can have multiple in view at any given time and thus keep a continuous link.

tsotha 12y ago

That's because geostationary orbit is at 22,000 miles. These will be more like Irridium, which is at 485 miles. You can go lower, but it's more expensive because of extra fuel costs.