backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by Etsp.. on Feb 27 at 9:37 PM


Japan launchs the super speedy WINDS satellite that promises data speeds of up to a blazing 1.2 Gbps.  (Source: JAXA)
It looks like satellite internet may have the last laugh over cable

The speed increase yielded by the adoption of broadband throughout much of the U.S. today has been largely taken for granted, due to the poor quality of service.  However, for the estimated 27 million Americans who use DSL connections, the absent luxury of speed is readily apparent. 

While DSL can meet some users’ needs, the slower data speeds leave many users unhappy with the experience.  However, many subscribers in rural areas have no alternatives as cable internet infrastructure has not spread to much of the rural U.S.

A new JAXA satellite, which promises to bring rural subscribers’ connections up to speed, launched last Saturday from Japan's Yoshinobu Launch Complex at the Tanegashima Space Center.  The new satellite, named WINDS, promises "super high-speed Internet" throughout the world.  It was developed as a joint project between Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

The satellite promises residential internet subscribers the ability to use small dishes to connect to the Internet many times faster than speeds current DSL or cable connections.  According to the Associated Press the satellite will provide data transmission at rates up to 1.2 Gbps.  The service will initially focus on the Asia-Pacific region, covering such high-tech giants as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and likely China.  However, if the service catches on, U.S. providers will be certain to want North American coverage as well.

While the massive satellite may not have the capacity to cover both Asia and North America's high speed internet needs, similar satellites should be forthcoming if needed.  JAXA meanwhile is proud to be leading the way.  In a press release, the organization plugged the satellites utility, stating, "Among other uses, this will make possible great advances in telemedicine, which will bring high-quality medical treatment to remote areas, and in distance education, connecting students and teachers separated by great distances."

It remains to be seen if American telecoms are able to use the new speedy satellite, but development certainly seems indicative of Internet connections to come.  It looks like in the world of internet satellite service may have the last laugh over land lines -- on sunny days at least.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uploading?
By psypher on 2/26/2008 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 3
Wasn't the biggest drawback with satellite internet connections the lack of any uploading ability?




RE: Uploading?
By StevoLincolnite on 2/26/2008 10:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
I remember a friend having a satalite connection years ago he had a 1.5mb download, and then he had to use his 56k connection as the "upload".
But there are Two-Way Satalite connections available which do both Download and Upload, but here in Australia they are expensive.


RE: Uploading?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 2/26/2008 10:34:02 AM , Rating: 4
not really, that was that particular satellite companies way of doing it.
The only insurmountable problem is the latency.


RE: Uploading?
By Chris Peredun on 2/26/2008 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The only insurmountable problem is the latency.


Bingo.

An average of 850ms latency, with spikes into the 1s range will make this a pretty poor choice for anything other than bulk-downloading.


RE: Uploading?
By Lord 666 on 2/26/2008 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
On my honeymoon and as a "proof of concept", connected over the cruise boat's satellite connection to my office using Cisco VPN client and made some calls using the Cisco Softphone.

The converstations were not the best and at times were almost like a walkie-talkie, but it did work. Sure beat the connection charge using the ship's phone service.


RE: Uploading?
By idconstruct on 2/26/2008 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 3
Hopefully this gives american cable companies the kick in the ass they deserve. I'd love to just 'catch up' to the rest of the world when it comes to standard bandwidth speeds.


RE: Uploading?
By Etsp on 2/26/2008 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 3
Any latency above 600ms is due to the infrastructure of the ISP and the technology they use. The customers of the company I work for often get 550-600ms on average. In truth, the latency due to the speed of light adds about 500ms to the transmission, anything above that is due to network overhead.


RE: Uploading?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 11:26:22 AM , Rating: 3
> " In truth, the latency due to the speed of light adds about 500ms to the transmission"

By my calculations, 2SQRT((6K)^2 + (6K+36K)^2)/c = 283 ms.

That's a worse case scenario if you're at a pole...should be a bit less everywhere else.


RE: Uploading?
By geddarkstorm on 2/26/2008 12:26:03 PM , Rating: 5
Probably not going to be playing too much Counter Strike with those latencies. Jack Thompson would be pleased.


RE: Uploading?
By othercents on 2/26/2008 12:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By my calculations, 2SQRT((6K)^2 + (6K+36K)^2)/c = 283 ms.

Is that both directions (IE to the satellite and from the satellite to the base station)? Is that calculated at speed of light? My understanding is that satellites do not use light to send information which would make everything slower.

500ms is probably the max based on distance, relay, and speed. This wouldn't be acceptable for anything I use.

Other


RE: Uploading?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 12:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Is that both directions "

Yes, that's what the initial factor of 2 accounts for. Satellites don't use visible light, but they do use radio waves, which travel at lightspeed.

The rest of the latency is due to switching delays in the satellite itself...a factor which can be nearly eliminated, and probably will be in newer satellites.


RE: Uploading?
By Etsp on 2/26/2008 9:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
You missed one factor if we are talking about two way satellite internet (Transmit and receive). On computers latency is usually calculated by transmitting a packet and receiving a acknowledgment.

You only took into account for the transmission of the packet.

What happens is the packet is sent from the remote antenna via satellite to the NOC, and the NOC has a landline connection to the internet. When the acknowledgment gets sent, it goes to the NOC, and the NOC sends it via satellite to the remote antenna.

That means a total of 4 trips, 2 from earth to the satellite, 2 from the satellite to earth.


RE: Uploading?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 10:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
But TCP/IP doesn't wait for acknowledgements; it simply maintains a timer and retransmits if the ACK isn't received in time. So while acknowledgement will require the additional trips, it doesn't factor into the latency calculation.


RE: Uploading?
By Etsp on 2/27/2008 12:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
What most people consider latency in computers is essentially the result of a ping command, which by virtue of its purpose, HAS to wait for the acknowledgment.

While it is true that one of the definitions of latency is "the time from the source sending a packet to the destination receiving it"(Per wikipedia) the "round-trip"(also per Wikipedia) definition is what I, and presumably, the rest of the thread were referring to.

It's also true that TCP can transmit many packets before it receives its reply, but any individual action a user takes is to a point dependent on that reply. For example, if they open a web page, that page takes about 550ms before it starts to load from the users perspective. Same with any links they follow. This is one of the reasons why when we refer to latency on computer networks, it is usually describing a round-trip.


RE: Uploading?
By Grast on 2/27/2008 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Masher,

You are incorrect. The entire TCP/IP stack relies on a three-way handshake for every communication path to a host. Of course most modern application/OS use TCP/IP windowing to allow more data to flow without the need for another handshake. However those time periods are relatively short. It also assuming that no packets get dropped at any time. If one out of order or TTL acknoledgement packet is sent to either of the hosts, the three-way handshake starts all over again. This is the reason why TCP/IP is considered a guaranteed delivery system.

In the end, the majority of packets will be following the previous describes paths. This is the reason why all current SAT system have ping times in the 800 ms.

Thanks.


RE: Uploading?
By Etsp on 2/27/2008 9:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not all current SAT systems have ping times near 800ms. As I stated before, My company has a lot of customers that get ping times in the 550-600 range. Yes, there can be lag spikes, but the average is normally around there. But thanks for the backup anyways =D


RE: Uploading?
By Grast on 2/26/2008 12:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
Masher,

I agree with your calculations. However, based on the frequency of the carrier transmission, the actual speed of the transmission could be slower.

Unless this new satalite is able to transmit in sub-space or some other new tech, it will be no different than the other satalites; high latency and unusable.

Limitations: 26,000 Miles above the earth

This is still the reason why 90% of the current Internet traffic is carried via undersea cables. 52,000 miles round trip versus average fiber round trip 6,000 miles.

Later....


RE: Uploading?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, cost is the largest factor driving terrestial cabling -- satellites are 10x - 100x more expensive per bit bandwidth. While some Internet applications like VOIP and gaming are sensitive to latency, your old standbys of email, ftp, and http aren't going to be hurt much by 500ms. pings. But the cost is still just too high, which limits this to people who can't get a landline.


RE: Uploading?
By Oregonian2 on 2/26/2008 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Throughput will depend upon the bit error rate and settings for allowed window sizes and the like -- as well as tcp/ip driver allocated buffer sizes being appropriate for the (bandwidth * latency) factor. Depending upon settings, throughput could be crap.

I understand it's the total latency delays that are being suggested as 500ms, so the pings would be 1-second (ping is a two way delay).

Some http sites would be horrible if ASP/javascript/etc interactions are going on "behind" the page with dynamic html (not uncommon).

And as you say, the traffic would have to be routed specially on a per-service basis to allow ONLY those who can stand the latency to go over the satellite (start up Skype, the internet will have to know not to route that over the satellite, etc). That might be challenging.


RE: Uploading?
By cvmaas on 2/26/2008 9:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
All these latency calculations are made based on the assumption that the satellite is in a geostationary orbit, which was not given in the article. It could sit in a LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and have lower latencies.


RE: Uploading?
By rcc on 2/27/2008 12:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It could sit in a LEO (Low Earth Orbit), and have lower latencies.


Not if you want continual coverage of a given area. I suppose you could use a constellation of satellites in LEO with automated switching, but the added latency wouldn't be worth it.


RE: Uploading?
By seekerofknowledge on 2/26/2008 2:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
As my math professor always said: Show ALL your work, and there shouldn’t be any questions ;)


RE: Uploading?
By cane on 2/26/2008 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I had a friend who used satellite a couple of years ago. That was before everyone started using p2p. The nice thing was that he could download an unlimited number of files at the same time (in parallel), and every file was downloaded at the maximum speed the provider granted (unlike DSL and cable where every file share the same limited bandwidth)... pretty nice, but then again he used an ordinary 56k dial-up modem for upload.


RE: Uploading?
By AlphaVirus on 2/27/2008 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well I have used both DSL and Cable in the Houston, TX area. I have found that DSL will sustain the near maximum download speed once multiple downloads are started and gradually slow down based on how many you have open.

I actually took a screen shot when I was downloading 12 things (all the same size of 100mb) and each was coming in at 50KB/s. I pay for 600KB/s so I really dont know how to explain how it happened but it did and lasted until each was downloaded.

As far as cable goes, once I start downloading something new only the remainder of the bandwidth will be used and nothing more.

DSL ISP - ATT/SBC
Cable ISP - Roadrunner, TVMax


RE: Uploading?
By HighWing on 2/26/2008 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
I used Huges net a year ago at basic service. The satellite and dish is able to handle both downloading AND uploading. My avg ping times were around 800-900ms, with once in awhile dips to 650ms. However, I was able to play World of WarCraft but I would get around 1100-1200ms lat in game. Also, to me the web browsing seemed only slightly faster then dial-up, and the only noticeable difference was in using sites like youtube, where I was able to stream the video with no breaks. Though my friend was also able to make rDesktop connections to his work servers with only a slight delay in mouse speed.

Now that was almost 2 years ago with their basic service, and at that time they did have some high-priced solutions that promised more bandwidth and VPN QoS. Today I think they do offer even better then what I had, for cheaper. Though I canceled my service because they use some of the most untrained Indian tech support people I have ever had the misfortune of talking to.


RE: Uploading?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 10:52:48 AM , Rating: 3
Latency is only insurmountable for a geostationary constellation. There's no reason one can't build a comm network based off NEO satellites. It'd take quite a few more to do the job obviously, and handoff would have to be done similar to the cell phone network, but there's no technical bar.

Once satellite costs decline a bit more, I think you'll see some interest in a network like this.


RE: Uploading?
By 67STANG on 2/26/2008 11:56:54 PM , Rating: 3
As someone who worked with commercial wireless equipement for 4 years, I can tell that masher knows what he's talking about. Thank you for educating people about wireless/satellite transmission.

And yes, latency limitations are insurmountable unless they figure out a feasible and faster way to transmit wireless data (I don't know of any).

Satellite companies currently cut you off if they feel that you are "obusing" their service, of course, that will vary from company to company. It will be interesting to see if this deployment will finally allow residential customers symmetrical bandwidth capabilities. That would make the service much more desirable.


RE: Uploading?
By AlphaVirus on 2/27/2008 12:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As someone who worked with commercial wireless equipement for 4 years, I can tell that masher knows what he's talking about. Thank you for educating people about wireless/satellite transmission.

Seriously, I think I learned something from all of his posts. lol


RE: Uploading?
By Grast on 2/27/2008 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
67STANG,

It is not about the technology of wireless satellite transmistion. If any system is going to geo-syn satalites regardless of how fast the switching of the satelites' switching can be, the main obstical is the distance.

Location A
Location B
Satelitte A

1. TCP/IP three-way handshake started with remove host. (location B). Sync Packet
2. Packet transmitted to Satellite - 26,000 miles
3. Packet switched and transmitted back to earth - 26,000 miles
4. Syn-Ack packet from Location B transmitted back to satellite - 26,000 Miles
5. Syn-Ack packet from satelittel to A hosts - 26,000 miles
6. Host A transmit Ack packet to satelitte - 26,000 miles
7. Packet switched and transmitted back to Host b - 26,000 miles

Finally a session of packets can be sent to from each host to the other for X amount of bytes based on TCP Windowing agreement for the hosts. This is the very start of the communication and the packets have already traveled 1.5 million miles. 150ms per trip equals 900ms and is the current realistic latency for all currently deployed satellite systems.

I believe the most important part of this discussion is Masher comment regarding a series of LOE units. This is the only way satelitte communication will become competitive with land based fiber.

Later....


RE: Uploading?
By phattyboombatty on 2/26/2008 10:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, and also large latencies, which made it impossible to play most online games.


RE: Uploading?
By BSMonitor on 2/26/2008 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
Would someone invent the bloody subspace communications technology already... Let's not wait until the 23rd century huh?


RE: Uploading?
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 12:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Gravity Waves are very hard to detect let alone generate ;)


RE: Uploading?
By sgtdisturbed47 on 2/26/2008 1:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have the upload ability, but the LATENCY is awful. Try playing an internet video game via satellite internet. Ain't happening.


RE: Uploading?
By xphile on 2/26/2008 9:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nope - the biggest drawback with satellite internet connections is the callout charge for the repairman when things go wrong.


the article implies dsl is not broadand
By CSMR on 2/26/2008 12:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is just a mistake. If "speed is absent" from DSL (??) and yet "the adoption of broadband" gave a "speed increase" it is certainly implied that DSL is not broadband.




RE: the article implies dsl is not broadand
By rykerabel on 2/26/2008 12:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
well, for places like Sweden, DSL is not very broad compared to the 100Mb fibre and now some 1Gb fibre home access rates.


RE: the article implies dsl is not broadand
By lukasbradley on 2/26/2008 4:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
Blond bandwidthed bastards.


RE: the article implies dsl is not broadand
By idconstruct on 2/26/2008 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
lol no joke

"bandwidth" is simply the type of signal that is used... not the speed


By idconstruct on 2/26/2008 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
lol dammit... i was looking at your post... meant to say "broadband"


high bandwidth, high latency
By yoyoma245 on 2/26/2008 10:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
I used direcway satellite for a while when I could not get DSL. While download speeds were high for large chunks of information, net download speed was low.
There is a lot of latency sending a signal up to a satellite and back down to earth. This means that a web page that references code on other sites has to make multiple slow requests for information and ends up taking a long time to load each page.
There was a solution that had high flying baloons that routed traffic that I read about once. I would love to see that solution put in place in my rural location.




By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 2/26/2008 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
i think powerline or the analog tv spectrum are the best bets for rural internet access.


RE: high bandwidth, high latency
By WxGuy192 on 2/26/2008 5:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was a solution that had high flying baloons that routed traffic that I read about once. I would love to see that solution put in place in my rural location.


There is a company that is testing the idea of using large balloons like weather balloons to provide internet access over a relatively large area. The WSJ had an article on this last week --> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB12034735398... : "This isn't just hot air. His company, Space Data Corp., already launches 10 balloons a day across the Southern U.S., providing specialized telecom services to truckers and oil companies. His balloons soar 20 miles into the stratosphere, each carrying a shoebox-size payload of electronics that acts like a mini cellphone "tower" covering thousands of square miles below."

The coverage area of their services is actually relatively large now (the 4-corners states, all of TX, OK, LA, most of AR, most of MS, and about the southern 1/2 of KS). It's an interesting tech that has apparently drawn the attn of Google.


How Much
By marco916 on 2/26/2008 11:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
Does anybody know how much the service will eventually cost.




RE: How Much
By marco916 on 2/26/2008 12:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just read the article again, it's pretty much for private use.


DSL > Sat > Dial .
By winterspan on 2/27/2008 7:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe the author talks about how "bad" DSL users have it! You do realize many are still on dialup because they don't have access to cable, they are too far from the telcom switching station for DSL, and their view of the southern sky is obstructed which negates Hughes sat. internet.
and this quote:
quote:
While DSL can meet some users’ needs, the slower data speeds leave many users unhappy with the experience. However, many subscribers in rural areas have no alternatives as cable internet infrastructure has not spread to much of the rural U.S.


How can that be right? Rural people who don't have access to cable broadband, but somehow live close enough to a telco switch to get DSL? That doesn't make any sense.

I myself grew up in a more rural area and had the original DirecPC from hughes, and later upgraded to their two-way transceiver system. It was great when compared to dialup,
but the 800ms latency made you want to throw up doing anything besides download files. A tip for sat users, make SURE to enable HTTP pipelining on your web browser, it will really speed up web page loading on high latency connections.
Anyways, finally a wireless ISP setup shop and I ended up having a long range 2.4ghz microwave connection. Got about 3mbps down and 1mbps up with 50ms ping times.

on another note, I just wanted to mention that we desperately need a president that understands America's pathetic broadband monopoly/situation, and will vow to change it. You can count out McCain since he has been in bed with telecommunications lobbyists and carriers since the 80's. Obama looks like the best choice, and has actually spoken about preserving internet neutrality and creating a national broadband strategy initiative. look it up!




Geostationary
By UlricT on 2/27/2008 3:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
This satellite will be Geostationary (i.e., will be at a fixed position in relation to the earth by rotating along with it) so that the dishes can be pointed in a specific direction. If the western hemisphere wants access to this tech, they will have launch their own satellite.




sharing?
By mcnabney on 2/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: sharing?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/2008 11:03:48 AM , Rating: 5
It's 1.2 Gbps per channel, not per satellite. You're not going to have to share that with anyone.


RE: sharing?
By Oregonian2 on 2/26/2008 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 1
How much bandwidth does the satellite provide all together? A single G-PON cable that FiOS is starting to use has 2.4Gbs down and 1.2Gbs up that is shared I think between something like 32 customers. Seems like the satellite is being shared by a bit more than 32 customers and it's uplink might be a bit less.


RE: sharing?
By cvmaas on 2/26/2008 9:36:13 PM , Rating: 1
No way is it 1.2Gb/s per channel! You have no idea what you are talking about. That is TOTAL available bandwidth.


RE: sharing?
By HrilL on 2/26/2008 10:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way that is total bandwidth. Are you kidding me. Hughes net had more total bandwidth then that. He is right that is per channel but thats the max they will give any one client. This seems like a good backup option for banks since latency doesn't really matter for what they are doing.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki