homeshark
join:2001-03-09
Saint Petersburg, FL | Who needs those classic things
Who need those satelites anyways! just drag a big network wire around the world I say |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Those classic things handle all most all of the things that you love including your credit card transactions.
The internet back bone is Sat. based.
Wire/Fiber is expensive to install and maintain. We have a Fiber net in the USA that is replacing the old coax net but Arthur C. Clarks idea of bouncing radio off of a satellite is still the fastest extreme bandwidth communication we have.
Hughes Aerospace designed an emitter that can transmit and receive 125+ channels and a satellite can hold hundreds of emitters. That is the reason we have Direct TV( Hughes Aerospace), Sirius and the like. one satellite can handle many different types of traffic. One satellite equals hundreds of OC3 lines- OC3 service is a super high speed service with 155 megabits per second (compare with a T1 at 1.5 megabits per second, or T3 at 45 megabits per second). OC3 is equivalent to 100 T1s or three T3s.
So the satellite is an old but still way ahead of what wire line can offer. |
|
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | I wonder if the IC chips on board grew 'whiskers', causing a short between different sections of the substrate pattern? That was what killed the Galaxy satellite 4 years ago. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to audiog
The internet backbone, most of it, has very little to do with sattelites anymore. Most of it is fiber, ever under ocean fiber cables.
Your speeds you talk about and services that actually benefit from sattelite is one way. That is because the delay it takes to get to you really does not matter much because it is a steady data stream, like a TV broadcast.
Fiber is limited only by electronics so your OC-48 (2.488Gbps) or higher far beats your Sat speeds with about 300 times less latency. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Good clarification -- I was waiting for someone to jump down audiog's throat.
If the internet "backbone" was over satellite, you'd never get better than 800ms on a long haul ping. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to audiog
Ahhh who ever has you believing that really has you fooled and fooled well.
First off bouncing waves off a satellite takes a long time compared to fiber. And has finite bandwidth because of both the atmosphere and the amount of frequencies that can be used without interfering with other equipment.
One satellite is not equivalent to hundreds of oc lines. Read a bit more at what an optical carrier line is capable of. 12.5 gig a second in the real world. If any satellite could send 100 times that down the pipe without nuking the people in it's foot print we would be able to have crap loads of bandwidth for little to no cost via a satellite.
OC are not equivalent to any t1 or t3's , they are different uses entirely. An oc is a carrier class optical line. It carries anything raw. A t1 does not have that ability.
Satellites are relatively new compared to your "wire line" concept since copper is in that base. And so is fiber, a satellite link can not beat out a fiber link. Go back and do a bit more reading about the differences between links.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to audiog
said by audiog  :The internet back bone is Sat. based.
Wire/Fiber is expensive to install and maintain.
Arthur C. Clarks idea of bouncing radio off of a satellite is still the fastest extreme bandwidth communication we have.
So the satellite is an old but still way ahead of what wire line can offer. You must be kidding me. Sat's are one of the slowest forms of communication we have. Not the fastest. Averaging about 500ms latency and disruptions in bad weather.
And the fastest bandwidth we have is fiber for your information. DWDM can handle over 400GBps according to the fiber optic faq. »Fiber Optic Forum FAQ »What is Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)?
And saying its way ahead of what wire can offer is just ridiculous
--
inc.ath.cx
Have a Networking problem or question? Stop by the Networking Forum and let us help you. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by DaMaGeINC : said by audiog :The internet back bone is Sat. based.
Wire/Fiber is expensive to install and maintain.
Arthur C. Clarks idea of bouncing radio off of a satellite is still the fastest extreme bandwidth communication we have.
So the satellite is an old but still way ahead of what wire line can offer. You must be kidding me. Sat's are one of the slowest forms of communication we have. Not the fastest. Averaging about 500ms latency and disruptions in bad weather. And the fastest bandwidth we have is fiber for your information. DWDM can handle over 400GBps according to the fiber optic faq. » Fiber Optic Forum FAQ » What is Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)? And saying its way ahead of what wire can offer is just ridiculous Those are lab speeds not real world efforts YET. But it's coming.... Man oh man the new technology is coming. Wonder when Verizon will use this on the poles 
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| reply to keyboard5684
said by keyboard5684 :The internet backbone, most of it, has very little to do with sattelites anymore. Most of it is fiber, ever under ocean fiber cables. Your speeds you talk about and services that actually benefit from sattelite is one way. That is because the delay it takes to get to you really does not matter much because it is a steady data stream, like a TV broadcast. Fiber is limited only by electronics so your OC-48 (2.488Gbps) or higher far beats your Sat speeds with about 300 times less latency. No, the cool thing about the internet is it was built to have multi routes it is Sat. and Fiber based. Right now all of the long distance companies are hiding the fiber routes and working on their sat contracts. It makes since to route fiber to Europe, Japan, and Asia but the cost per mile is still in line with having a bird in the sky. Also, when the internet went into the public domain it was kicked off of the sat net that the new internet that the research universities and companies are working on. They have both dark fiber and dark sat. channel routes to connect the world to it.
Right now there is a back log of birds to go up because of NASA, EAS problems with payload delivery. So right now fiber is holding its own.
The public at one time could see on the web the fiber routes and pictures of the IXC CO but because of concerns of terror attacks MCI, AT&T, Global Crossings and others are working to get more birds in the sky in addition to the fiber and coax. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Those are comm links in the event of a catastrophic failure. Those are not used to route data or voice at the moment and won't be unless they are absolute last choice.
You have been watching to much tv. Data and voice over satellite is very expensive. And there is not data routed over a satellite link for any backbone needs at all. No one is stupid enough to do that.
Nasa does not launch the satellites I'd hate to tell you that. A separate company does. And they ship the satellites out to the equator to launch them from a boat or even from places in Europe and china. Nasa releases government only satellites.
As of this writing you can still view their fiber hops that are lit. Even level3 lets you view them.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
