News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FCC has “serious doubts” that SpaceX can deliver latencie... by GuB-42 on Sunday June 14, 2020 @07:31PM (#23522371)
Satellite will never beat local radio (ex: 5G, WiFi) and local radio will never beat fiber, for physical reasons.

The reason comes from the Shannon theorem: C=B*log2(1+S/N). C is capacity (what we want), B is bandwidth, S/N is the signal/noise ratio.

With modern technologies, we are very close to that limit. Both 5G and satellites are using among the highest radio frequencies the atmosphere can carry, the signal power is limited by electrical power requirements and emission power regulations and there is not much we can do about ambient noise. Fiber uses light which, in theory, can carry many orders of magnitude more information but the problematic is different.

But the thing is that this capacity is per channel, and the narrower the channel, the more we can pack in a given area, and that's where satellites are at a huge disadvantage. Satellites, even Starlink satellites, are really expensive, and they are 100s of km away at best. It means they can only project wide beams, even with they fancy beam forming antennas. Ground based antennas can cover a much smaller area and are much cheaper, as a result they have more channels and therefore more bandwidth. Satellites may prove effective in sparsely populated areas, but not in dense cities.

Fiber, and even copper wires are the extreme case. The channel is a single wire, you can pack hundreds in a cable you can hold in your hand. Compared to wireless transmission, bandwidth is essentially unlimited.

Re:FCC has “serious doubts” that SpaceX can deliver latencie... by ncmncm on Sunday June 14, 2020 @11:53PM (#23523624)
Radio, whether local or via LEO satellites, absolutely can beat fiber. Routinely. That is much of the value proposition of SpaceX's product.

Microwave links from Chicago to New York claimed hundreds of millions in investment exactly on the prospect of selling reduced transit time at a premium. Similar gains on the New York - London channel, via Starlink, would be much more valuable.

The reason fiber is slow is that the signal does not propagate in a vacuum. It loses 30+% of the speed of signals propagated through air or vacuum.

Where fiber wins is on bulk bandwidth. A radio link has limited capacity, but it can get the first few packets through soonest. Starlink might start out with some pretty draconian tradffic caps.

I have heard of hollow-core fiber, where the beam travels in what amounts to a tube in the middle of the fiber, but I don't know of any deployed.

Re:FCC has “serious doubts” that SpaceX can deliver latencie... by blackflame7000 on Sunday June 14, 2020 @09:40PM (#23523044)
Fiber actually has limitations based on the length of the cable. Photons that travel perfectly straight arrive faster than photons that enter the cable at a steep angle and bounce off the walls a lot. Because of this, as you increase transmission rate, you start to get interference between signals, and instead of a clear On-Off, you start to get various degrees of brightness until the signal becomes too degraded.