Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Cheap Internet for the World rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/28/technology/airbus-oneweb-int...

Coming supposedly by 2020, but the rub is; they will not be selling services direct to consumers, only selling capacity to internet service providers. But it may make the world wibe web more accessible, to rural and underdeveloped areas, where the internet might be next to impossible to obtain by curent means.

Of course, this means a heck of a lot more space junk up there (points to sky). And I suspect it's pretty crowded up there already.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James D. Williams
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if one big ISP (or just fewer) would help track hackers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
You mean to the one monoply supplier in the area who will not pass the savings on but will in fact demand government grants to 'upgrade' the etwork and do nothing with it except share holder and c level executive bonuses?
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vic Lineal
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
George Brinton wrote:
I wonder if one big ISP (or just fewer) would help track hackers.


or activists, or "enemy combatants"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Satellites seem like the slowest and most expensive way possible. The airship ideas seem way better than this. Satellites never have enough capacity and they're really expensive to launch. Also if they're not geosynchronous they're going to require fairly sophisticated tracking antennas, although I guess maybe the end user won't be accessing the satellite themselves?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
Satellites seem like the slowest and most expensive way possible. The airship ideas seem way better than this. Satellites never have enough capacity and they're really expensive to launch. Also if they're not geosynchronous they're going to require fairly sophisticated tracking antennas, although I guess maybe the end user won't be accessing the satellite themselves?

Cell phone technology is cheap and reliable. People have experimented with balloons instead of towers.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
Satellites seem like the slowest and most expensive way possible.


That all depends on where the satellite is orbiting and what kind of signal density it can provide. These are supposed to orbit just 750 miles above the Earth, which is noting in terms of latency. Particularly when compared to geosynchronous satellites that usually orbit around 22,000 miles. That's 4ms of latency vs. 119ms of latency one-way - overcoming one of the largest issues with satellite even after you factor in the latency to process the signal to at the ground stations for transmission across other facilities.

Capacity has similarly improved over time. Speeds up to 50Mbps are pretty common for individual stations now. If you allocate sufficient spectrum to a connection or use bonding technologies to merge these, faster is certainly possible. What will be interesting will be the hand-off from satellite to satellite: at that orbital height, these things are gonna be moving so making the transition from one to the next while maintaining good connection speeds is gonna be really interesting. That's probably why they're targeting this to ISPs in my mind - keeping the number of ground stations limited will really reduce issues here.

I guess my big question is - how does this actually fix much of anything? In rural areas, the big issue is usually having a quality cable for the last mile (to the home or business). Getting fiber of a high capacity copper connection to the town or area might be expensive, but that's much easier to fund, particularly if government subsidies are in play. This seems almost entirely targeted at a cellular or similar wireless application to me. That's probably better for a lot of people and areas, but it's not like it's a high-speed cable connection for everyone.

Worth following, though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.