Is there anyone who trades using Satellite Internet? When Satellite first came out to the public, I bought it as back up and found my speeds on the upload were killing me. I had a t1 and Satellite as backup, is there any latency with this new Satellite that would allow me to get rid of my (T dsl) 4.5 meg download and 300k upload, would you dump your dsl for Satellite? No access to Fiber here or good dsl, bare bones T dsl. So for the Internet tech traders, would Satellite work for me? The speeds blow the doors off the dsl and dedicated lines I use. What do you think, will Satellite have that nasty upload lag? i am confused because of past horror stories with Satellite. The strangest thing is my trading was not terrible with Satellite and when I upgraded to a full T-1 (more like a T-3 because the speeds were 5Meg x 5 Meg symmetrical and New Edge Networks never metered my isp) I over-traded until I got the hang of my t1. Any advise on Satellite and what type of lag to expect? http://satellite-internet-review.toptenreviews.com/
I'm curious about this as well. I found the faq page for exede. Take a look at # 4: http://www.exede.com/what-is-exede/faqs I'm not really buying what they say. I agree with their math, but why do news organizations still have such bad satellite delays? They could obviously afford this new technology exede is touting. Here is an older article from over a year ago which is probably more accurate. http://arstechnica.com/information-...ster-than-advertised-but-latency-still-awful/
Thank's for the link, we both remember "Wild Blue" and "Hughes Network" and their horrible "upload 3 to 22k (less than dial-up) and 200k to 1.2 megs on a Blue Moon. If I dive in, I will keep the "dedicated line" and provide you a video of Scalping Apple using Exceed and LightSpeed's software.
It really depends on your leased line and such for example. I do not see how they matter with all that ? I have seen in 2019 leased lines to like 1gbps or somethine like that, can you beat that with sattelite really ? Do you have some more news about it ? not sure.
Radio cannot travel faster than the speed of light. You will always have a minimum of 1/4 second or so (actually about 240 ms) time required just to hit the satellite and receive the return signal on Earth. You can calculate this. If you are a real man, the speed of light is 670,616,629 mph and the height above Earth of a geostationary orbit is about 22,236 miles. Metric is for people who can't do math. This BTW is statute, not nautical miles. Since this is more related to a navigational problem I suppose I should give it to you in Nautical miles, but I won't since I can't find it given, and converting is not necessary since we are only interested in the time it takes for the signal to propogate. Remember signal must travel up, then down, so a round trip. More lag is caused by equipment aboard sat and on Earth. IME 3/4 second to a second is pretty average. Speak to someone and check the time it takes for you to make a sound with the other party on speakerphone, and for you to hear the echo or your own voice or sound. Divide by 2. You can also go online and ping a website. Sometimes the delay can be longer but this is now a very competitive industry and so yes, terrestrial lagging has been cut to not much longer than the lowest theoretically possible, at least when network is not congested. During times of congestion, digital packets often must wait for their turn to be sent, and this can make for a significant delay, but the big players as I said, have a strong interest in cutting this down to a reasonable delay. But they cannot eliminate the delay caused by the speed of the signal to/from the satellite. It could be reduced through use of Low Earth Orbit satellites, but such a system would be very complex.