Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:14:13 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<0a1401c66b45$05c1f2f0$b600a8c0@LARRY> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Considering the speed of light and the normal distances to stationary
satellites, the latency due to signal distance is likely in the range of
1/3 of a second. The distance latency for signal travel via other means
varies but likely averages 1/6 of a second. I don't think the 1/6 +/- of
a second difference would be noticeable to a human without accurate
instrumentation.
Instead, the satellites are simply acting as repeaters. I am not a
satellite person, but it seems rational that, depending upon the number
of signals being received by a satellite at any second, the
retransmission is probably using a variable queue and that is what is
noticeable as compared to other broadband methods of accessing the Internet.
Just some extraneous thought on this discussion.
Tom Mayer
Larry Fisk wrote: (excerpts)
>
> It rivals DSL, other than webpages loading slightly slower
> due to the distance to and from the satellite (latency)
>
> Gaming and Voip are not really compatible with Sat. internet , because
> of the latency,
> But for large downloads Sat. excels.
>
The NOSPIN Group Promotions is now offering
our special coffee mugs and mouse pads
with the PCBUILD logo... at a great price!!!
http://freepctech.com/goodies/promotions.shtml
|
|
|