So, my parents livr in an area where the only internet available is satellite. It sucks.
However, they also have satellite TV and can watch that no problem.
What’s the difference? Is it just a scale issue where TV has more money and resources compared to satellite internet companies?
In: Technology
A few reasons:
Satellite TV only receives a signal, it doesn’t broadcast one back. The LNB in your dish is incapable of sending data back to the satellite. Dishes that can do so are equipped with powerful transmitters that can actually cause damage if you spend enough time between them and the dish.
TV satellites broadcast a single group of signals to their entire service zone. You’re not getting a different signal when you change the channel, you’re just interpreting a different part of it. (Yes, I know technically SD/HD/international channels are pulling from potentially different satellites)
Terrestrial to satellite communications have latency. A lot of latency. A truly awful amount of latency. Ignoring Starlink, which is its own thing, nearly all satellite communications talk to satellites in geostationary orbit. That’s roughly 22k mi/35k km away. Meaning a round trip request to a satellite Internet provider has to travel 22k miles for your request to reach the satellite, 22k miles for the satellite to look up what you requested from a terrestrial node, 22k miles to send that response to the satellite, and 22k miles to send that response back to you. And that’s assuming it gets the right node on the first try, and ignoring processing queues for other users who also have to go through the same process.
All in all, yeah, satellite Internet blows, but it’s mostly due to physics.
Latest Answers