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
I can yell at a room of 100 people and they all get the message clearly.
I cannot have 100 simultaneous conversations with those people without a super brain to switch around really fast and some kind of super tube for them all to speak to me clearly without drowning each other out.
Satellite TV is listening to the yeller; conversing simultaneously is the satellite internet. The second is much trickier and the end result is it’s really slow.
A satellite tv is the sending the same thing to “billions” of homes (generally millions but it doesnt matter). It does not require any signal back from the homes and doesnt send different things to different homes.
A satellite internet connection is different things to different homes. And the signal has to go from home to satelite to internet and back again.
This is why Elon Musk’s internet is (promising to be) doing ok compared to older satellite internets. Older internets used 1 or 2 satellites and were generally slow. Musks uses dozens (planned to be hundreds) of new, fast satellites garunteeing everyone will get a quick connection.
2 islands, 1km apart, you have a super bright flashlight, you can broadcast your message out far and wide. the other island, it has to reply, when it can, with smoke signals in the daytime.
or, in simple terms, unless you are a high power satelight transmitter, you can’t send info back as fast as you can receive it. and you are most likely stuck sending back on copper wires.
well, this at least is how it used to work.
Which is baffling that I think there is a Verizon 5G home internet ad where the kid is like “I can game on it?”. And every time I feel like the parents are smirking like “Well, technically….but” as he constantly get wrecked because his ping is so high.
Like I would choose to open a can of worms by bringing up gaming performance on any cellular network. You are talking talking go people that will argue 30fps is “literally unplayable”.
Have they tried Starlink Internet?
I recently asked a friend who works for the local satellite tv broadcaster about how they adapted to the last decade of hundreds of simultaneous hd channels, view-on-demand and several other important features that come with streaming and with their land cable based competitors. The answer is that they don’t – most of their subscriber base no longer receive satellite tv and they moved to being a cable service provider for 90%+ of their business. He gave the example of one of his coworkers who is adamant at keeping the satellite receiver while he and all the rest of the IT department moved to cable long ago (provided by the company).
I’m not sure what you mean by objectively terrible? I had satellite internet for years – it worked great!
You are in a large room with 200 people and you need to tell them all something. So you shout at the top of your lungs. They all heard you. They all recieved the broadcast. Satellite TV.
Now, you need to gain information from all 200 people, which requires asking them questions which they will answer immediately. If you shout they will all answer at once. As you can see, you’re going to have to establish a conversation with each and everyone one of them one on one, otherwise it wont work so well. More like Satellite Internet.
Satellite internet can be very fast now . In most places it’s objectively good and often much better than the alternatives.
The answer to your question is mostly that land based internet is much shorter distances and the equipment is cheap on the ground. They could, if they wanted build out satellite internet that was great. But it’s expensive. You would need huge or multiple satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Or you can do what Starlink does and build an army of satellites orbiting close in.
Latest Answers