With the days of dial-up and pitiful 2G data connections long behind most of us, it would seem tempting to stop caring about how much data an end-user is expected to suck down that big and wide bro…
It is quite real. The satellite links are like 10 Mbps. You go far enough south, and you cant even hit the satellite because it’s over the horizon. There aren’t any high-speed polar satellites. Companies don’t send their satellites that far south because there are too few customers to justify the cost.
That’s changing with starlink, though, since those ones are in a polar orbit.
I stand corrected. The satellite data from remote sensing satellites downloaded at Antarctica downlink stations are sent back to other countries by geostationary satellite links.
It is quite real. The satellite links are like 10 Mbps. You go far enough south, and you cant even hit the satellite because it’s over the horizon. There aren’t any high-speed polar satellites. Companies don’t send their satellites that far south because there are too few customers to justify the cost.
That’s changing with starlink, though, since those ones are in a polar orbit.
10 Mbps is like average Scotland internet unless you’re in a major city.
For a household? Yeah that’s tolerable. For a couple dozen people living and working, it’s tighter.
My point is that Antarctica is well connected by fiber. Am I mistaken?
Yes. There are no fiber links to Antarctica. Nor copper. It’s all satellite. https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
I stand corrected. The satellite data from remote sensing satellites downloaded at Antarctica downlink stations are sent back to other countries by geostationary satellite links.
Yes. Or, if it’s a lot of data, hand-carried on a hard drive.